Editorial support in favor of saving the Citizens' Election Program
Hartford Courant
Connecticut Post
New Britain Herald
Stamford Advocate
The Day
The New Haven Register
Hartford Courant
Election Law Needs Change – Not Defense
Robert Satter
October 11, 2009
Richard Blumenthal is probably the best attorney general in Connecticut history. He mounts his white horse and, with bugles blaring — bugles always blaring — charges forth to right all sorts of perceived wrongs. But I wish just once he would stable that white horse and muffle the bugles.
He should withdraw his appeal of the federal District Court's decision declaring the Campaign Finance Reform Act unconstitutional for discriminating against minor party candidates. The simpler, faster and better way to save that important law is for the General Assembly to amend it.
Judge Stefan R. Underhill, in his 138-page opinion, brilliantly exposes the fundamental unfairness of that law as it applies to minority party candidates. He identifies the constitutional right involved as that of "political opportunity" — the right of access to and participation in the political process. Referring to minor parties, he says that "the competition of ideas" offered by minority and dissident political views "is at the core of our electoral process, representative democracy, and First Amendment freedoms."
The state law distinguishes between major and minor parties. A major party is one whose candidate for governor received at least 20 percent of the votes cast in the previous general election. Clearly, only the Republican and Democratic parties meet that standard.
Under the campaign finance law, the candidates of all parties must meet the minimum criteria of raising a specific dollar amount in small contributions from a specified number of residents in their district to be eligible for public campaign funds. For example, a House candidate must raise $5,000 in amounts of $100 or less from at least 150 residents in his district. But the law imposes on minor party candidates one of two additional requirements not imposed on major party candidates.
One of these requirements is that a candidate of the minor party must have received 20 percent of the total vote cast for that office in the preceding general election in order to qualify for a full grant ($25,000 for a state representative). On a legislative district basis, that is virtually impossible for a minor party candidate.
In fact, if the same criterion applied to major party candidates in 2008, a major party candidate would not have been eligible to receive automatic public funding in fully 44 percent of the Senate and House districts (82 of 187) because in 2006 his political party either did not put up a candidate in that district or the candidate put up did not receive 20 percent of the vote.
The alternative requirement for minor party candidates is that for full public grants, they must obtain signatures on a petition equal to 20 percent of the total vote cast in the previous election for that office. With no party staff, that is an arduous task for such candidates. If they have to pay signature gatherers at the going rate of $1.50 a signature, the cost, even for a state representative candidate, could run more than $5,000.
Judge Underhill held that either of those requirements imposed such a discriminatory burden on minor candidates as to unconstitutionally deprive them of the political opportunity to participate in the political process.
Blumenthal argued that such criteria were necessary to save the state from paying campaign grants to small, splinter parties. Underhill refuted that concern by pointing to the experience of Maine and Arizona, which have public campaign finance laws with no additional qualifying criteria imposed on minor party candidates. Neither of those states have had an undue number of minor party candidates qualify for campaign funding.
Underhill noted that the bill Gov. M. Jodi Rell submitted to the legislature did not contain different criteria for minor and major party candidates. The judge implied in his opinion that such a change in the law would go a long way to making it constitutional.
Underhill's opinion is factually and legally so sound that an appeal to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals appears fruitless. But the appeal itself casts the pall of legal uncertainty over state funding for campaigns in 2010, which for the first time will include paying for gubernatorial races.
Sir Richard should dismount from his white steed, abandon his appeal, and let the legislature speedily amend the law so it will pass constitutional muster.
Robert Satter is a judge trial referee sitting in the Hartford Superior Court. His e-mail address is bsatter@att.net.
Copyright © 2009, The Hartford Courant
Connecticut Post
Shakespeare and public financing
Elona Vaisnys
10/09/2009
Program is a boon for democracy
When I was in high school, everyone studied a speech by Shakespeare that went: "Friends, Romans, countrymen, lend me your ears." Mark Antony, the speaker, deftly works the crowd into condemning the universally respected Brutus.
That speech jumped to mind when I read an Aug. 12 online column by a state legislator, who shall remain nameless, arguing against public campaign financing.
Mark Antony started his speech by calling Brutus -- "noble Brutus." The legislator writes, "In a noble experiment launched two years ago, Connecticut chose to provide financing for political campaigns." But hark, as Shakespeare would say, "Unless there is a cut, we will spend $60 million of Connecticut taxpayer money to provide politicians with buttons, bumper stickers and robo-calls during your dinner." He concludes: "The right choice seems pretty clear."
That would be to kill the public campaign financing law, right? Not.
If you read the July 30 testimony before Congress by Jeffrey B. Garfield, executive director of the Connecticut State Elections Enforcement Commission, you would know that Garfield judges public campaign financing during the 2008 Connecticut campaigns for state office an "unqualified success." This comes from a man who has been with CEEC for 30 years.
