Sun-Setting Campaign Warchests

A Plan To Increase Candidate Participation for Elective Office

By David D’Arcangelo, March 17, 2008

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts should significantly alter its election laws so that each
citizen who runs for elective office has an equal and reasonable opportunity of winning.

Last November voters went to the polls and decided 200 legislative races, 10 Constitutional
offices and a number of other elected seats. The winners of these races will shape and largely determine
the major decisions facing our Commonwealth both now and in the future. Consider that each year the
Legislature controls the spending of over $25 billion for healthcare, education and a myriad of other state
programs that impact nearly every individual in Massachusetts. There is a lot at stake and the choices we
make on Election Day are important.

Yet, even if we, the voters, want to affect change, we will most likely have no real opportunity to
do so, because only a small minority of office holders will face any substantial challenge to their job. In
fact, Massachusetts is one of the worst states in the nation with respect to the competitiveness of
legislative elections and our statewide elections have not proven to be much better. Too many voters will
not have an opportunity to hear from other candidates about important issues facing their community.
Surely many constituents will be disappointed as they look at their ballot choices, or lack of them.
Indeed, “1American representative government suffers from the handicap of a largely uncompetitive
political system.”

Without a doubt there are many obstacles to running for public office and no person should
consider the daunting undertaking of a campaign or public service lightly. But with so many problems
confronting our society, a reasonable person would think that there should be candidates aplenty trying to
get elected so that “they” can be a part of “fixing” what ails us. But the data and trends are disturbing.
They reveal a “supply side” problem in public life. In his watershed study of public involvement in
elections Patterson revealed, “2Since 1960, participation has declined in virtually every area of election
activity.”

Why do we not have more choices at the ballot box? What is the number one reason that people
choose not to run for public office? Why is it so difficult to beat an incumbent? The answer to all of
these questions should come as no surprise. Money, or the lack thereof, is “the” major obstacle facing
most candidates entering our electoral process. Certainly, the large amounts of money that incumbents
accumulate, intimidates people from running. Even the Commonwealth’s Chief Elections Officer,
Secretary of State William Galvin conceded ''3Even with the $1.7 million I have raised so far, it is an
issue, especially in an era of self-funders. We are seeing a trend across the country…It makes it very
difficult for people with average means to seek higher office."

We, our democracy, faces three main problems, #1 lack of contested races, #2 lack of competitive
races and #3 overall erosion of participation in our electoral process. All of these are linked, in some
way, to the excesses of money that is allowed to perpetuate within the campaign system. Indeed, one of
the fundamental ways in which political party leaders and the media judge a candidacy is by “How much
money can you raise.” Cash is King and the amount of funds a candidate has to raise to be competitive is
daunting.

Solid political science data shows a high correlation between winning campaigns and money.
First, money scares people away from running. As noted earlier, Massachusetts has consistently ranked
at or near the bottom of contested elections and been among the worst of all states in terms of competitive
races. Secondly, candidates that outspend their opponents win, in fact ”4every incumbent with a spending
advantage won reelection during our last election cycle and 5nine out of every ten races were won by the
candidate that spent more money.” Clearly, money is a major factor when it comes to running for and
winning elective office.
 Nearly all-credible political scientists, and most people with common sense, will agree that this
lack of competition for public office is not a good thing. Our society is not served well, and many
contend that our system of government does not work properly, if left to wither away in a spiral of limited
participation or even worse, apathetic non-participation. With so few competitive races, is it any wonder
that Massachusetts faces such significant problems as the highest cost of living in the nation, tax burdens
among the uppermost, a lack of affordable housing, Medicaid Fraud and middle-class flight, causing us to
lose more residents than any other state? To be sure, not all of these problems can be attributed to lack of
competitive races. However, do you really believe that the Legislature would have been able to overturn
the will of the voters such as it did with the voter approved Tax Rollback referendum if they had to worry
about losing there jobs to a challenger? Surely you remember that the Tax Rollback initiative to return
the income tax rate back to 5% was overwhelmingly approved by millions of voters. Even today the
Legislature waffles about instituting ballot initiatives.

