Legislative Candidates’ Participation in Public Financing Programs in Maine and Arizona Increased from 2000 to 2008; Limited Data on Candidates Are Available

In Maine and Arizona, legislative candidates’ participation in the public  financing programs (measured by the percentage of candidates  participating and the proportion of races with a participating candidate)  increased from 2000 to 2008; although limited data on candidates’  characteristics are available. Similarly, the  participation rate of legislative candidates in Maine’s general elections  more than doubled from 33 percent in 2000 to 79 percent in 2004 and then  remained over 80 percent for the 2006 and 2008 elections. Incumbent candidates’ participation in the public financing program in  general elections in Maine generally increased from 2000 to 2008, with the  majority of incumbent candidates participating in the program from 2002  through 2008. Similarly, the participation rate of  legislative candidates in Arizona’s general elections almost doubled after  2000, when it was 26 percent, to 49 percent in 2002, and then steadily  increased over the next three elections to 64 percent in 2008. Changes in One Measure of Electoral Competition Could Not Be Directly Attributed to Maine’s and Arizona’s Public Financing Programs; No Overall Changes in Voter Choice, Campaign Spending, and Interest Group Influence, While Data Limitations Hinder Analysis of Changes in Voter Participation

We used a variety of statistical techniques to measure changes in five goals  of public financing before and after the implementation of public financing  and found some evidence of statistically significant changes in one  measure of electoral competition. While there is no indication that the  programs have decreased interest group influence, some candidates and  interest group officials GAO interviewed said that campaign tactics have  changed. Changes in One Measure of Electoral Competition— Winner’s Victory Margin— Could Not Be Directly Attributed to Public Financing Programs in Maine and Arizona, While No Significant Changes Were Observed in Two Other Measures of Electoral Competition

Overall, the margin of victory in legislative races decreased significantly in  both Maine and Arizona compared to their respective comparison states  after the public financing programs were implemented; however, we could  not attribute these decreases directly to the public financing programs due  to factors such as candidate popularity and changing economic conditions,  which affect electoral outcomes. Average candidate spending  in Maine Senate races did not change significantly. In comparison, the difference in average spending by incumbents and  challengers was not statistically significant in the five elections under the  public financing program. In Arizona Senate races,  there was not a statistically significant difference between average  spending by participating and nonparticipating candidates in the five  elections examined. State officials said that the amount spent on  independent expenditures has increased since 2000. Candidates provided a number of reasons for the  perceived increase in campaign spending. However, candidate and interest group representatives  reported that campaign tactics, such as the role of political parties and the  timing of expenditures, had changed. Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

	Objectives

In accordance with the congressional direction specified in Senate Report  110-129 to revisit and update our 2003 report on the public financing  programs in Maine and Arizona to account for data and experiences of the  past two election cycles, this report    provides data related to candidate program participation, including the  number of legislative candidates who chose to use public funds to run  for seats in the 2000 through 2008 elections in Maine and Arizona and  the number of races in which at least one legislative candidate ran an  election with public funds; and    describes statistically measurable changes and perceptions of changes  in the 2000 through 2008 state legislative elections in five goals of  Maine’s and Arizona’s public financing programs—(1) increasing  electoral competition by, among other means, reducing the number of  uncontested races (i.e., races with only one candidate per seat in  contention); (2) increasing voter choice by encouraging more  candidates to run for office; (3) curbing increases in the cost of  campaigns; (4) reducing the influence of interest groups and, thereby,  enhance citizens’ confidence in government; and (5) increasing voter  participation (e.g., voter turnout)—and the extent to which these  changes could be attributed to the programs. We are issuing an electronic supplement concurrently with this report— GAO-10-391SP.
Why GAO Did This Study

The 2000 elections in Maine and Arizona were the first in the nation's history where candidates seeking state legislative seats had the option to fully fund their campaigns with public moneys. In 2003, GAO reviewed the public financing programs in Maine and Arizona and found the programs' goals were to (1) increase electoral competition; (2) increase voter choice; (3) curb increases in campaign costs; (4) reduce interest group influence; and (5) increase voter participation. GAO reported that while the number of candidates who participated in the programs increased from 2000 to 2002, it was too soon to determine the extent to which these five goals of the programs were being met. Senate Report 110-129 directed GAO to update its 2003 report. This report: (1) provides data on candidate participation and (2) describes changes in five goals of Maine's and Arizona's programs in the 2000 through 2008 elections and the extent to which changes could be attributed to the programs. To address its objectives, GAO analyzed available data about candidate participation, election outcomes, and campaign spending for the 1996 through 2008 legislative elections in both states, reviewed studies, and interviewed 22 candidates and 10 interest group officials selected to reflect a range of views. The interview results are not generalizable to all candidates or all interest groups. GAO is issuing an electronic supplement with this report--GAO-10-391SP--which provides data and summaries of statistical analyses conducted.

What GAO Found

In Maine and Arizona, legislative candidates' participation in the public financing programs, as measured by the percentage of candidates participating and the proportion of races with a participating candidate, increased from 2000 to 2008. Specifically, the participation rate of candidates in Maine's general elections increased from 33 percent in 2000 to over 80 percent in 2006 and 2008. Meanwhile, the participation rate of candidates in Arizona's general elections increased from 26 percent in 2000 to 64 percent in 2008. Also, the proportion of races with at least one candidate participating in the program generally increased from 2000 through 2008. While there was some evidence of statistically significant changes in one of the five goals of Maine's and Arizona's public financing programs, we could not directly attribute these changes to the programs, nor did we find significant changes in the remaining four goals after program implementation. Specifically, there were statistically significant decreases in one measure of electoral competition--the winner's margin of victory--in legislative races in both states. However, GAO could not directly attribute these decreases to the programs due to other factors, such as the popularity of candidates, which affect electoral outcomes. We found no change in two other measures of competition, and there were no observed changes in voter choice--the average number of legislative candidates per district race. In Maine, decreases in average candidate spending in House races were statistically significant, but a state official said this was likely due to reductions in the amounts given to participating candidates in 2008, while average spending in Maine Senate races did not change. In Arizona, average spending has increased in the five elections under the program. There is no indication the programs decreased perceived interest group influence, although some candidates and interest group officials GAO interviewed said campaign tactics changed, such as the timing of campaign spending. Data limitations, including a lack of comparable measures over time, hinder analysis of changes in voter participation.