Public campaign finance has been a success so far, report finds

New York state had its first election last year with public campaign finance, and a new report from the Brennan Center for Justice concluded that the inaugural cycle with the new system demonstrated proof that it is working as intended.

For the first time last year, candidates for state Senate and Assembly were able to receive public funds to match individual donations of $250 or less to their campaigns at rates ranging from 12:1 to 8:1 for legislative candidates. The purpose of the new program was to increase the reliance of small donors – the state has historically had among the highest contribution limits in the entire country – and make it easier for first-time or lower-income candidates to run.

In total, 328 candidates signed up to participate in the program, with 192 of them qualifying for matching funds. In the state Senate, at least one candidate in 37 districts qualified for the program out of the 63 total. In the Assembly, 70 out of 150 districts had at least one candidate who qualified for matching funds. In all, slightly over 70% of all candidates last year signed up to receive public campaign funds, though not all of them qualified for matching funds. 

According to the Brennan Center report, candidates’ reliance on small donations skyrocketed last year compared to the 2022 and 2020 cycles. In 2024, small-dollar donations ($250 and under) – and the public matching funds that came from those donations – represented nearly 50% of candidates’ total campaign funding. In 2022, those small donations represented just 11% of campaign funding, and in 2020, they represented just 13% of total campaign funding. The increase in small contributions from within the district rose even more sharply. Those in-district small dollar contributions made up as low as 5% of total campaign funds in past cycles but accounted for 45% of campaign funds in 2024, according to the report.

“We saw the program is already delivering on its promise to make the government more accountable to all New York voters, regardless of wealth or position,” said Marina Pino, elections and government counsel at the Brennan Center and one of the report’s authors. “And we really saw that it had a major role in transporting the state's campaign finance landscape.”

The raw number of small donations from within the district also doubled, Brennan Center experts found. Last year, an estimated 50,800 New Yorkers made contributions of $250 or less to candidates around the state. That’s almost double the estimated 26,014 small-dollar contributors in the 2020 cycle, and it’s way up from the estimated 19,829 small-dollar contributors in the 2022 cycle. The number of larger contributors also decreased, though less dramatically, in 2024 compared to the previous two election cycles.

That all translated to far more money coming from small donations. In 2024, a total of $4.7 million came from small contributions – up from $2.1 million in the 2022 cycle and $2.3 million in the 2020 cycle. Those total numbers remained relatively steady overall for medium and large donations.

The Public Campaign Finance Board and the state Board of Elections are asking for $114.5 million in the upcoming state budget to continue funding the program and expand administrative capabilities for upcoming cycles, which the Brennan Center is supporting. The 2026 election will be the first time that the program will be used in races for statewide positions like governor and attorney general. “The program needs that full funding to continue to deliver these benefits,” Pino said. She added that the agency is trying to build a more “user-friendly” platform that was not available for candidates last year. “ Having something like this will allow for campaigns to stay on top of compliance.”

The rollout of the state public campaign financing program has not been without some hiccups. In 2023, there was some talk in Albany of delaying the rollout of the program, although that did not come to pass. Some lawmakers also attempted to make tweaks to the program, which good government groups opposed and the governor ultimately vetoed. Once the program actually got underway, some candidates were surprised to learn that they needed to wait for a physical check in the first round of public matching fund distribution, which led to some unexpected delays in receiving campaign cash. And reporting from The New York Times shortly after primary season revealed what appeared to be fraud from at least one candidate who participated in the program.

The Brennan Center report did not explore potential fraud in the first outing of statewide public campaign financing or the measures in place meant to prevent it. The state program has been criticized as less stringent when it comes to weeding out fraud than New York City’s matching fund program, which has been in place for much longer. But Pino said that the Brennan Center is confident in the state’s auditing process and with the routine disclosure reports candidates must file. “We know that fraud is exceedingly rare in public financing programs, and when it does happen, it gets caught,” she said.

Late last year, Republicans – who have opposed the matching funds system even though some GOP candidates made use of it – also denounced a rule change to the system that allows candidates to transfer large amounts of money from their campaign accounts to party accounts, which could include public dollars that are meant to be returned if they are unspent. Republicans claimed that this was done to benefit Democrats who transferred significant funds to the state party that had public dollars mixed in, while Democrats denied wrongdoing and said that such transfers were permissible, with the rule change offering clarity. Pino did not offer an opinion on that rule change but said that “it's important to monitor actual implementation of that rule to see if any additional safeguards are warranted.”