SECTION 1.
The Legislature finds and declares all of the following:(a) All citizens should be able to make their voices heard in the political process and hold their elected officials accountable.
(b) Elections for local or state elective office should be fair, open, and competitive.
(c) The increasing costs of political campaigns can force candidates to rely on large contributions from wealthy donors and special interests, which can give those wealthy donors and special interests disproportionate influence over governmental
decisions.
(d) Such disproportionate influence can undermine the public’s trust that public officials are performing their duties in an impartial manner and that government is serving the needs and responding to the wishes of all citizens equally, without regard to their wealth.
(e) Special interests contribute more to incumbents than challengers because they seek access to elected officials, and these contributions account for a large portion of the financial incumbency advantage, as confirmed by recent studies such as those published in the Journal of Politics in 2014 and Political Research Quarterly in 2016.
(f) Citizen-funded election programs, in which qualified candidates can receive public funds for the purpose of communicating
with voters rather than relying exclusively on private donors, have been enacted in six are currently operative in five charter cities in California, as well as numerous other local and state jurisdictions.
(g) Citizen-funded election programs encourage competition by reducing the financial advantages of incumbency and making it possible for citizens from all walks of life, not only those with connections to wealthy donors or special interests, to run for office, as confirmed by recent studies such as those published in State Politics and Policy Quarterly in 2008, and by the Campaign Finance Institute in 2015 and the National Institute of Money in State Politics in 2016.
(h) By reducing reliance on wealthy donors and special interests, citizen-funded election programs inhibit improper practices, protect against corruption or the appearance of corruption, and protect the political integrity of our governmental institutions.
(i) In Johnson v. Bradley (1992) 4 Cal.4th 389, the California Supreme Court commented that “it seems obvious that public money reduces rather than increases the fund raising pressures on public office seekers and thereby reduces the undue influence of special interest groups.”
(j) In Buckley v. Valeo (1976) 424 U.S. 1, the United States Supreme Court recognized that “public financing as a means of eliminating the improper influence of large private contributions furthers
a significant governmental interest.”
(k) In Arizona Free Enterprise v. Bennett (2011) 564 U.S. 721, the United States Supreme Court acknowledged that public financing of elections “can further ‘significant governmental interest[s]’ such as the state interest in preventing corruption,” quoting Buckley v. Valeo.
(l) In Buckley v. Valeo, the United States Supreme Court further noted that citizen-funded elections programs “facilitate and enlarge public discussion and participation in the electoral process, goals vital to a self-governing people.”
(m) The absolute prohibition on public campaign financing allows special interests to gain disproportionate influence and unfairly favors incumbents. An exception should be created
to permit citizen-funded election programs so that elections may be conducted more fairly.