campfin01

CT Campaign Finance Reform down for the count? Wealthy candidates opt out in Gubernatorial race...

C A M P A I G N F I N A N C E R E F O R M R E D U X ?
What do we know about where the money is coming from and when do we find out?
Older news.

U.S. Appeals Court Upholds, Rejects Parts Of State Campaign Law
By EDMUND H. MAHONY, The Hartford Courant
11:34 AM EDT, July 13, 2010

In a decision that will have immediate implications for one of the most competitive state political campaign cycles in years, a federal appeals court overruled a lower court's conclusion that the state's landmark campaign finance reform law unconstitutionally discriminates against minor party candidates.

However, in a densely worded, 56- page decision, the U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the lower court's invalidation of two of the finance reform law's "trigger provisions" that govern excess and independent campaign expenditures. The decision, written by appeals court Judge Jose Cabranes of New Haven, said the trigger provisions violate the first amendment rights of candidates and other individuals and organizations to "spend their own funds on campaign speech."

The decision on public financing of campaigns was one of two released in New York Tuesday on the state's campaign finance reform law.

A second 38-page decision upheld some and rejected other parts of the state law restricting campaign contributions and political activity by lobbyists and state contractors.

The appeals court upheld U.S. District Judge Stefan R. Underhill's conclusion that the law's ban on contributions by state contractors, prospective state contractors, the principals of contractors and prospective state contractors is valid under first amendment free speech protections.

But the appeals court reversed Underhill and struck down the provisions of the law that bans contributions by lobbyists and their families and that prohibits contractors, lobbyists, and their families from soliciting contributions on behalf of candidates. Such prohibitions violate the first amendment, the decision said.

The appeals court ordered ordered Underhill to revisit some issues connected with the law's trigger provisions.

Underhill's ruling 10 months ago gutted the campaign finance reform law and through the ongoing elections cycle into disarray by creating confusion among candidates deciding whether to seek public financing under the law.

Underhill invalidated the part of the law that was supposed to level the electoral playing field between traditionally well-funded major party candidates and the candidates from smaller parties and smaller field operations who historically have had less success raising money.

Underhill said the state's landmark campaign finance reform law had the opposite effect from that intended by its authors. He said it put minor party candidates at a disadvantage by institutionalizing what he said amounted to an unconstitutional public subsidy for better organized Republicans and Democrats.

While the law's mechanism for delivering public tax dollars to political campaigns has dominated political talk about the law, Underhill upheld another of the law's provisions which banned lobbyists and state contractors, as well as their families, from contributing to or advocating on behalf of political candidates. He said the reform law unconstitutionally restricted the first amendment rights of lobbyists and contractors by locking them out of the political process.

The uncertainty Underhill's ruling created among candidates looking forward to the promise of tens of thousands of dollars threw a wrench into the gears of aspiring campaigns. It provoked an all-out legal counter attack by the state beginning late last year.

Tuesday's ruling was an expedited decision, a recognition by the appeals court of the of the importance of resolving Constitutional questions about the reform law as one of the most competitive state campaign seasons in recent memories races toward a conclusion in November.

Copyright © 2010, The Hartford Courant

First audit finds problems at campaign finance agency
Jacqueline Rabe, CT MIRROR
May 28, 2010

The state agency responsible for dispensing millions of dollars in public grants for candidates to finance their campaigns received a harsh audit last week. State Auditor Robert G. Jaekle said several findings in the 15-page audit of the State Elections Enforcement Commission are common, but three critiques stand out. Among other things, the auditors found that nearly $200,000 in expenses for equipment or services lacked documentation.

In a review of 25 expenditures during the first three fiscal years of the campaign finance system, SEEC did not have the proper receipts and paperwork on two occasions, or 8 percent of the time.
The state paid $192,261 to a private contractor for information technology, and no SEEC supervisor approved the purchase or verified that the amount billed represented services rendered, according to the audit.

"That is uncommon," Jaekle said. "It is possible the state paid much more than what it actually got."

The SEEC had weeks to produce the documents to prove they were accurately billed, he said. The state also paid $4,190 for electronic data equipment but only had receipts for $599 worth of equipment.

"We found the agency paid for something and did not check what they were being billed for," Jaekle said. "They might have paid for something they didn't get. I'm am not saying that's what happened, but it opens the door to questions when the proper documentation is not there."

