D.C.'s Office of Campaign Finance recently disclosed that it disbursed $9.3 million in taxpayer dollars to local candidates. That money is part of D.C.'s Public Financing Program, which provides qualifying candidates with public dollars for their campaigns.
The program is ostensibly meant to level the playing field and encourage civic participation. It provides 5-to-1 matching funds for candidates who decline corporate and traditional PAC contributions and raise enough through small-dollar fundraising.
But the donor and candidate data make clear the program is subsidizing D.C.'s richest while failing to diversify the donor or candidate pools.
D.C. has paid out about six dollars in public matching funds on behalf of donors in Ward 3, the city's wealthiest, for every dollar paid out on behalf of donors in Ward 8, the poorest. Wards 7 and 8 together are home to nearly a quarter of D.C. residents but generated about 10 percent of matched contributions.
Which candidates get funded is also a problem. More than nine in ten dollars of matched contributions in the mayoral race have flowed to the two frontrunners, Janeese Lewis George and Kenyan McDuffie — not the first-time candidates the program was built to support. Both are also backed by millions in outside super PAC money, turning the match into an expensive, redundant subsidy.
It does not have to be like this. Switching from a 5-to-1 match to a system of democracy vouchers — used in Seattle and approved in Oakland — would increase donor participation and lower the out-of-pocket costs that deter candidates from running.
The mechanics are straightforward. D.C. would mail a $50 voucher to every eligible voter, who could give all, some, or none to their preferred candidates. The cost could be capped at the current $13.7 million; if redeemed vouchers exceed the cap, payments prorate. If they fall short, the balance sweeps into D.C.'s Statehood Fund — reviving the stalled fight for statehood.
Seattle has proved it works. A University of Washington study found Seattle's program more than tripled small-dollar contributions and increased donors per race by 350 percent, while nearly doubling the number of candidates. Georgetown research found voucher users are more demographically representative than cash donors, with greater participation from voters of color and lower-income residents.
By contrast, fewer than 4 percent of D.C.'s registered voters participated in the matching program — and maxed-out donations account for nearly two-thirds of matched money. It is multiplying, with public money, the donations of voters who would give anyway.
Seattle also models implementation. Like D.C., it mails all registered voters their ballots. D.C. could mail vouchers with the primary and general ballots and collect them through the same process; unregistered eligible adults could request vouchers online.
The statehood provision is not incidental. Sweeping unredeemed vouchers into the underfunded Statehood Fund — without a dollar of new taxes — would bolster the case for expanded representation.
The principles behind D.C.'s public financing were sound. Replacing the 5-to-1 match with $50 vouchers would broaden D.C.'s electorate, diversify its candidates, and give statehood a fighting chance.