To qualify for CEP, candidates must collect $5 to $100 contributions, thus opening the door for people of very modest means to become genuine contributors in a candidate's
campaign.
Once a candidate qualifies for CEP funding, there is no more fundraising. He or she can give undivided attention to voters and their concerns.
In 2008, 75 percent of those running for state office chose CEP funding, and the number of women was, at 102, an all-time high, testified Garfield.
Together with full public campaigns financing, the Connecticut General Assembly instituted a ban on contributions by PACs, lobbyists and state contractors, giving political newcomers a chance. In 2008 newcomers fared better than in previous years.
When those running for office have the same amount of financing, citizens are able to compare candidates' leadership abilities by how candidates choose to spend their resources.
It took 30 years of effort by a coalition of the League of Women Voters of Connecticut and other groups to persuade our Legislature to provide the means for running clean contests for elective state office in Connecticut. But we now have it. Let's tell our representatives that we want to keep it.
Maybe now qualified people who previously chose not to run because of the energy they would have to sink into raising money (and later into contending with pressures from big donors) will now give public service another look. That may be happening already, because, according to Garfield, more than three-fourths of first-time legislative candidates said that a very important factor in their decision to run was the availability of a public campaign grant.
By the way, the Citizens' Election Fund receives its funds from the state's Unclaimed Property Fund, not from tax revenues.
Elona Vaisnys is a member of the Hamden-North Haven League of Women Voters.
New Britain Herald
OUR VIEW: Campaign spending reform has its place
Saturday, August 29, 2009
Federal Judge Stefan Underhill has declared unconstitutional sweeping campaign reforms passed in 2005 in response to corruption scandals involving former Gov. John Rowland and other top officials. In effect, he has thrown out a law that many consider a model for the entire county, a bill that banned political action committee, lobbyist and contractor funds from state campaigns, with the goal of reducing the role of special interests in state elections. Moreover, it put spending limits on participating campaigns.
But, says Judge Underhill, it also gives an unfair advantage to members of the major parties.
He said that a part of the law that provides a voluntary public financing scheme for candidates for statewide offices and state lawmakers puts an unconstitutional burden on minor party candidates’ First Amendment right to political opportunity, The Associated Press reported.
Specifically, he says the program, known as the Citizens Election Program, enhances major party candidates’ strength beyond their past ability to raise contributions.
Under the law, candidates can receive $25,000 for a state House race and $85,000 for a state Senate race if they raise a certain number of contributions in $100 or lower increments from individuals. But minor party and petitioning candidates must satisfy additional requirements, including having to obtain signatures or having received a certain percentage of votes in the last general election.
Underhill said the qualifying criteria for minor party candidates to get public funding are so difficult to achieve that most never become eligible for public funding at even reduced levels.
His ruling, which Attorney General Richard Blumenthal has already said he will appeal, comes in response to suits by the Green, Libertarian and other parties.
Certainly, minor parties have played an important role in our state. Some minority party candidates offer new ideas and a refreshing change in leadership as compared to the entrenched partisanship of the major parties; they deserve an equal chance to participate in the political process.
At the same time, the overall benefits of this law are so substantial that we all suffer from this ruling. The major provisions of this law must be preserved and we applaud the attorney general’s request for a stay that would give the Legislature time to amend its stance on minority candidates.
Stamford Advocate
Bring finance law into compliance
10/07/2009
State legislators should be proud of the work that went into the state's Campaign Finance Reform Act of 2005.
And they should set to work as quickly as possible to fix the parts of it that a federal judge says are unfair to candidates from minor political parties.
Though U.S. District Court Judge Stefan Underhill ruled that a section of the act is unconstitutional, it's also worth noting the praise he employed in his 138-page decision.
"Good motives underlie the enactment," he wrote, "... to combat actual and perceived corruption arising out of large contributions from private sources ..."
Underhill cited the state's "goundbreaking efforts to increase the public's confidence in state lawmakers and to promote the integrity of the electoral system as a whole. Spurred on by a regrettable legacy of corruption that has pervaded all levels of elected office in recent decades, Connecticut is now commendably at the forefront of a nationwide movement to increase transparency in the political process," Underhill wrote.
All that having been said, the judge also found that Connecticut's law puts minority parties at a disadvantage given their histories of paltry fundraising, among other factors. The state has appealed Underhill's ruling. But it seems more sensible to rework those parts of the act that the judge found objectionable.
There are several members of the General Assembly from our area who, as members of the Government Administration and Elections Committee, would seem to be in position to get some action moving. They include state Reps. Livvy Floren (R-Greenwich, Stamford), Patricia Miller (D-Stamford), Peggy Reeves (D-Norwalk, Wilton), John Hetherington (R-New Canaan, Wilton, ranking member), and state Sen. Gayle Slossberg, D-Milford, who is co-chairwoman of the committee.
The act is a good one and legislators, rather than waiting for the outcome of the appeal, should do whatever tweaking is necessary so the act can pass muster and remain in effect for the elections of 2010.
