<P> In recent years, the movement for "Clean Elections" appears to have stalled . Proposition 89, a California ballot proposition in November 2006, sponsored by the California Nurses Union, that would have provided for public financing of political campaigns and strict contribution limits on corporations, was defeated . In 2008, the non-partisan California Fair Elections Act passed the legislature and Governor Schwarzenegger signed it, but the law did not take effect unless approved by voters in a referendum in 2010 . In June 2010, voters soundly rejected the measure, 57% to 43% . A proposal to implement Clean Elections in Alaska was voted down by a two - to - one margin in 2008, and a pilot program in New Jersey was terminated in 2008 amid concern about its constitutionality and that the law was ineffective in accomplishing its goals . In 2010, Portland voters used a referendum to repeal the clean elections law, originally enacted by the city council . In 2006, in Randall v. Sorrell, the Supreme Court held that large parts of Vermont's Clean Elections law were unconstitutional . In 2008, the Supreme Court's decision in Davis v. Federal Election Commission suggested that a key part of most Clean Election laws--a provision granting extra money (or "rescue funds") to participating candidates who are being outspent by non-participating candidates--is unconstitutional . In 2011, in Arizona Free Enterprise Club's Freedom Club PAC v. Bennett, the Supreme Court struck down the matching funds provision of Arizona's law on First Amendment grounds . </P> <P> A 2016 experimental study in the American Journal of Political Science found that politicians made themselves more available for meetings with individuals when they believed that the individuals had donated to their campaign . A 2011 study found that "even after controlling for past contracts and other factors, companies that contributed more money to federal candidates subsequently received more contracts ." A 2016 study in the Journal of Politics found that industries overseen by committees decreased their contributions to congresspeople who recently departed from the committees and that they immediately increase their contributions to new members of the committees, which is "evidence that corporations and business PACs use donations to acquire immediate access and favor--suggesting they at least anticipate that the donations will influence policy ." Research by University of Chicago political scientist Anthony Fowler and Northwestern University political scientists Haritz Garro and Jörg L. Spenkuch found no evidence that corporations that donated to a candidate received any monetary benefits from the candidate winning election . </P> <P> The Center for Responsive Politics reported that "Candidates with most financial support generally win ." They supported this with the following: </P> <Table> Candidates with most financial support generally win <Tr> <Th> </Th> <Th_colspan="2"> 2012 </Th> <Th_colspan="2"> 2014 </Th> <Th_colspan="2"> 2016 </Th> </Tr> <Tr> <Th> </Th> <Th> House </Th> <Th> Senate </Th> <Th> House </Th> <Th> Senate </Th> <Th> House </Th> <Th> Senate </Th> </Tr> <Tr> <Th> Biggest spender won </Th> <Td> 390 </Td> <Td> 23 </Td> <Td> 387 </Td> <Td> 33 </Td> <Td> 394 </Td> <Td> 29 </Td> </Tr> <Tr> <Th> number of races </Th> <Td> 424 </Td> <Td> 33 </Td> <Td> 413 </Td> <Td> 36 </Td> <Td> 412 </Td> <Td> 31 </Td> </Tr> <Tr> <Th> percentage won </Th> <Td> 92% </Td> <Td> 70% </Td> <Td> 94% </Td> <Td> 92% </Td> <Td> 96% </Td> <Td> 94% </Td> </Tr> </Table>

Why is campaign finance a concern in the united states