Clean Elections (Public Financing)
Set the dirty money aside so candidates answer to voters, not donors.
- Difficulty
- Advanced
- Time to result
- ~ongoing to results
- Steps
- 4
- Confidence
- 72%
Clean Elections is a public-financing system in which candidates qualify for public funds by collecting a large number of very small contributions, then run without accepting corporate, PAC, dark, or large-donor money. Stein describes qualifying for it in Massachusetts by gathering small $5-style contributions after voters passed it by a two-to-one referendum margin. The design assumes corruption is structural, not personal — so it removes the incentive rather than trusting individual virtue. Because legislators benefit from big-money advantages, the reform typically must be enacted directly by voters. Massachusetts and Maine have both adopted versions, proving the model is tested and workable.
Origin
Stein points to Massachusetts, where voters passed Clean Elections by referendum in the late 1990s by a two-to-one margin, and where she qualified for it in the early 2000s — before the state's Democratic legislature repealed it on a voice vote to protect their own funding advantage.
Core principles
- 01Money that comes with strings attached corrupts even without an explicit quid pro quo — it is human nature not to bite the hand that feeds you.
- 02You cannot rely on the beneficiaries of a corrupt system to reform it; protections must be built into the system itself.
- 03Small-dollar qualification proves genuine public support without creating donor dependence.
How to run it
- 1
Recognize corruption as structural
Accept that large donations create obligation regardless of intent — it is human nature to want to please the hand that feeds you — so the fix must be built into the system, not left to willpower.
Pro tip Frame it as removing temptation, not accusing individuals of bad faith.
- 2
Set a small-dollar qualification bar
Require candidates to collect a large number of tiny contributions (e.g. $5) to prove they have genuine public support and are not a token campaign.
- 3
Provide public funds to qualifiers
Once a candidate qualifies, provide public financing so they can compete without taking corporate, PAC, dark, or large-donor money.
Watch out Public bodies may withhold funds owed to sideline inconvenient candidates — Stein cites nearly $300,000 held up in her own campaign.
- 4
Pass it by voter referendum
Because incumbents will not surrender their big-money advantage, enact the reform directly through a ballot referendum where voters decide.
Pro tip Reforms passed this way tend to win by wide margins.
Watch out Even after passage, a hostile legislature may repeal it — as Massachusetts did on a voice vote.
In the wild
Voters in Massachusetts passed Clean Elections by referendum by a two-to-one margin in the late 1990s, and Stein qualified for it by collecting many small contributions. The overwhelmingly Democratic legislature then repealed it on a voice vote to protect their fundraising advantage.
→ The system was proven to work and qualify real candidates before being repealed by incumbents who benefited from the old money.
Common mistakes
Trusting officials to reform their own funding
Legislators who benefit from big-money advantages will not vote to end them and may even repeal reforms — relying on them instead of a voter referendum defeats the effort.
Assuming a public option is automatically affordable
Stein notes half-measures promised as 'public options' fail without the economy of scale to make them genuinely affordable; a partial reform can be worse than none.
Is it for you?
Best for
Reformers and jurisdictions trying to reduce the influence of concentrated money over elected officials.
Not ideal for
Situations where incumbents control the reform process and no ballot-referendum route exists.
From the transcript
“it's human not to bite the hand that feeds you and if you have hands that are feeding you that are showering you in cash…”
“it's called clean elections because it lets you set that dirty money aside the money that comes with strings attached”
“we passed it by a voter referendum because of course in the legislatures they don't want to touch it because they want their cozy deals”
From the episode
Dr. Jill Stein: How the Two-Party System Is Jeopardizing America’s Future
Dr. Jill Stein