Another uncommon critique is an agency policy that allowed managers to work an alternate work schedule, different from the 40 hours over five days required by state law. For example, managers were being allowed to work four days in one week as long as the 40 hours were completed.

"That is unique and it's not permitted," said Jaekle. "It's hard to track hours worked if someone is allowed to come in and leave at different times every day. It could mean they are getting credit for hours not worked."

This is the first state audit of the SEEC since the inauguration of the state's public campaign finance system in 2005. The good news for the agency is there were no criticisms of the grants being awarded to candidates, which is where the agency spends the bulk of its money. That doesn't mean there weren't some discrepancies. It just means they weren't any in the small sample the state auditors reviewed. The SEEC also has a comprehensive auditing system to review grants paid.

The agency has $38.5 million cash on hand as of May 30 to spend on grants for the upcoming election cycle. Additionally, the administration side has a $5.1 million budget for its 53 workers and other expenses this year. Nancy Nicolescu, spokeswoman for the SEEC, said all the problems outlined in the audit have been addressed and solved.

"Yes, it's fixed," she said. "The SEEC has implemented the appropriate protocols necessary to validate the receipts of services... before the disbursement of state funds."

The agency has also hired a new fiscal administrative manager "to ensure the agency is fully compliant," she said.

David Barry, who was previously in the fiscal office at the Department of Corrections, was hired three months ago. The SEEC also has a new executive director - Albert Lenge - since the audit was completed, replacing retired Jeffrey B. Garfield. State legislators were quick to defend the SEEC.

"They've come light years since the time this audit began," Sen. Gayle S. Slossberg, D-Milford, co-chairwoman of the Government Administration and Elections Committee, said.

The fact that this was the first audit to be released in more than four years does worry Slossberg though. There is no date set for when the next audit will be completed, but Jaekle said he expects it to be at least two years, but probably closer to three years.

"I think that it's something worth talking about if we are doing audits enough," Slossberg said. "I think the accountability should be there. But if it's just a duplication or redundant that may not yield us any different results then I am not sure it's needed."

Larger offices, such as the comptroller's office and the Department of Social Services, do have annual audits.

"We have two options; look at the procedures to make sure the recommendations in the audit are being made or you start to ask the question if one agency should be handling all of the administrative work regarding receipts. ...That might be a policy worth pursuing," Slossberg said.

Democrats Push to Require Campaign Disclosure
NYTIMES
By ERIC LICHTBLAU
April 12, 2010

WASHINGTON — The White House and leading Democrats in Congress are close to proposing legislation that would force private companies and groups to disclose their behind-the-scenes financial involvement in political campaigns and advertising, officials involved in the discussions said Monday.

One provision would require the chief executive of any company or group that is the main backer of a campaign advertisement to personally appear in television and radio spots to acknowledge the sponsorship, the officials said.

The legislation is being developed in response to a major Supreme Court decision in January that found that the government could not ban corporations from spending in political campaigns.

The decision, a break from precedent, drew strong personal protest from President Obama. White House and Congressional leaders have been working for the last three months to find a way to stem what they predict will be a flood of corporate money flowing into November’s midterm elections.

Democrats say they think the debate gives them an attractive political issue. It allows them to position themselves against Wall Street and corporate money in politics while railing against what they view as the Supreme Court’s pro-business stance just as a new vacancy has opened on the court.

Democrats in Congress, led in the Senate by Charles E. Schumer of New York and in the House by Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, could announce details of the plan as early as this week. They are trying to get a Republican in each chamber to sign on as a co-sponsor but plan to move ahead even without bipartisan support, the officials said.

In an interview Monday, Mr. Schumer said: “What we’re trying to do first is make sure everything we do is within the constitutional mandate set by the court. And second, we’re trying to make it a bill that can get broad bipartisan support.”

In reviewing the Supreme Court’s decision, lawyers for the administration and Congressional Democrats soon realized that the majority’s strong language left them little room to try to ban corporate money altogether, according to people involved in the discussions. They have focused instead on forcing public disclosure of political backers as a way to bring transparency to the process and, perhaps, to discourage excessive corporate involvement.

