Committee advances bill letting Virginia localities set up voluntary 'clean campaign' funds

The House Privileges and Elections Committee advanced House Bill 17-61, a measure giving local governments the option to create voluntary public campaign-financing programs commonly called “clean campaign” funds. The committee voted to report the bill to the full House on a 12-9 roll call.

The bill would allow a locality, under the limits of the Dillon Rule, to adopt an ordinance establishing a public fund and program that candidates may opt into rather than relying solely on private contributions. The patron, Delegate Simon, told the committee the bill is intended to give localities “the authority and a little bit of guidance” to experiment with different public-financing approaches: “If you want to in your locality, establish something you can call it a clean campaign fund,” he said.

Why it matters: supporters said the option could reduce candidates’ reliance on large private contributions and help diversify the pool of viable candidates by giving smaller-dollar, first-time, or working candidates an alternative to traditional fundraising. Opponents and some members pressed the bill’s practical limits, including how much money localities would need to set aside, whether a locality could require candidates to stay in the program once they opted in, and whether local programs could conflict with state law.

Key provisions and clarifications discussed - Voluntary participation: Under the bill, participation in a locality’s public-financing program would be entirely voluntary; a candidate could continue to raise funds the traditional way if they chose. - State oversight and conformity: The bill says the state board (the State Board of Elections) would exercise oversight to keep local programs consistent with state campaign finance law; localities may adopt rules that are stricter than state law but not looser. - Designated accounts and restrictions: Because the programs would use public funds, participating campaigns would be required to establish a separate, designated depository account for the public funds; transfers to other candidates or personal use would be prohibited. - Funding and timing: The bill does not appropriate state funds. Delegate Simon said the enactment date in the bill is July 1, 2025, and that a locality would need to pass an ordinance before a program could operate; he noted it was unlikely many localities could stand up a program in time for the upcoming November elections.

Public testimony - Mary Crutchfield, League of Women Voters of Virginia: “HB 17 61 is a may, not must, bill that will give localities that wish to provide a public funding option for certain local elections the opportunity to do so via local ordinance.” She said public financing “reduces candidates’ reliance on large-dollar donations and donations from vested special interests.” - Wes Gobar, Clean Virginia: “It has no budgetary impact, and locality should be allowed to serve as the laboratories of democracy in the Commonwealth,” he said, adding the bill is “about equity and campaign finance.” - Nancy Morgan, Big Money Out (online): She told the committee the measure is implemented in other states and “offers equity in terms of running for office.”

Committee questions and responses Members asked whether local programs could be inconsistent with state law, whether localities could fund programs with tax dollars or other local appropriations, and whether candidates could opt out midcampaign after receiving public funds. Delegate Simon said the bill allows localities latitude on program design but requires state-board oversight for conformity; localities could appropriate funds if they chose; and a locality could write an ordinance that barred a candidate from accepting public funds and then switching back to private fundraising, but that particular rule would be a local decision.

What happens next The committee reported the bill to the full House by a 12-9 vote; the bill will proceed through the House legislative process and, if reported from the House, may be considered by the full House and, later, by the Senate.

Ending note Supporters described the bill as an optional tool for smaller localities or those seeking to reduce the influence of large donors; the committee debate focused on design trade-offs — who pays, how much, and how to prevent abuse — and left program details to local ordinance language if localities choose to adopt a fund.