Background

A record-setting $2.7 billion dollars was spent in the 2006 mid-term federal elections and more than half of that money came in large contributions from a small group of wealthy donors. Powerful interests continued to dump more money than ever into congressional campaigns—the average House race cost more than $1 million. The oil and gas industry spent more than $14 million, health care interests spent $72 million and financial services and insurance companies spent more than $190 million all to elect their favored candidates and to line up favors for next year’s Congress. This process shortchanges the rest of us on everything from environmental quality to tax policy to affordable health care.

Under the current system, powerful interests decide who will have the money to get on the ballot and run a credible campaign. Voters are left with fewer choices and candidates more accountable to their large donors than constituents.

Under clean money systems, candidates who agree to spending limits and to forgo special interest cash, receive public finding for their campaigns. Several states such as Arizona, Connecticut and Maine now use the clean money system and are living examples that it can and does work. In Maine, for example, more than 90 percent of the candidates now participate.

Additionally, several attempts have been made in Congress to weaken existing campaign finance laws. Such rollbacks would make it even harder for citizens to get their voices heard on issues like healthcare, energy policy, education and public health and safety.