Will Chicago Turn to Campaign Finance?
Tomorrow, residents of Chicago will head to the polls to elect a Mayor and members of the City Council. While a Windy City election should be interesting to anyone with an interest in big city politics, we’re watching this election closely for a very specific reason: Chicagoans will be weighing in on a ballot referendum proposing the adoption of a small-dollar public matching funds program like ours in New York City. The same way New Yorkers stood up to be counted in 1988, Chicago voters will have the chance tomorrow to cast a vote and make a strong statement that more needs to be done to reduce the influence of big money in politics.
Specifically, voters will mark “yes” or “no” on this question: “Should the City of Chicago or the State of Illinois empower voters and reduce the influence of big special interest money in our elections by using small contributions from voters and a limited amount of public funds?”
The measure, voted onto the ballot by the City Council in October, will be decided in the midst of the most expensive municipal election in Chicago’s history. The Chicago Tribune recently reported that current mayor Rahm Emanuel has raised $30.5 million in contributions since his first campaign in 2010. By contrast, Chicago’s previous mayor, William Daley, accumulated $40 million in all his races combined over thirty years.
This influx of money is not confined to Chicago’s mayoral race. Candidates for the city’s 2nd Ward Council seat are aiming to spend as much as $500,000. Before this year, the most spent on a Council race had been roughly $200,000.
Many of those funding this record-breaking spending seem to be very interested contributors. According to the Tribune’s analysis of Emanuel’s 103 most generous contributors, more than half “benefited from his city government, receiving contracts, zoning changes, business permits, pension work, board appointments, regulatory help or some other tangible benefit.”
Small-dollar, public matching funds programs aim to reduce this focus on big money and the resulting perception of corruption, by making small campaign donations more valuable, thereby redirecting candidates’ attention from special interests to everyday voters.
New York City’s 27-year-old campaign finance program is more popular than ever. In the last municipal election, 92 percent of candidates on the primary ballot financed their bids through the program. Overall, participating candidates received 75% of their campaign funds from city donors who gave $175 or less and public financing.
In Chicago’s 2011 elections, only 10% of contributions to all municipal candidates were received in increments of $175 or less, according to campaign finance data compiled by the Committee for Economic Development.
New York City’s program has been held up as a model by some of the groups pushing for reform in Chicago . The big money flowing into Chicago’s elections this year highlight the key role a public financing program can play in reducing the influence of special interest money and strengthening the role of small contributors in local elections.