Methods of campaign financing have been controversial since George Washington first ran for office, and debates over campaign finance reform have raged just as long. Contemporary critics of reform often contend that it would decrease electoral competition, voter turnout, and the amount of information voters receive about candidates. Money Matters subjects these criticisms to careful, systemic analysis-using simulations, aggregate vote analyses, and individual-level data analyses based on House elections-and concludes that reform, with modest public subsidies and spending limits, would enhance rather than diminish the U.S. system of democratic governance.