“What we’ve been trying to do,” said one Congressional official who has worked on the plan, “is to set up a really robust disclosure mechanism.”

As one example of the types of spending they want disclosed, officials pointed to the millions of dollars some of the nation’s biggest insurance companies gave to the Chamber of Commerce to help underwrite advertisements attacking the Obama administration’s health care plan.

The Democrats’ proposal would require corporations or groups like labor unions, advocacy groups and so-called 527 organizations that are involved in political expenditures to identify all their financial donors or set up separate accounts to handle political spending and identify the donors to that account.

With some exceptions, the proposal would also ban political expenditures by government contractors, companies that received bailout money from the government under the Troubled Asset Relief Program and companies that have more than 20 percent foreign ownership.

Officials at the White House have been closely involved in working out the details of the plan, but they have made sure to let lawmakers take the lead to smooth the legislative process.

The proposal could present political difficulties for Republicans in Congress. Some Republican leaders praised the Supreme Court decision in the January case, Citizens United v. Federal Election Committee, calling it an affirmation of free speech, but at the same time, Republicans have often endorsed more disclosure as the key to a campaign finance overhaul.

Mr. Van Hollen, the House sponsor of the plan, said in an interview Monday that the stakes were high to get the bill passed before the midterm campaigns heat up.

He predicted that without action by Congress, “we’ll see millions and millions of dollars in corporate money funneled into these campaigns through dummy corporations and front companies.”

Some advocates of a campaign finance overhaul pushed unsuccessfully for stronger remedies in the Democrats’ plan. One proposal would have required a company to get approval from its shareholders before spending money on political advertisements or campaigns.

For jurisdictional and political reasons, officials said, Democrats decided to leave that issue out of the legislation being drafted.

McCain says campaign finance reform is dead
YAHOO
January 24, 2010

WASHINGTON – Sen. John McCain says the movement he led to reform how political campaigns are financed is dead.

McCain says the Supreme Court has spoken on the constitutionality of political contributions by corporations. The Arizona Republican had sought to regulate them with a landmark campaign finance law he wrote with Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis.

Last week the Supreme Court ruled that corporations may spend as freely as they like to support or oppose candidates for president and Congress.

McCain says there's not much that can be done about campaign financing now. Still, he predicts a backlash over time from voters once they see the amount of money that corporations and unions pour into political campaigns.

McCain spoke Sunday on CBS' "Face the Nation."

Supreme Court rolls back limits on spending by corporations in federal election campaigns
Hartford Courant
MARK SHERMAN, Associated Press Writer
10:19 AM EST, January 21, 2010

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court has ruled that corporations may spend freely to support or oppose candidates for president and Congress, easing decades-old limits on their participation in federal campaigns.

By a 5-4 vote, the court on Thursday overturned a 20-year-old ruling that said corporations can be prohibited from using money from their general treasuries to pay for their own campaign ads. The decision, which almost certainly will also allow labor unions to participate more freely in campaigns, threatens similar limits imposed by 24 states.

It leaves in place a prohibition on direct contributions to candidates from corporations and unions.

Critics of the stricter limits have argued that they amount to an unconstitutional restraint of free speech, and the court majority apparently agreed.

"The censorship we now confront is vast in its reach," Justice Anthony Kennedy said in his majority opinion, joined by his four more conservative colleagues.

However, Justice John Paul Stevens, dissenting from the main holding, said, "The court's ruling threatens to undermine the integrity of elected institutions around the nation."

Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor joined Stevens' dissent, parts of which he read aloud in the courtroom.

The justices also struck down part of the landmark McCain-Feingold campaign finance bill that barred union- and corporate-paid issue ads in the closing days of election campaigns.

Advocates of strong campaign finance regulations have predicted that a court ruling against the limits would lead to a flood of corporate and union money in federal campaigns as early as this year's midterm congressional elections.

The decision, written by Justice Anthony Kennedy, removes limits on independent expenditures that are not coordinated with candidates' campaigns.

The case also does not affect political action committees, which mushroomed after post-Watergate laws set the first limits on contributions by individuals to candidates. Corporations, unions and others may create PACs to contribute directly to candidates, but they must be funded with voluntary contributions from employees, members and other individuals, not by corporate or union treasuries.

