This week, Sen. Clementa Pinckney (D-Jasper) and Rep. Joseph Neal (D-Richland) introduced legislation to address the corrupting influence of money in politics. They have sponsored bills that would provide an alternative to politicians taking cash from industries they regulate.

“There has been much hand-wringing about the payday lending industry’s large infusion of cash to legislators,” said Sen. Pinckney. “While most people shake their heads and say ‘that’s politics,’ the truth is that it doesn’t have to be this way.”

Rep. Neal said, “Legislators feel trapped in a system of private funding for public office, and there is a perception that legislators pay more attention to the concerns of their contributors than they do to their constituents. We looked at the increasing cost of running for public office and the decreasing number of candidates, and came up with a workable and affordable plan to reduce the control that money has on our elections and our decisions as legislators.”

While the Clean Elections Act has been introduced every session since 2000, this year there is a separate bill for a study committee to create a pilot program.

The legislation would bring comprehensive campaign finance reform that provides a system of public funding for candidates for legislative and statewide offices who pledge not to accept any private contributions and agree to spending limits. “Clean Elections” as the initiative is referred to in the states where it is practiced, would provide grants to qualifying candidates that are based on the average amount spent to win a particular office.

Of the roughly $10 million a year that funds legislative and statewide races, 83 percent comes from corporate interests,16 percent comes from the candidates, and the rest — less than 2 percent — comes from individual citizens donating $200 or less.

A system of publicly financed elections in South Carolina that would provide generous funding for candidates would cost each voting-age citizen of South Carolina $3.44 a year, less than a penny a day.

“Since this is a voluntary system,” said Brett Bursey, Director of the SC Progressive Network, “we don’t anticipate that all candidates would sign on and it would cost significantly less.”

The Progressive SC Network is a social justice coalition that researched, proposed and promoted the legislation beginning in 2000. “We spend over $30 million tax dollars a year to run the legislature,” Bursey said. “For a fraction of that, the taxpayers could buy back the elections from the private funders who now run the show.”

Neal said, “The Clean Elections Act will provide grants for people to run for public office who don’t have access to wealth. TThis system will make ideas and issues more important than money in the electoral process. The emphasis on money leaves working people and especially people of color with little influence on policies and politics.”

The voting rights group Public Campaign circulated a study that found that the top five wealthiest South Carolina zip codes give more money to candidates than 95 percent of the state’s poorest zip codes that were majority black. Clean elections level the playing field, providing average South Carolinians the same influence with their legislators as the rich and well-connected.

Pinckney said “Clean Elections will allow me to spend time with constituents rather than dialing for dollars.” He noted that the cost of winning a Senate seat increased 64 percent between 1996 and 2008 (from $51,000 to $88,429).

Organizer of Republicans for Clean Elections George Shissias said, “Clean elections do not favor Democrats or Republicans, blacks or whites, but puts the emphasis on democracy. This is a nonpartisan proposal that will improve the quality of our government and will free politicians from the pressures of wealthy donors.”

John Crangle, Director of Common Cause of South Carolina, said the voluntary nature of this proposal makes it constitutional. “Only candidates who willingly forgo private contributions and observe strict limits on spending can qualify for Clean Elections funding,” he said.

The Clean Elections Act was modeled after the systems that were successfully implemented in Maine and Arizona in 2000. Over half of the Maine and Arizona legislators, from both major parties, have been elected as clean candidates.