You asked for a summary of the General Accountability Office’s (GAO) report on the results of the public financing programs in Maine and Arizona.

SUMMARY

Section 310 of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (P. L. 107-155) mandated that GAO study and report on the 2000 elections in Maine and Arizona—the first two states to offer full state funding for certain political candidates. To provide a broader perspective, GAO also reported on the 2002 elections and compared both elections to those in 1996 and 1998. In May 2003, GAO released a report entitled, Campaign Finance Reform: Early Experiences of Two States That Offer Full Public Financing for Political Candidates. (The report can be found at www. gao. gov. )

GAO’s review of Maine’s and Arizona’s public financing programs identified five goals of public financing programs. Generally, the programs were intended to (1) increase voter choice, (2) increase electoral competition, (3) reduce the influence of special interest groups, (4) curb increases in the cost of campaigns, and (5) increase voter participation. In both states, participating candidates (those who agreed to forgo private fundraising in exchange for public financing) received a set amount of money and qualified for matching funds based on spending by and for privately financed nonparticipating candidates.

Based on its research, GAO concluded that it was too soon to determine the extent to which the programs met the five goals or to draw causal links to changes that resulted from the public financing programs in the two states. One outcome that was conclusive was that the number of candidates who chose to use public financing for their campaigns increased significantly from 2000 to 2002. In the 2000 primary and general elections, one of every three candidates in Maine and one of every four candidates in Arizona participated in the program. In 2002, one-half or more of the candidates in both states participated. After the 2000 general elections, 33 percent of Maine’s elected legislators and 18 percent of Arizona’s elected legislators had run with public funds. Those numbers increased after the 2002 general elections when 59% and 36% of Maine’s and Arizona’s elected legislators, respectively, used the pubic financing program.

VOTER CHOICE

The average numbers of legislative candidates per district race in the 2000 and 2002 elections were not notably different that the averages for the two previous elections, 1996 and 1998. In both states, the number of participating third-party or independent candidates generally increased from the 2000 to the 2002 elections and the proportion of participating Democrats was higher. GAO’s survey of candidates from the 2000 elections revealed differing opinions about whether public financing or open seats due to term-limits played a greater role in attracting new candidates to run for office. However, a large number of participating candidates indicated that the public financing program was a significant factor in their decision to run for office in 2000.

ELECTORAL COMPETITION

GAO collected data on three indicators of electoral competition: (1) increases in the percentage of contested races, (2) decreases in incumbents’ reelection rates, and (3) reductions in incumbents’ victory margins. In the end, the analyses were inconclusive. In Maine, the percentages of contested primary races were relatively unchanged in 2000 and 2002 compared to 1998 and were less than the percentage in 1996. In Arizona, the percentages of contested primary races increased in 2000 and 2002 compared with 1998, but the percentage was about the same in 2000 as it was in 1996. Incumbents’ reelection rates, the second measure, remained about the same in both states after the

programs took effect. Incumbents’ victory margins, the third measure, reflected a mixed picture and no trends were clearly evident. GAO warned, however, that the results of this analysis should be interpreted with caution given the few variables they used and the limited amount of data available.

INTEREST GROUP INFLUENCE

Research on interest group influence also reflected mixed results. GAO surveyed candidates in the 2000 elections and asked them to what extent, if at all, they agreed with the statement that, once elected, candidates who participated in the public financing program were more likely to serve the broader interests of their constituents and less likely to be influenced by specific individuals or groups. Of the responding nonparticipating candidates, 67% in Maine and 68% in Arizona answered “little or no extent. ” Of the responding participating candidates, 42% in Maine and 56% in Arizona answered “great or very great extent. ”

CAMPAIGN SPENDING

Average legislative candidate spending revealed a different picture in Maine than in Arizona. Candidate spending decreased in Maine but increased in Arizona in 2000 and 2002 compared to previous election years. This dissimilarity, however, may have been due to differences in the states’ provisions for distributing funds to participating candidates. Maine based its distribution amounts on whether the candidate ran for a house or a senate seat. Conversely, Arizona’s distribution amount was the same for all legislative candidates, $ 23,389, which was $ 6,189 more than the average amount that house candidates spent in 1998. With regard to independent expenditures by political action committees, other groups, or individuals, both Maine and Arizona experienced increases in the 2002 elections, but GAO reported that these increases largely were associated with the concurrent gubernatorial races.

VOTER PARTICIPATION

According to GAO’s research, voter participation in both states’ 2000 elections did not differ significantly form prior presidential election years. Voter turnout in Maine increased four percentage points in 2000 compared with 1996, but Arizona’s turnout remained unchanged. In the report, GAO stressed that no one reason can explain voting or nonvoting. Voter turnout can be influenced by several factors including the candidates and their messages, mobilization efforts, media interest, campaign spending, and negative advertising. GAO surveyed voting-age citizens in the fall of 2002 and found that large portions of these populations (60% in Maine and 37% in Arizona) were still unaware of their state’s public financing program. This fact, together with the other relevant factors, lessened the likelihood that the public financing programs were a significant influence on voter turnout in the 2000 elections.

KS: ts