Campaign finance reform law faces uncertain future
By Mary E. O’Leary, New Haven Register Topics Editor
Sunday, December 13, 2009

Advocates are pushing for a fix to the state’s campaign financing law, sooner rather than later, as federal courts begin hearings next month that could further complicate the 2010 elections.

Driving the issue is the potential that there will be two millionaire candidates for governor — Republican Tom Foley and Democrat Ned Lamont — who will opt out of public financing, which could leave opponents at a big disadvantage unless there is an approved public funding method to help them compete.

Portions of Connecticut’s campaign finance legislation were ruled unconstitutional by U.S. District Judge Stefan R. Underhill in August and an appeal by state Attorney General Richard Blumenthal is being fast-tracked for oral arguments before the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals on Jan. 13.

Meanwhile, the areas Underhill ruled against, namely additional requirements for minor parties to qualify for assistance, and a “trigger,” that would release additional funds for candidates being badly outspent by wealthy opponents, are stayed until a final ruling.

On the national level, the betting among high court watchers, is that the majority of justices will overturn 100 years of legal precedent that reined in corporate and union campaign spending.

Connecticut is one of 24 states where bans on direct corporate and union funds could be overturned in the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission case.

It involved a fairly narrow question on whether a film critical of Hillary Clinton in 2007 was subject to election disclosure and funding rules. But, in an unusual move, the Supreme Court ordered a second hearing to address the underlying question of whether corporations have a constitutional right to spend unlimited amounts of money to promote or defeat candidates.

Having a constitutionally sound law in place for Connecticut is not only important to address Underhill’s concerns, but also to be able to withstand the flood of corporate money, if the Supreme Court allows direct corporate financing of elections, said Karen Hobart Flynn, vice president for state operations at Common Cause.

The wide open gubernatorial election in 11 months, now that incumbent GOP Gov. M. Jodi Rell has decided not to run, has attracted six Democrats: Lamont, Secretary of the State Susan Bysiewicz, former Stamford Mayor Dannel Malloy, East Hartford state Sen. Gary LeBeau, Ridgefield First Selectman Rudy Marconi and former House Speaker Jim Amann, who is the only officially declared candidate.

On the Republican side, Lt. Gov. Michael Fedele is running, as is Scott Merrell and Foley.

Rell has suggested that lawmakers take up changes to the public financing law that would make the qualifying rules uniform for majority and minority parties, reduce the size of the grants and delay the increase in grant amounts until 2014.

‘ALL IN LIMBO’

Public financing went into effect in Connecticut in 2008 for state legislative seats at a cost of some $9 million with almost 80 percent of candidates participating. The 2010 election will be first time it would cover the statewide offices.

The uncertainty of the rules and how much will be available in the public financing system has candidates more than a little nervous.

“All of us are totally up in the air,” Amann said. “We are all in limbo.”

The largest fundraisers, as of the October filing, are Malloy with $373,000 from almost 1,700 contributors and $338,000 from 1,444 contributors to Bysiewicz, both of whom as still operating under exploratory committees, which allow them to collect $375 per person.

To qualify for public financing, gubernatorial candidates are limited to $100 per person and must raise $250,000 to qualify for $1 million in funding for a primary and $3 million for the general election.

Rell suggests that the funds for a primary be reduced to $250,000 and for the general election to $2.5 million, but the candidates and public financing experts think that is too low.

“The system needs to be fixed as quickly as possible to remove the uncertainly that now exists,” said Roy Occhiogrosso, campaign strategist for Malloy.

But he said the candidates are operating under the assumption that the amounts won’t change as cutting them could make the races uncompetitive.

He said the First Amendment questions of access should be addressed in a way that is fair for everyone, but too much tinkering could fix one aspect of the program and break another.

Tanya Meck, campaign spokeswoman for Bysiewicz, said if the amounts are reduced too much, “you render it useless. The point is to equalize the playing field for everyone, otherwise only wealthy candidates can compete.”

PULLING THE TRIGGER

The trigger in Connecticut law that Underhill rejected was a dollar for dollar match to expenditures by nonparticipating candidates up to 100 percent of the original grant.

For instance, if a nonparticipating candidate spends $8 million on his campaign, a gubernatorial candidate who opts for public financing, would get his or her original $3 million grant and a second $3 million match.