Lack of competition is dangerous to our democracy because it prevents issues from surfacing,
being discussed or being debated. This does not serve anyone well. A lack of opposition increases voter
apathy and feelings of disenfranchisement with our political process and, perhaps most important, less
competition leads to less accountability by our elected officials and less responsiveness to the public’s
needs.

Incumbents have significant advantages running for office. Chief among these is access to
money for their campaign. Incumbents find it much easier to raise money. Incumbents, especially those
who are in leadership or serve on key legislative committees, have access and are courted by, lobbyists,
special interest groups and Political Action Committees, which most challengers do not. Elected officials
also allow themselves virtually free mailing benefits, which are usually thinly veiled campaign literature
passed off as constituent correspondence. As a result of their positions, office holders enjoy increased
media access and have numerous opportunities to appear in the newspaper or at a local gathering, which a
challenger does not. However, there is an even bigger reason people cite when they choose not to run for
office. Quite simply, incumbents are allowed to build unlimited War-Chests of political contributions.
This money often reaches figures that far surpass any realistic chance most people have of mobilizing the
funds needed to run a viable campaign against an incumbent.

A significant question arises here with regards to the intent of a campaign contribution. Does the
money donated to a candidate become forever theirs or is the contributor making that contribution with
the intent of the candidate using that particular donation to run for a specific political office during a
prescribed time period? Shouldn’t a significant portion of each and every campaign donation continue to
be vested with the contributor as much as the candidates? As a grassroots political activist, having spoken
with hundreds of people on this issue, I find that the vast majority of people expect that a candidate will
use the money that they have donated to them for the particular election that they have been solicited to
contribute for. Simply put, most people think the money they give will be used to win the race at hand.
However, current campaign finance data indicates that a high number of candidates, particularly
incumbents, are raising and amassing large amounts of money even when they do not face viable
competition.

We would not want to inhibit any candidate’s opportunity to raise money. Raising money in and
of itself is not “bad,” and besides, arbitrary limitations would be found unconstitutional. Though, we
should remedy the manner in which campaign money is handled and ultimately “saved.”

There is a straightforward solution to this problem, Sunset The Money. Incumbents should not
have a limitless ability to carry money over from one election to the next or from one race to another. We
should change the law and start the incumbent’s account off with the same amount of money as a
challenger. This would include any amount of money that any candidate lent to his/her own campaign.
So, for example, if a candidate begins his campaign off with $0 dollars then the incumbent would have to
start off with zero dollars. If a candidate chooses to lend him/herself $10,000, then and only then could
the incumbent use their existing $10,000, but no more, from his/her account. If the money is not
expended within that election cycle then it would “Sunset” or expire into an Office of Campaign &
Political Finance account for election related expenses. This Sunsetting would prevent current
officeholders from stockpiling the large amounts of money that make them so intimidating to potential
challengers. Incumbents already have very real and substantial advantages that their office brings them.
Why should they be allowed to continually build such financial advantage as well?

Our present system is stilted in favor of those with massive amounts of money such as
incumbents, who are able to raise money more easily and in greater amounts. Incumbents also enjoy and
benefit from an uncommonly large name identification advantage. The contention made here is that
money raised while in office should be treated differently than money raised by those not in office
because it is gained, either directly or indirectly, as a result of the power of the office. Therefore, no one
candidate, incumbent or otherwise, should be able to stockpile contributions that are collected over
multiple campaign cycles.

The implication of the 1998 Clean Elections referendum was clear. The main reason it was
approved by a significant majority of voters was because people want the electoral process to be fair.
Who would not want a clean election? Yet, although well intentioned, the clean elections law is
misguided in the way in which it seeks to resolve for the supply side of the campaign finance conundrum.
The problem is not candidate spending, but rather the manner in which candidates amass and, ironically,
sometimes do not, spend the money they raise. The stockpiling of campaign contributions stifles
competition. This is a prime factor that leads to uncontested and uncompetitive elections.

