Are All Public Matching Funds Programs Created Equal?

Not all public campaign finance programs are created equal. That is the message Michael Malbin delivered at our conference last month in a presentation comparing the matching funds programs in New York City and Los Angeles.

Malbin discussed how the two programs differ in achieving their goals of encouraging candidates to raise small donations and broadening the number of people who make them. His analysis suggests these contrasts may stem primarily from differences in how the two programs are designed.

In 2013, New York City had a more diverse pool of small donors, a higher percentage of candidate money from small donors, and more small donors per candidate than Los Angeles. Malbin cites the cities’ differing residency requirements as one possible explanation for the discrepancies. New York City Council candidates are mandated to collect a specific number of in-district contributions to qualify for matching funds. In Los Angeles’s 2013 elections, there was no such geographic requirement.

States and municipalities looking to design their own public matching funds program, take heed: if you want a program with staying power, details matter. As Malbin said at the end of his presentation, “The bottom line for public financing: passing a bill is not enough...The politics of persuasion is not enough. You need a program that will actually work and do its job well.”