The Day
Save campaign reform, not two-party rule
9/27/2009
Voters will soon learn what the higher priority is for the state's elected leaders - ending the corrupting influence of special-interest money in Connecticut politics or protecting the two-party system. It appears they can no longer do both.
The Democratic-controlled legislature and Republican Gov. M. Jodi Rell took a bold, bipartisan step in 2005 when they approved among the most comprehensive public-financing laws in the country. Special-interest money flows most easily to incumbents, so it was selfless to see a group of incumbents provide a level-funding playing field to future opponents.
As crafted, the law provides a choice, accept public financing or stick with the special-interest groups. In 2008, the first year the system was in place for state legislative elections, the vast majority of candidates chose public financing.
The law requires candidates to demonstrate a broad base of support before getting any public money. A Democrat or Republican state Senate candidate must raise a minimum of $15,000 from at least 300 small donations, ranging from $5 to no more than $100 each. The threshold for a House race is $5,000 in small donations from at least 150 residents. Senate candidates can thus qualify for up to $85,000 in public financing, House contestants $25,000.
For the office of governor - 2010 would be the first public-financed race - candidates can get up to $3 million after raising $250,000 in small donations.
It is a good law, a major step away from Connecticut's reputation as Corrupticut. Unfortunately, it failed on one point - not treating minor parties equally. In addition to the fundraising requirements, third-party candidates, unless their party had substantial polling numbers in a prior election, also have to gather signatures from at least 10 percent of the voters in the district, 20 percent to get the full amount of funding.
That is a burdensome requirement and one we expressed concern about when the law passed. But worse than that, a federal judge has now decided it is unconstitutional.
Last month U.S. District Court Judge Stefan R. Underhill, ruling in a lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union on behalf of the Green Party and other minor parties, struck down portions of the law. Judge Underhill praised the spirit of the law, but found it “imposes an unconstitutional, discriminatory burden on minor party candidates.”
The legislature anticipated potential trouble when it passed the bill. It contains language stating that if the law is subject to a court order the April before an election, it will automatically be repealed. With its demise the prohibition on contributions from lobbyists and state contractors would end as well. With no public financing, special-interest money would rush back into the system.
After working together to transform Connecticut's electoral process, Gov. Rell and the General Assembly cannot allow this to happen. A special session is called for with the first order of business being the removal of the time bomb in the bill tied to court action. The legislature should then remove the requirement that third-party candidates gather signatures to gain funding eligibility.
The judge also found unconstitutional a provision in the law allowing for increased public funding to candidates facing big-spending, millionaire challengers. That rule also needs adjustment.
Waiting for the next legislative session in February 2010 would be too late. Candidates need to know soon what the rules of the game will be. Inaction will mean chaos.
Meanwhile the appeals can continue, and later adjustments to the law made as needed. Failing to act will invite the return of corruption and send a signal to voters that the true priority is maintaining two-party power, not reforming the system.
The New Haven Register
EDITORIAL: Public campaign finance law is sound
October 11, 2009
If necessary, legislature can drop higher threshold for third-party candidates.
A federal judge has ruled that the state’s public campaign finance law is unconstitutional because it discriminates against third-party candidates. Instead, we think the law guards against the waste of public money on fringe candidates with no chance of winning election.
The law, which applies to state offices, requires that candidates raise money on their own before they can qualify for public financing. A candidate for state Senate must raise $15,000 in contributions of no more than $100 from at least 300 residents of his legislative district; a candidate for state representative, $5,000 from 150 residents. In return for the public money, the candidates agree to limit their election spending.
The law is a model for national public campaign financing. Acknowledging the law’s “good motives,” U.S. District Judge Stefan Underhill has stayed his ruling while the state appeals it.
The public campaign finance law was passed after fundraising violations developed into a state corruption scandal that ended with, among others, a former governor and a former state treasurer being sent to prison.
The law eliminates politicians’ reliance on special interest money and was intended to rein in escalating campaign spending. The law also was intended to create a more level playing field between challengers and incumbents. In practice, it has so far served as an incumbency protection act by making easier incumbents’ task of raising money for re-election.
In last year’s general election, only five candidates of minority parties qualified for grants, while 135 Democratic candidates and 96 Republican candidates received grants.
At issue in the court challenge are additional requirements for minority party and petition candidates. A minority party candidate for state senator, for example, is eligible only for the full general election grant of $85,000 if the party’s candidate in the prior election received 20 percent of the votes cast. A third-party candidate is ineligible for any money if the party’s candidate in the previous election got less than 10 percent of the vote.
The additional requirements are not essential to the law’s functioning as long as the basic requirement of fundraising from small contributors remains intact. The state should continue to appeal the judge’s ruling while the legislature considers whether to modify eligibility for candidates of minority parties.
URL: http://www.nhregister.com/articles/2009/10/11/opinion/doc4ad14b4fec182240162510.prt