Guide to Public Financing Programs Nationwide
More than three dozen states and localities have adopted powerful programs to counter big money in politics.
Since the Supreme Court largely deregulated election spending in 2010 in Citizens United, wealthy donors and special interests have pumped more and more money into the political process. Small donor public campaign financing has proved to be the most powerful tool available to amplify the voices of everyday Americans and strengthen connections between candidates and constituents.
Small donor matching systems multiply modest donations from state or local residents to participating candidates with public funds. Other programs offer qualifying candidates block grants or provide residents with vouchers to assign public funds to participating candidates. Each program requires candidates to meet thresholds to show sufficient community support, ensuring their viability before they may access public funds.
Fourteen states and 26 localities now offer the option, with more considering the reform. In addition, a federal public financing program is available for presidential candidates. This resource catalogs all public financing programs in the United States by state or municipality, program type, year of enactment, and other key facts. We will periodically update the list as policymakers create new programs.
State Programs
Arizona
Enacted: 1998
Program Type: Full grants
Offices: Governor, attorney general, secretary of state, treasurer, superintendent of public instruction, corporation commission, mine inspector, state legislature
Enacted Through: Ballot referendum
Administered by: Arizona Citizens Clean Elections Commission
Connecticut
Enacted: 2005
Program Type: Full grants
Offices: Governor, lieutenant governor, attorney general, secretary of state, state comptroller, state treasurer, state legislature
Enacted Through: Legislation
Administered by: Connecticut State Elections Enforcement Commission
Florida
Enacted: 1986
Program Type: Two-to-one match during qualification and one-to-one match once candidate reaches qualification threshold on the first $250 of in-state contributions
Offices: Governor, lieutenant governor, attorney general, chief financial officer, commissioner of agriculture
Enacted Through: Legislation
Administered by: Florida Division of Elections
Hawaii
Enacted: 1979
Program Type: One-to-one match on in-state contributions of $100 or less
Offices: Governor, lieutenant governor, county mayors, prosecuting attorneys, county councils, state legislature, office of Hawaiian affairs
Enacted Through: Legislation
Administered by: Hawaii Campaign Spending Commission
Maine
Enacted: 1996
Program Type: Full grants with the option to qualify for supplemental grants
Offices: Governor, state legislature
Enacted Through: Ballot referendum
Administered by: Maine Commission on Governmental Ethics and Election Practices
Maryland
Enacted: 1974
Program Type: Progressive match of between two-to-one and eight-to-one on in-state contributions of $150 or less
Offices: Governor
Enacted Through: Legislation
Administered by: Maryland State Board of Elections
Massachusetts
Enacted: 1975
Program Type: One-to-one match on the first $250 of individual contributions
Offices: Governor, lieutenant governor, attorney general, secretary of the commonwealth, treasurer and receiver general, auditor
Enacted Through: Legislation
Administered by: Massachusetts Office of Campaign and Political Finance
Michigan
Enacted: 1976
Program Type: Two-to-one match on the first $100 of in-state contributions for primary elections and partial grants or one-to-one match on the first $100 of in-state contributions for general elections
Offices: Governor
Enacted Through: Legislation
Administered by: Michigan Department of State Bureau of Elections
Minnesota
Enacted: 1974
Program Type: Partial grants to candidates in general elections and refunds to state residents who contribute to a participating party or candidate
Offices: Governor, attorney general, secretary of state, state auditor, state legislature
Enacted Through: Legislation
Administered by: Minnesota Campaign Finance and Public Disclosure Board
New Jersey
Enacted: 1974
Program Type: Two-to-one match on contributions up to the contribution limit of $4,900 per contributor
Offices: Governor
Enacted Through: Legislation
Administered by: New Jersey Election Law Enforcement Commission
New Mexico
Enacted: 2003
Program Type: Full grants proportionate to the number of registered voters
Offices: Supreme court justices, court of appeals judges, district judges
Enacted Through: Legislation
Administered by: New Mexico Secretary of State
New York
Enacted: 2020
Program Type: Six-to-one match on in-state contributions of $5 to $250 to statewide candidates and progressive match of between eight-to-one and twelve-to-one on in-district contributions of $5 to $250 to legislative candidates
Offices: Governor, lieutenant governor, attorney general, comptroller, state legislature
Enacted Through: Legislation
Administered by: New York State Public Campaign Finance Board
Rhode Island
Enacted: 1988
Program Type: Two-to-one match on contributions of $500 or less and one-to-one match on contributions up to $2,000 for candidates for governor or $1,000 for other statewide offices in general elections
Offices: Governor, lieutenant governor, attorney general, secretary of state, general treasurer
Enacted Through: Legislation
Administered by: Rhode Island Board of Elections
Vermont
Enacted: 1997
Program Type: Full grants
Offices: Governor, lieutenant governor
Enacted Through: Legislation
Administered by: Vermont Secretary of State
Local Programs
Albuquerque, New Mexico
Enacted: 2005
Program Type: Full grants
Offices: Mayor, city council
Enacted Through: Ballot referendum
Administered by: Albuquerque City Clerk
Anne Arundel County, Maryland
Enacted: 2023
Program Type: Progressive match of between two-to-one and four-to-one for county council candidates and two-to-one and six-to-one for county executive candidates on in-county individual contributions of $150 or less (in implementation)
Offices: County executive, county council
Enacted Through: Legislation
Administered by: Public Campaign Financing System Commission and State Board of Elections
Austin, Texas
Enacted: 1992
Program Type: Partial grants in runoff elections
Offices: Mayor, city council
Enacted Through: Legislation
Administered by: Austin City Clerk
Baltimore, Maryland
Enacted: 2018
Program Type: Progressive match of between two-to-one and nine-to-one on in-city contributions of $150 or less to candidates for city council president, city comptroller, and mayor and progressive match of between five-to-one and nine-to-one on in-city contributions of $75 or less for city council candidates
Offices: City council, city council president, city comptroller, mayor
Enacted Through: Ballot referendum
Administered by: Baltimore City Fair Election Fund Commission and State Board of Elections
Baltimore County, Maryland
Enacted: 2020
Program Type: Progressive match of between two-to-one and four-to-one for county council candidates and two-to-one and six-to-one for county executive candidates on in-county contributions of $150 or less (in implementation)
Offices: County council, county executive
Enacted Through: Ballot referendum
Administered by: Baltimore County Fair Election Fund Commission and State Board of Elections
Berkeley, California
Enacted: 2016
Program Type: Six-to-one match on in-city contributions of $60 or less
Offices: Mayor, city council, auditor, school board directors, rent stabilization board commissioners
Enacted Through: Ballot referendum
Administering Entity: Berkeley Fair Campaign Practices Commission
Boulder, Colorado
Enacted: 2000
Program Type: One-to-one match on contributions up to 50 percent of the expenditure limit
Offices: City council
Enacted Through: Ballot referendum
Administering Entity: Boulder City Clerk
Denver, Colorado
Enacted: 2018
Program Type: Nine-to-one match on in-city contributions of $50 or less
Offices: Mayor, city council, city council at-large, auditor, judges, clerk and recorder
Enacted Through: Ballot referendum
Administered by: Denver City Clerk and Recorder
Evanston, Illinois
Enacted: 2023
Program Type: Nine-to-one match on the first $50 of in-city contributions
Offices: Mayor
Enacted Through: Legislation
Administered by: Evanston City Clerk
Howard County, Maryland
Enacted: 2017
Program Type: Progressive match of between one-to-one and five-to-one for county council candidates and one-to-one and seven-to-one for county executive candidates on in-county contributions of $150 or less per donor
Offices: County council, county executive
Enacted Through: Ballot referendum
Administered by: Howard County Citizens’ Election Fund Commission and State Board of Elections
Long Beach, California
Enacted: 1994
Program Type: Two-to-one match up to 33 percent of the expenditure limit in the primary elections and one-to-one match up to 50 percent of the expenditure limit in runoff elections
Offices: Mayor, city council, city attorney, city prosecutor, city auditor
Enacted Through: Ballot referendum
Administered by: Long Beach City Clerk
Los Angeles, California
Enacted: 1990
Program Type: Six-to-one match on in-city small contributions of up to one-seventh of the contribution limit for the relevant office
Offices: Mayor, city council, city attorney, city controller
Enacted Through: Ballot referendum
Administered by: Los Angeles City Ethics Commission
Miami-Dade County, Florida
Enacted: 2000
Program Type: Lump-sum partial grant funding
Offices: Mayor, board of county commissioners
Enacted Through: Ballot referendum
Administered by: Miami-Dade County Department of Elections
Montgomery County, Maryland
Enacted: 2014
Program Type: Progressive match of between two-to-one and four-to-one for county council candidates and two-to-one and six-to-one for county executive candidates on in-county contributions of $150 or less
Offices: County council, county executive
Enacted Through: Legislation
Administered by: Montgomery County Public Election Fund Commission and State Board of Elections
New Haven, Connecticut
Enacted: 2006
Program Type: Lump-sum partial grant funding and match for in-city contributions: two-to-one match on contributions up to $30 and $60 match on contributions of $30 or more
Offices: Mayor
Enacted Through: Legislation
Administered by: New Haven Democracy Fund Board
New York City, New York
Enacted: 1988
Program Type: Eight-to-one match on the first $250 or $175 of an eligible contribution from city residents
Offices: Mayor, public advocate, comptroller, borough presidents, city council
Enacted Through: Legislation; modified by ballot referendum increased the matching ratio
Administered by: New York City Campaign Finance Board
Oakland, California
Enacted: 1999
Program Type: City residents receive vouchers to contribute to participating candidates (in implementation)
Offices: Mayor, city auditor, city attorney, city council at-large, city council, school board directors
Enacted Through: Legislation, ballot referendum expanded the program
Administered by: Oakland City Public Ethics Commission
Portland, Maine
Enacted: 2022
Program Type: Full grants with the option to qualify for supplemental grants
Offices: Mayor, city council, school board members
Enacted Through: Ballot referendum
Administered by: Portland City Clerk
Portland, Oregon
Enacted: 2016
Program Type: Nine-to-one match on contributions of $20 or less from city residents
Offices: Mayor, city commissioners, auditor
Enacted Through: Legislation
Administered by: Portland Elections Commission
Prince George’s County, Maryland
Enacted: 2018
Program Type: Progressive match of between one-to-one and seven-to-one on in-county contributions of $150 or less (in implementation)
Offices: County council, county executive
Enacted Through: Legislation
Administered by: Prince George’s County Fair Election Fund Commission and State Board of Elections
Richmond, California
Enacted: 2003
Program Type: Matching funds disbursed in increments of $2,500 based on total matchable contributions raised
Offices: Mayor, city council
Enacted Through: Legislation
Administered by: Richmond City Clerk
San Francisco, California
Enacted: 2000
Program Type: Lump-sum partial grant funding and six-to-one match on in-city contributions of $150 or less
Offices: Mayor, board of supervisors
Enacted Through: Ballot referendum
Administered by: City and County of San Francisco Ethics Commission
Santa Fe, New Mexico
Enacted: 1987
Program Type: Full grants with the option to raise a capped amount of additional contributions of up to $100 that are matched at a ratio of one-to-one
Offices: Mayor, city council, municipal judge
Enacted Through: Legislation
Administered by: Santa Fe City Clerk
Seattle, Washington
Enacted: 2015
Program Type: City residents receive $100 in vouchers to contribute to participating candidates
Offices: Mayor, city attorney, city council at-large, city council
Enacted Through: Ballot referendum
Administered by: Seattle Ethics and Elections Commission
Tucson, Arizona
Enacted: 1985
Program Type: One-to-one match on contributions up to the contribution limit of $500
Offices: Mayor, city council
Enacted Through: Ballot referendum
Administered by: Tucson City Clerk
Washington, DC
Enacted: 2018
Program Type: Lump-sum partial grant and five-to-one match on in-city contributions of $200 or less
Offices: Mayor, attorney general, city council, state board of education
Enacted Through: Legislation
Administered by: District of Columbia Office of Campaign Finance