Another question that should be central to any campaign finance type of inquiry is; what is the
intent of the contributor(s) contribution? Is the money a donation, which would imply that it is a gift that
is free to be expended however the candidate seems fit? Perhaps some contributors have an expectation
that the money they give will have some type of involvement or significance attached to it.

Some fundamental questions arise from these inquiries. These suggest issues that may need to be
resolved with respect to expectations attached to campaign contribution(s). Certain limits are already
placed upon campaign funds. For example, a candidate cannot pay for his son’s tuition to college. In
other words, a person making donations to a political candidate currently has an expectation that their
money will be not be used to pay for their son’s college tuition. The point is, we already have laws that
prescribe what campaign contributions can and cannot be used for.

The Proposed Fix

To increase competition and viability, we should make the contribution statute time sensitive so
that candidates must use their campaign funds for the election at hand. This way they can still raise as
much money as they need to win. Left over money would not be prohibited, but the use of unspent
campaign funds would be governed by new rules.

The Plan
Let us resolve that Massachusetts should significantly alter the ways in which incumbents are
allowed to retain the money they use to run for public office. This is a vital step towards leveling the
playing field for anyone seeking elective office. Individuals who have the desire, intellect and capacity to
join public service as elected officials are choosing not to run for political office, because, as both data
and conventional wisdom dictate, they cannot compete on a level playing field. The money amassed by
incumbents and self-funding candidates with enormous amounts of personal wealth, is much too large of
an obstacle to overcome.

In order to improve the quality and cost-effectiveness of governmental services in Massachusetts,

I offer the following plan to alter the ways and means by which all legislative and statewide candidates
amass campaign funds. This plan begins by presenting a Prima Facie Case that the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts should significantly alter its election laws for the purpose of affording every citizen an
equal prospect of winning elective office.
I. There is a Significant Need to Reduce Campaign War-Chests

A. Quantitatively – Since 1990 both the total amount raised and the average amount raised has
steadily increased in both the House and Senate, while at the same time the amount of candidates
has steadily decreased. More than two-thirds of incumbents had no challenger in the 2002
election and of those challenged 97% won reelection. Winners of contested legislative races
outspent their opponent by about 2-1. Candidates with a financial advantage won 9 out of ten
elections. Incumbents with the largest war chests…were least likely to have a challenger. Every
incumbent with a spending advantage won reelection. Sources; Common Cause 2000, 2002,
OCPF Study 2004

B. Qualitatively – Candidates who do not raise “enough” money are not deemed viable by the
media or the general public. People do not even attempt to run because of the daunting task of
raising inordinate amounts of money that usually have been accumulated over a extended period
of time and by using the public resource of incumbency. As a grassroots political activist, far and
away the biggest reason I cannot convince people to run for office is because they feel they
cannot overcome the “head start” money advantage that an incumbent has acquired.

II. The Voters Have Expressed This Need

Therefore, this plan is a natural progression of public policy. Despite the will of the voters, the
Legislature has not implemented significant election reform measures, most notably the Clean
Elections Law, which has been purposely circumvented. Obviously, the general public wants
improvement and reform.

III. Presentation of Plan

This plan only affects candidates for Massachusetts' offices, legislative and statewide.

A. Plank 1- All campaign contributions will now come with an expiration date. Campaign
contributions received up to nine months prior to any election will expire on the day before
nomination papers become available. Any campaign contributions received after the day
nomination papers became available will expire the day after the Secretary of State certifies the
election results. No amount of money will be carried over to a future election cycle or race
without becoming open to the following conditions.

B. Plank 2- Contributions that remain in a candidates account beyond the expiration date will
become subject to an arrangement that provides prorated refunds to contributors. (See Below) To
the extent that contributors do not take money back, amounts unreturned will be transferred to an
OCPF election fund account.

