Frequently Asked Questions:


Will this program allow anyone who runs for office have access to public money to run their campaign?

No. This legislation is designed so that only candidates who can prove a broad base of public support will be able to qualify for public financing. To qualify to receive public financing Mayoral candidates needs to raise at least $25,000 from at least 250 contributors in donations of $100 or less. Supervisorial candidates need to raise at least $5000 from at least 75 contributors in donations of $100 or less. We determined these numbers based on research of previous races in San Francisco, and concluded that these numbers would allow all, but only serious, candidates to qualify.


Why would we want to give politicians our tax money to run their campaigns – shouldn’t a candidate who has popular support be able to raise their own money? Isn’t this just welfare for politicians?

Unfortunately, having a broad base of public support doesn’t automatically translate into a campaign bank account large enough to get one's message out to the voters. And too often, raising large amounts of cash means giving special favors to campaign contributors. The influence of big money in elections has an inordinate amount of influence on politicians, which in turn leads to a manipulation of public policy -- often against the interests of the public. Only when the public pays the campaign bills will the public own the politicians.


Will public campaign financing bankrupt the City?

No. We’ve capped the amount of money that the city can spend on campaigns at $2.75 per city resident per year, in order to be considerate of the City budget. That's a drop in the bucket out of the City budget -- approximately $1.00 for every $3000 the City spends.

The qualifying requirements are also stiff enough so that anybody considering a run for office will think long and hard about the seriousness of their efforts before embarking on a campaign to qualify for funds. In the unlikely event the fund is maxed out, money will distributed to candidates on a first-come first-served basis.


Shouldn’t we wait on this until the city budget is in a better situation?

We live in one of the wealthiest cities in the world at the most prosperous time in human history. In general, our budget problems are not caused by a lack of money, but by a misappropriation of that money towards the interests of a small group of wealthy campaign contributors. Only when the public owns the politicians will we see our budget problems solved.

On this web site we've detailed five specific instances where the current pay-to-play system has resulted in at least $70 million in giveaways by the City to campaign contributors.

This program costs a maximum of $2 million per year out of a $6.7 billion city budget. That’s approximately $1.00 for every $3000 the city spends. If you believe that even $1.00 for every $3000 is wasted on inefficieny or corruption as a result of the current pay-to-play system then it follows that this system will save money.


Why not a full public financing system?

Full public financing is a system where candidates, in exchange for receiving public money, are not allowed to receive any private contributions, with the exception of a very small amount for qualification purposes. The current program, on the other hand, is a partial public financing system, which allows and requires participants to raise a larger amount of private money. While full public financing is the ideal system, it costs more money. In crafting this legislation we wanted to be considerate of the fact that many people will be concerned about the cost. Our decision to seek partial public financing was pragmatic and we would like to implement full public financing at some point in the future.


Are all candidates for mayor required to participate? If not all candidates participate does it defeat the whole point?

The Supreme Court has ruled that candidates can not be forced to participate in this type of system. Candidates who don't participate can raise private money as they do now. Although it is ideal if all candidates participate, this system still takes a huge step towards leveling the playing field, by helping make sure all serious candidates have enough resources to get their message out to the public, regardless of their access to big money. Furthermore, in other places that have public financing systems, participation has steadily gone up over time, with only a small percentage of non-participating candidates winning elections. Voters generally prefer to vote for a candidate who is owned by the public rather than by private interests. See the success stories page for details on candidate participation in other places.


Will candidates be willing to participate in Voter Owned Elections?

There are strong incentives for candidates and elected officials to participate in Voter Owned Elections:

  • Candidates prefer not to spend all of their time raising money, and instead can spend it developing ideas and connecting with voters.
  • Candidates do not want the public to think that they are compromised by accepting large contributions from special interests.
  • Candidates will prefer to not owe anyone favors once they are elected.
  • Candidates without access to big money will have more resources to get their message out to the public.
In Tucson, Arizona, where there is public financing for all citywide elections, only two non-participating candidates have won office since the program began in 1987. In New York City, in the 2001 elections, 47 out of 50 winning candidates participated in the Voter Owned Elections system. Over time, voters in places with public financing come to expect that candidates will participate and after several elections, during which voters become familiar with the program, it becomes very difficult, if not impossible, for non-participating candidates to win office.


What happens if there’s money left in the public financing fund after the election?

In order to make sure that the program never runs out of money, and to take into account that different election cycles may see different levels of activity, any funds that are left over after one election cycle will be carried over to the next election cycle. The exception to this is if the fund has more than $13.5 million in it, in which case any amount above $13.5 million will be returned to the general fund.


What happens if a candidate takes public financing and then illegally breaks the spending limit anyway?

If a candidate is found by a court to have engaged in this type of behavior they can be removed from the ballot and disqualified for election. There are also procedures whereby a candidate can be removed from office after the election if they are found to have violated these rules. In addition, the candidate would be required to return any public funds they've received to the City.


Does the spending cap stay in place if a candidate who is not participating in the system spends more than the cap?

In order to ensure that participating candidates remain competitive against candidates who choose not participate this program allows a participating candidate to spend as much as their opponent, even if that amount is greater than the spending cap. In addition, in order to incentivize participation, the city will continue to match a participant's dollars at the 1-to-1 rate until they've reached the amount of funds that their opponent has spent.
  “Cleanly financed elections that bring more citizens into the political process as candidates, donors, and organizers are vital to maintaining the health of American democracy."

-New York Times Editorial


“We Clean Elections [Voter Owned Elections] pioneers are a more independent bunch, especially because we’re not worrying about how we’re going to raise the big bucks to win our next race. Lobbyists for special interests tend to spend less time with us, which makes it easier to get through the Capitol halls in time for a vote.”

-Glenn Cummings & Ed Youngblood, Maine State legislators, elected with Voter Owned Elections


“Working with lobbyists now is fascinating. Their approach is ‘may we talk to you and share some information,’ not, ‘I did something for you, now you own me.”

-Jim Sedillo, Arizona Democratic State Representative