Vitali's public financing legislation subject of House committee hearing
Campaign finance experts show support for public financing
The committee held the public hearing, which featured a number of experts on campaign finance reform, to discuss Vitali's Gubernatorial Public Financing Act (H.B. 1650), a proposal that would provide public financing in governor and lieutenant governor races in the primary and general elections in the Commonwealth. The measure, modeled after New Jersey's successful program, would limit the influence of special interest group money and make races more competitive by attracting qualified candidates.
"Pennsylvania needs a system that encourages candidates to spend more time meeting people and talking about issues rather than pandering to special interest groups to fund their campaigns," said Vitali, Democratic vice chairman of the committee.
Frederick Herrmann, executive director of the New Jersey Election Law Enforcement Commission, said public financing enables candidates to conduct their campaigns free from improper influence while giving candidates of limited financial means the opportunity to run for office. "If such programs are created with care, they can make a major contribution to preserving the integrity of the campaign process without costing taxpayers an exorbitant amount of money," Herrmann said.
Under Vitali's bill, qualified gubernatorial candidates could receive up to $2.6 million in public funding for the primary election and $5.2 million in public funding for the general election. The state would match qualified contributions -- those in excess of $200,000 -- to gubernatorial 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 General Assembly. Administered by the State Ethics Commission, the program would impose a $4 million primary election spending limit and an $8 million general election spending limit for candidates who take part, and participation would be voluntary.
Participating gubernatorial candidates would be required 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 $2,000 to a gubernatorial candidate per election.
Andrew Levine is director of the Campaign Finance Administration of the New York Campaign Finance Board, which provides matching funds to qualified candidates who agree to contribution/expenditure limits and detailed campaign finance disclosure which is included on the Internet.
Levine said the New York program has succeeded in reducing the size of contributions while increasing the number of individual contributors, which indicates greater public involvement. There is a more even playing field in New York elections because of spending limits, he added, and more credible candidates are given the opportunity to run for office because public funds are available to support their campaigns.
The New York and New Jersey public financing systems have proven to be successful and serve as models for other states debating campaign finance reforms that require candidates to address issues rather than special interests.
Vitali noted that Pennsylvania's 1998 gubernatorial race essentially was a nonelection. Incumbent Republican Gov. Tom Ridge beat Democratic challenger Ivan Itkin by more than 25 percentage points. Ridge started his campaign with a war chest of more than $5 million. Itkin, on the other hand, started his campaign with less than $90,000.
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, where credible and highly qualified candidates were scared away by Ridge's campaign coffers, many qualified candidates were attracted into the New Jersey primary with public financing.
Michael Morrill, executive director of the Pennsylvania Consumer Action Network, noted that Pennsylvania is one of only 13 states with no limits on political contributions. Gubernatorial races are the most expensive in the state, but other seats are influenced by money. Winners of a state Senate seat in Pennsylvania spent an average of $191,000 while state House seat winners spent about $56,000.
"The Pennsylvania Gubernatorial Public Financing Act is an important first step in restoring democracy in Pennsylvania," Morrill said. "Any public funding will diminish the influence of the special interests and increase the influence of the ordinary citizen."
Fourteen states now have some sort of public financing system set up for gubernatorial elections.