(These myths and realities are adapted/excerpted from Breaking Free with Fair Elections: A New Declaration of Independence for Congress, March 2007, a collaboration of Public Campaign, Common Cause, Brennen Center for Justice, Democracy Matters, Public Citizen and U.S. PIRG.)

If you’ve spoken to one of your legislators about the need for a Clean Elections system last session at the legislature (public funding for legislative races), chances are you’ve heard one or more of the myths about why Clean Elections is not a viable way to finance politicians campaigns. Below are some standard myths and some ways to dispel them.

Myth: Clean Elections systems violate the First Amendment.

Reality: Because the proposed public funding bill is voluntary, it is constitutional. In the landmark 1976 case, Buckley v. Valeo, the Supreme Court ruled that a voluntary public funding system for presidential campaigns did not violate the First Amendment.

Myth: Public funding of elections amounts to "welfare" for politicians.

Reality: This argument is based on an illusion that a Clean Elections system offers political candidates a chance to receive easy money, and is tinted by the implicit assertion that candidates may use public money for

personal expenditure. This concern is unfounded.

Clean Elections, such as those enacted in Arizona, Connecticut and Maine – and proposed in West Virginia – employ safeguards that require candidates to demonstrate their seriousness and viability before they receive a penny of public money. The system also has sensible rules to prohibit spending public money for anything but legitimate campaign expense and requires candidates to account publicly for all expenditures. Clean Elections would be an investment in a more responsive and independent West Virginia legislature.

Myth: Clean Election systems (public financing) forces taxpayers to support candidates they do not like.

Reality: When taxpayers contribute to public funding systems, they are paying to support democracy, not an individual candidate. Clean Elections systems lower the barriers to running for office, increase the likelihood that voters will have better candidates to consider. Moreover, the system reduces candidates’ dependence on deep-pocketed contributors, lessening the chance that winning candidates will feel indebted to donors.

Myth: Public funding of elections would give "fringe" candidates easy access to taxpayer money.

Reality: Clean Elections requires that publicly funded candidates collect enough qualifying contributions to demonstrate that they are serious and have a broad base of support. Elections in Arizona and Maine show that Clean Elections results in fewer uncompetitive candidates. Although the number of candidates has increased in those states, the vast majority of those candidates demonstrated a strong base of public support at the polls. In Maine’s 2006 primary election, for example, no candidate received less than 20 percent of the vote, and only 15 of the 409 candidates in two-candidate races received less than 40 percent of the vote.

Myth: Public funding will not decrease the amount of money in campaigns.

Reality: A Clean Elections system would set limits on what a participating candidate can spend. Therefore, if a large percentage of candidates participated, it would likely slow the increase in campaign spending.

It warrants noting that one objective of Clean Elections is not to remove money from politics, but rather replace private money that can be viewed as corrupting with public money that supports a healthy democracy.

From: Breaking Free with Fair Elections: A New Declaration of Independence for Congress, March 2007, a collaboration of Public Campaign, Common Cause, Brennen Center for Justice, Democracy Matters, Public Citizen and U.S. PIRG, p. 9.