Ensuring Baltimore's 'Fair Elections Fund' is indeed fair

America has a problem with big money in politics. In Washington, D.C., state legislatures and city halls, a small pool, comprised of extremely wealthy, white and overwhelmingly male donors, determines who runs for office, who wins and what policies top the agenda.

Elections funded primarily by rich, white donors mean that candidates as a whole are less likely to prioritize the needs of people of color and working families. Additionally, the prevalence of big money means candidates of color, women and working-class people are shut out of the process, further diminishing the voices of voters from these communities.

Baltimore is on its way toward a real solution to the problem of big money in politics. The Baltimore Fair Elections Fund, a public financing program that would match small-donor contributions, was approved by 75 percent of Baltimore voters in the November election.

Through this program, candidates for mayor, City Council and comptroller who opt into the program receive public matching funds for small dollar contributions to their campaigns. When candidates opt in, they agree to reject contributions from corporations and agree to accept individual contributions only up to a certain limit. Matching funds would be tiered, with more matching dollars awarded for the smallest donations.

It is a promising program that has successfully been implemented in cities around the country and in Montgomery County. Howard and Prince George’s counties passed similar legislation last year, and Baltimore County Executive Johnny Olszewski has introduced public financing legislation as well.

Large donations play an outsized role in contributions to Baltimore candidates. According to an upcoming report from Demos, a national think tank for democracy reform, those who are more likely to donate in amounts of less than $50 — including women, communities of color and low-income people — better reflect Baltimore’s diverse residents. But their presence in the donor class plummets as contribution size increases, which is exactly what happened in the city’s 2016 elections. Of the total funds raised by candidates from individuals, 76 percent came from contributions of $500 or more, compared to 2.5 percent from gifts of less than $50.

The research suggests that Baltimore reflects the problem we see nationwide: The donors who fuel some of the city’s most important races do not reflect Baltimore’s racial and economic diversity. Donors to the 2016 mayoral and council elections were 64 percent white and 59 percent male, and their median household income topped $100,000. Compare that to the actual demographics of Baltimore, which is 30 percent white and 47 percent male, with a median household income of only $47,000. While all donors may have an interest in seeing Baltimore move forward, the perspectives on strategy and policy priorities are weighted heavily in favor of those who can write big checks.

The people of Baltimore rejected this distortion of democracy with their overwhelming support for a proven way of funding elections that elevates the role of everyday people. The Fair Elections Fund holds the potential to put the people at the center of Baltimore’s democracy and to reverse the dynamic in which wealthy donors’ voices count more than those of regular voters and constituents.

While the details of the Baltimore Fair Elections Fund are still being worked out, there are concrete ways to ensure that the program is both robust and equitable, elevating the influence of the small-donor pool:

Baltimore’s Fair Elections Fund could be an antidote to big money that will strengthen local democracy. It could make Baltimore a leader among cities across the country, sparking the kind of change we need to increase the voice and power of the people and to move the country closer to a truly representative democracy.

Kobi Little (Twitter: @KobiLittle) is chairman of the Maryland Task Force on Reconciliation and Equity and president of Baltimore NAACP.