With no public financing system and no campaign contribution limits in place, Pennsylvania's 1998 gubernatorial race essentially was a nonelection. Republican Gov. Tom Ridge beat his Democratic challenger Ivan Itkin by more than 25 percentage points in an election that was more about financial strength than it was about any issue or party value.
Ridge, the incumbent, started his campaign with a war chest of more than $5 million -- contributions that came in no small part from firms and corporations that received state contracts. Ivan Itkin, on the other hand, started his campaign with less than $90,000. He was never able to get his message out. Credible and highly qualified candidates like Philadelphia Mayor Ed Rendell and Auditor General Robert Casey Jr. were scared away by Ridge's campaign coffers. The bottom line was that the voters had no real choice.
In contrast, New Jersey has the first and arguably one of the best public financing programs in the country for gubernatorial elections. The past two elections -- Whitman vs. McGreevy and Whitman vs. Florio -- were extremely competitive. Both races were decided by less than 1 percent. Unlike Pennsylvania, many qualified candidates were attracted into the primary election phase with the aid of public financing. In the end, New Jersey voters were given a real choice among qualified candidates.
Pennsylvania needs a system like New Jersey's to make our elections more competitive and limit the influence of special interest group money.
In the near future, I will be introducing the Gubernatorial Public Financing Act, modeled after New Jersey's successful law, to provide public financing and control spending in governor and lieutenant governor races in both the primary and general elections in the Commonwealth. Under this act, qualified gubernatorial candidates could receive up to a maximum of $5.2 million in public funding for the general election. The state would match qualified contributions to candidates according to a $2-to-$1 ratio.
The public financing program would be funded by a $5 checkoff on personal income tax forms and through an appropriation from the Pennsylvania General Assembly. Administered by State Ethics Commission, the program would impose an $8 million general election spending limit for candidates who take part, and participation would be voluntary.
Participating gubernatorial candidates would have to engage in five debates -- two before the primary election and three before the general election. Regardless of whether a candidate chooses to participate, individuals or political action committees could contribute no more than $2,100 to a gubernatorial candidate per election.
In addition to attracting quality candidates and promoting a more competitive election process, public financing would greatly reduce a candidate's dependency on special interest group money, ensuring greater independence once a candidate is in office. Additionally, candidates could spend more time meeting with voters and talking about issues instead of trying to raise huge sums of cash to finance their election effort. Minor party candidates would have a greater opportunity to inject important ideas into a gubernatorial campaign.
Right now, 14 states have some sort of public financing system set up for gubernatorial elections. The time has come for Pennsylvania to do the same. Although Pennsylvania should have a public financing system and contribution limits for all statewide and legislative races, starting with gubernatorial elections would be an important first step.
The time to act is now. A governor seeking re-election would be reluctant to implement a public financing system because it would shift the election year advantage to opponents. But Tom Ridge is serving his final term as governor. He has no disincentive to implement public financing. Yet he has the opportunity to make a difference on Pennsylvania's political landscape by pushing for a system that would give voters a true choice in gubernatorial elections.
Contact the governor and your state legislators to urge their support of this proposal. By voicing your opinion today on public financing, you guarantee yourself a stronger, more powerful voice in future elections.