Chapel Hill's voter-owned elections program had its first run in 2009 and is already being heralded as a success. Supporters say the municipal elections achieved all of the aims that taxpayer-funded campaigns are meant to achieve.

The only thing that public financing really achieved, however, was victory for the candidates who used it.

There are many lofty benefits promised by supporters of voter-owned elections. Proponents argue that taxpayer-funded campaigns will level the playing field and allow for more candidates who are unable to finance their campaigns to run. Last fall's municipal elections, however, suggest otherwise. The only candidates to use public financing were not newcomers to Chapel Hill politics. Mark Kleinschmidt was a member of the Town Council when he ran for mayor, and Penny Rich ran for the Town Council two years prior.

The candidates who funded their campaigns with taxpayer money sang the praises of the system. Kleinschmidt credited public financing with helping make the campaign substantive, by taking the focus off money and keeping it on the issues.

If his campaign was substantive, then Kleinschmidt's opponent, Matt Czajkowski, must have also been engaged in the issues. Kleinschmidt claims that public financing allowed for more substantive discussion, but he forgets to mention that Czajkowski chose not to use it. Czajkowski managed to keep his mind on the issues without using the taxpayers' money to finance his campaign.

Advocates of taxpayer-funded campaigns claim that public financing will encourage more candidate participation. However, in Chapel Hill's 2009 election, there were seven Town Council candidates, the same number as in 2005 and 2007 - both years without public financing. Three candidates ran for mayor, compared to two in previous elections. This can be attributed to Mayor Kevin Foys' retirement, which sparked greater candidate participation.

Another aspect to public financing that wasn't considered is the involvement of third parties. Under the rules, "outside entities," which can mean individuals, PACS, or any other special interest that can make "independent expenditures" (usually media purchases) are required to report their expenditures only if they are making contributions in support of a candidate who is not using taxpayer money.

Candidates who accept public funds are permitted to unlimited, unreported support from third parties. Such one-sided requirements serve to conceal the identity of third parties supporting taxpayer-funded candidates, an anonymity not enjoyed by candidates who do their own fundraising. This measure doesn't exactly square with claims that publicly financed campaigns level the playing field.

In spite of early proclamations of success, Chapel Hill's 2009 experiment with so-called voter-owned elections did not accomplish any of the goals established by their supporters. No new candidates opted for the taxpayer financing of their campaigns, the field of candidates did not expand, and different reporting requirements were applied.

In the end, taxpayers were left footing the bill for a "welfare for politicians" scheme that directed their hard-earned tax dollars to support the campaigns of candidates they may never have supported voluntarily.