Pro-Rated Refund Plan – There will be a prorated return process that divides the remaining
money amongst all contributors in proportion to how much they gave. Refunds will be disbursed
equitably to all donors. For example, if a candidate raises $10,000 and spends $5,000 then
$5,000 will remain in his/her campaign account. So, if Mrs. Jones contributed $500, while Mr.
Smith gave $200 and Mr. Brown gave $100. Then, Jones gets $250 back, Smith gets $100 back
and Brown gets $50 back in return from their original contribution. In other words, if 50% of the
money raised remains, then each donor gets a refund of 50% of what they gave.

C. Plank 3 - Candidates will face limits on how they can spend the money they have previously
amassed.
They would be required to select one of two options;

Option #1 The incumbent candidate can choose to make the remaining campaign
money available to be given back to the original contributors on an equal and pro-rated ratio
basis.
 Option #2 The incumbent candidate can choose to freeze the money, and not spend
any of it for any reason whatsoever, until another opponent candidate for that particular office
wishes to run. The money will only be unfrozen if, another candidates runs, subsequently gains
ballot access and raises an amount that is equal to or exceeding the frozen amount of the
incumbent. Then and only then can the incumbent begin to raise and spend money to and from
their campaign account.

D. Plank 4-The new system is not exclusive to incumbent campaign contributions. It also
covers any campaign contributions made by “self-funded” candidates to their own campaigns.

IV. This Plan will solve the lack of systemic candidate participation

A. Proof of Workability – OCPF already tracks nearly all of the data elements needed to
implement the system. Plan implementation will be easy. At most OCPF may have to hire one
or two additional staffers. All candidates will compete under the same plan.

B. Proof of Advantages – More races will be contested. More races will be competitive. The
amount of primary elections will increase. The public will be less disenfranchised with political
campaigns. All candidates will compete under the same plan.

Conclusion
According to this plan, all candidates would compete under the same system. No one
campaign would have a head start raising and or spending money. Campaigns that are successful
raising money will not be inhibited and will operate under the current system that is presently in
place in Massachusetts.

The resources to implement this plan are already in place and will not be cost prohibitive.
Because this plan directly affects nearly all of the current members of the General Court, having
this plan turned into a bill and subsequently having a law passed by the Legislature is unlikely.
Most likely this plan would have to be implemented by the initiative and referendum petition
process.

If adopted, implementation of this plan would lead to more contested elections and those
elections would be more competitive. Then, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts would once
again have competitive elections and become a nationwide leader for political accountability.

Endnotes
1
Patrick Basham and Dennis Polhill, Uncompetitive Elections and the American Political System, CATO
Institute, June 2005.
2
Thomas E. Patterson, The Vanishing Voter, Public Involvement In An Age Of Uncertainty, page 4,
Alfred A. Knopp Publisher, 2002
3
Frank Phillips, Citing Money, Galvin Rules Out Run For Governor, Boston Globe, December 13, 2005.
4
Emily W. Allen, Accountability In Decline, Vanishing Competition in the Massachusetts State
Legislature, Common Cause Massachusetts, 2002
5
Massachusetts Money and Politics Project, Massachusetts & Competition in Massachusetts State
Legislative Elections 2002, Common Cause Massachusetts April 2003

Bibliography
Emily W. Allen, Accountability In Decline, Vanishing Competition in the Massachusetts State
Legislature, Common Cause Massachusetts, 2002
Massachusetts Money and Politics Project, Massachusetts & Competition in Massachusetts State
Legislative Elections 2002, Common Cause Massachusetts April 2003

Denis Kennedy, Campaign Finance Activity by Members of the General Court 1998, 2000, 2002, 2004,
Massachusetts Office of Campaign and Political Finance, 1998, 2000, 2002, 2004.

Denis Kennedy, Campaign Finance Activity by candidates for Statewide Office 1997-1998, and 2002,
Massachusetts Office of Campaign and Political Finance, 1998, 2002.

Austin J. Freeley, Argumentation and Debate, Critical Thinking for Reasoned Decision Making, 1993,
Wadsworth Publishing, 1993.

Editorial Acknowledgments and References

Michael Kane, Graduate student, University of Hawaii.

Peter Bearse, We The People: A Conservative Populism.