Expanding Diversity in Democratic Representation

Washington DC

Population: 500,000 - 1,000,000 | Government type: City| Topic: Public Financing

Photo: WAMU

The Program

Election systems and the amount of money required to run in elections privilege wealthy donors over the smaller contributions of community residents. As a result, candidates often spend hours on the phone prioritizing outreach to those monied interests. In DC, younger and more diverse candidates were historically unable to financially compete in local elections, even with wide community support. This was primarily due to their lack of those big donor connections. 

The Fair Elections Amendment Act of 2018 created the Fair Elections Program (FEP) to address the system’s inequities. This is a voluntary campaign financing program that:

• Provides a substantial public match of campaign funds for qualified candidates if they pledge to only accept small donations and forgo all corporate and PAC money.

• Establishes qualifying minimum thresholds for the number and total amount of campaign contributions depending on the office and establishes that only local DC contributions count toward those thresholds.

• Sets maximum individual campaign contribution limits.

For candidates that qualify for the FEP, each dollar they raise is matched by five dollars in public financing. This means, for example, that a $50 dollar contribution results in a city match of $250, for a total of $300. 2020 was the first full election cycle run with the FEP, and the Office of Campaign Finance is still conducting an analysis of whether 5:1 is an appropriate funding match to allow Fair Elections candidates to compete with traditionally-funded candidates. The 2020 election cycle had nearly 30 candidates, the majority of whom used the FEP. Because of the availability of public financing, this was the most diverse set of candidates in DC election history, and ultimately resulted in a majority women council for the first time in decades. The program costs approximately $5 million per year.

Collaborative Governance

The Fair Elections Amendment Act would not have been successful without the large coalition supporting the effort. Starting in 2015, campaign organizers worked for several years to build a broad coalition of civic organizations, faith institutions, labor unions, racial justice organizations, and others to take an issue on the fringe of DC Council discussions to one with a supermajority of co-sponsors. This level of campaign infrastructure would prove vital after the bill’s passage when the coalition had to wage intensive efforts to overcome the Mayor’s threats to not fund the legislation and her reluctance to even sign the bill. 

The city used the average incumbency campaign amount to make a best guess in determining the appropriate matching ratio. Given the generous 5:1 result, critics pushed back on the amount of city funds the match would utilize and was a waste of taxpayer dollars when the city had much bigger problems at hand. Community advocates expressed strong support for the amount in response, ensuring it remained part of implementation. The Office of Campaign Finance staff also incorporated feedback from the community working group, such as on how candidates might draw on the funds, how much each type of race would max out at, and how many donations it would take to qualify.

Emphasis on equity

The FEP ensures a broader and more diverse pool of competitive candidates. The matching public funds ensure that these candidates spend more time focused on future constituents during their campaigns. For example, candidates can move away from phone calls fundraising from large prospective donors and traditional power brokers, and work instead to get a wide pool of their grassroots constituents to donate a few dollars. The program also increases the ability of candidates who lack connections to wealthy donors to mount viable campaigns, grounded in community support. 

When a person without significant financial resources contributes to a candidate, it is more likely to result in a vote for that candidate. Campaign financing reform shifts power toward individual residents and away from monied interests, such as developers, who currently play an outsized role in local politics.

Public financing creates opportunities for new candidates to challenge well-resourced incumbents. In one recent scenario, an incumbent maxed out checks and contributions with an average individual contribution amount of $300, and with only a quarter of their contributions coming from their ward. Meanwhile, their challenger raised more than 90 percent of their donations from within DC, with an average contribution amount of $41 dollars. The incumbent outraised their challenger by $125,000, but the challenger maxed out the fair elections funding provided, which allowed her to compete fairly, and ultimately to win the race. 

An increased number of compelling and competitive candidates also improves the quality of debate over important community issues. These non-traditional candidates—often with less socio-economic means or from communities of color—bring new and different perspectives to the conversation. 2020 had the most racially- and ethnically-diverse cadre in a city at-large race in DC history. These candidates represented a wide swath of the city and gave voters a much wider choice. For those that used the public funds program, DC residents’ donations totaled between two-thirds and three-quarters of campaign contributions. The average donation for these candidates was $61, compared to the $250–300 average donation for the candidates not participating in the program. The candidates used these funds to hire campaign staff, send mailers, and to make their voices heard. 

Looking forward, the Fair Elections Program increases the probability of future council representation that reflects the city’s demographics, as the program continues to shift the donor base from big monied interests to residents who donate in smaller amounts. Ranked-choice voting is a future step in this ongoing work. Finally, we hope to build public trust in elected officials by electing candidates that listen to constituents, not big money, until the city can ban corporate election money altogether.

Analysis

• Preemption: While localities - particularly counties - have a significant amount of control over how they administer elections and regulate funding, states vary dramatically in election laws so it is still important to affirm the level of independent decision-making on the financing side.

• Local government dynamics: The DC Council is moderately progressive and unanimously approved the program, although so far, incumbents seem less likely to utilize it.

• Impact: Thus far results are promising, both in the diversity of candidates running and in the changing make-up of the council.

Last updated: January 19, 2021

If you’re interested in learning more, please contact info@localprogress.org

READY FOR MORE INSPIRATION? KEEP EXPLORING: