Rhode Island currently offers public financing for statewide races.  Some members of the General Assembly, including Rhoda Perry and Edith Ajello, want to extend public financing to General Assembly races.  Under their plan, Rhode Island would provide up to $15,000 for House Candidates and $30,000 for Senate Candidates.  In 2006, Rhode Island spent nearly $2 million on public financing.  If this were extended to General Assembly races, this amount would rise by nearly $7 million. 

     I can understand why supporters would want to level the playing field, but I don't think public financing will make much of a difference.  In the 2005-2006 legislative cycle, WIlliam Murphy spent more than $273,000.  I doubt William Murphy or other legislators in the 6 figure club would take part in campaign financing, so their opponents will still be at a large disadvantage.  As for those who spend less, their opponents will still be at a comparative disadvantage.  For example, if an incumbent raises $10,000 and his opponent raises $2,000, matching would raise them to $20,000 and $4,000 respectively.  The 5 to 1 spending ratio would still exist. 

     I doubt public financing will be passed.  Besides the large expense, I don't see legislators approving a bill that would help their opponents.  There's one way to encourage more participation among potential candidates, and that is for voters  to thoughtfully consider their choices and do some research. 


http://politicsblog.projo.com/2009/02/embargoed-until.html