Under the Clean Election Act, campaigns would be financed by the state.

01:00 AM EDT on Thursday, April 7, 2005

BY SCOTT MAYEROWITZ
Journal State House Bureau

PROVIDENCE -- A group of government reformers and Brown University students is proposing to radically change Rhode Island's system of campaigning by eliminating almost all private contributions to candidates.

Instead, they are suggesting that the state should shell out more than $7 million dollars a year to fully finance various campaigns.

By doing so, they said at a hearing yesterday, elected offices would open up to many people who can't afford campaigns, special interests would lose some of their strong influence in the State House and people's confidence in the political system would be restored.

The Clean Election Act would set up a system where candidates could voluntarily agree not to accept donations and instead have their campaigns financed by taxpayer dollars. Candidates who choose not to accept the state money could continue raising money as they do now.

The bill's sponsor, Rep. Edith H. Ajello, D-Providence, said it would allow lawmakers to spend "more time on the job as legislators rather than raising money."

H. Philip West Jr., executive director of Common Cause of Rhode Island, said that there is an "enormous amount of special-interest money that affects campaigns" and this bill would help to eliminate that influence.

"Let us allow people who can't get into the game now run competitive races," West said.

Te-Ping Chen, a sophomore at Brown, said the bill "has the potential to level the playing field for all Rhode Islanders, men and women alike, regardless of their social-economic background."

"We're here today because we earnestly believe in the possibility of a more representative, more vibrant, fair and more true democracy," she added.

Maine and Arizona have similar systems, both of which were installed by voter initiative. Massachusetts voters approved such a plan in 1998, but the legislature there never financed the program, leading to its demise.

Can this group persuade incumbent legislators to change the law to make it easier for others to run for public office, possibly against them?

"We recognize that's a tough sell," West said. "I'm not being pessimistic by saying it would be a miracle if it passed this year. But, it will be a surprise if it doesn't pass within five years. . . . There is enough cynicism and concern out there that I think the pressure is going to mount for this."

The state does currently have a voluntary matching program for candidates in the general elections for governor, lieutenant governor, secretary of state, general treasurer and attorney general who agree to spending limits.

The state gives candidates $2 for every dollar raised through donations that are less than $500. The state matches dollar for dollar donations above $500. There is no current matching program for General Assembly races.

West notes that in the 2002 gubernatorial race, only one of the six candidates, Antonio J. Pires, participated in the matching program.

The proposed law would replace that program.

Candidates would be able to first raise seed money -- all in donations of $100 or less -- to get a race started. They would then have to go door to door and get a certain amount of signatures and collect $5 -- no more, no less -- from each of those people.

For instance, candidates for the House of Representatives could get five $100 donations to start their campaigns. They would then get 50 voters in their district to sign on in support of their candidacy and donate $5. That $250 would be handed over to the state and candidates would not be allowed to raise any other money.

If candidates faced a primary, they would receive $8,000 in state money to run the campaign; $2,000 with no opponent. If successful, they would then get another $12,000 for a contested general election; $1,200 for an uncontested race.

If the opponent is not participating in the "clean elections" program and spends more than the money the state allots, the participating candidate would get more state money, up to three times the initial allotment.

The amounts increase with other offices. Gubernatorial candidates could get initial allotments as high as $3.75 million.

Amy Myrick of the Rhode Island Affiliate of the American Civil Liberties Union called the bill "problematic."

Myrick said it penalizes politicians from raising money on their own because they "risk being labeled a dirty candidate." She also said it violates free speech. If Planned Parenthood, for instance, gave money to a pro-choice candidate, that voice would be lost if the state then matched the funds to a candidate who opposes abortion, she said.

Rep. Anastasia P. Williams, D-Providence, who represents the poorest district in the state, said that for a lot of people, "five dollars is not a token amount" and it might be very challenging for someone to get $5 donations from 50 individuals in a district like hers.