If an outside group spends $5 million to fight against his election, the candidate with public financing would get another $3 million to compete.

“The thinking is you don’t have to spend dollar for dollar. You just need enough to get your message out,” said Hobart Flynn.

Foley has been clearer about his intentions to not use public funds, while Lamont won’t address it as he continues to explore whether to get into the race, but other party officials feel he will tap into his millions. When he was the Democratic U.S. Senate candidate in 2006, he used $14 million of his own money to match spending by his opponent, Joseph I. Lieberman.

Beth Rotman, director of Connecticut’s campaign finance program, said Rell’s proposal “shows leadership and moves the discussion along,” although some of her suggested cuts “are a bit much.”

The one thing everyone agrees on is elimination of the “revision clause” in the state’s campaign finance law. “It would be a simple surgical remedy that would do a tremendous amount of good,” Rotman said.

As it now stands, if the courts overturn or block Connecticut’s program after April in an election year, the revision clause gives lawmakers a week to fix it or public financing dies and the system reverts to the previous system where lobbyists and special interests could donate freely to campaigns.

Rotman is also concerned about the amount of money the state will have set aside to fund the program. Lawmakers have already taken out $18 million to offset a state budget deficit, while Rell is proposing draining another $12 million to help deal with a $337 million shortfall for the current fiscal year.

According to the state Office of Policy and Management, this leaves close to $42 million in the pot, but there is a big question if that is enough.

“We can’t afford to return to the days of ‘Corrupticut,’” Common Cause said in response to a state GOP legislative proposal to gut the public financing fund because of the deficit.

‘Corrupticut’ was coined when numerous state officials went to jail for misuse of their offices during Gov. John Rowland’s administration, including Rowland. It was also the impetus for the campaign finance reforms now being challenged.

Rep. James Spallone, D-Essex, chairman of the Government Administration and Elections Committee, favors repealing the revision clause, but holding off on anything more extensive until they can gauge if the appeal will hold up.

State Sen. Majority Leader Martin Looney, D-New Haven, agreed that lawmakers should refrain from any radical changes in the law, as this will undermine Blumenthal’s arguments before the 2nd Circuit in New York.

Tom Swan of the Connecticut Citizens Action Group, which brought the legal challenge to the Connecticut’s Citizen Election Program because of its disparate treatment of third-party and petitioning candidates, feels legislators should make changes to comply with Underhill’s ruling.

“I believe they should address minor party barriers and look for a mechanism to address the trigger issues, while eliminating the April 15 poison pill,” Swan said.

Hogan Flynn is worried about the upcoming Supreme Court ruling on corporate election spending and favors a strong public campaign finance-type program like the Fair Elections Now Act sponsored in the U.S. House by U.S. Rep. John Larson, D-Conn. as the best response.

FAIR provides a basic grant after a candidate has raised donations of $100 or less up to a certain level. Continuing small in-state donations would then be matched fourfold with public dollars, which allows those who are targeted by large amounts of corporate spending to continue to raise money.

Hobart Flynn is the most insistent that time is of the essence.

“We don’t have time to wait for the 2nd Circuit to rule,” she said. “You need to have some kind of backup. The FAIR model magnifies the power of small contributors, away from lobbyists who want something in return. It encourages people from different demographics to give,” she said.

On the other side is Chris Healy, chairman of the state Republican party, who wants to see the public system toppled in Connecticut.

“The Connecticut GOP hopes the court rules for the plaintiffs on constitutional grounds and ends this political welfare system,” Healy said.

Supreme Court to Revisit ‘Hillary’ Documentary
NYTIMES
By ADAM LIPTAK
August 30, 2009

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court will cut short its summer break in early September to hear a new argument in a momentous case that could transform the way political campaigns are conducted.

The case, which arises from a minor political documentary called “Hillary: The Movie,” seemed an oddity when it was first argued in March. Just six months later, it has turned into a juggernaut with the potential to shatter a century-long understanding about the government’s ability to bar corporations from spending money to support political candidates.

The case has also deepened a profound split among liberals, dividing those who view government regulation of political speech as an affront to the First Amendment from those who believe that unlimited corporate campaign spending is a threat to democracy.

At issue is whether the court should overrule a 1990 decision, Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, which upheld restrictions on corporate spending to support or oppose political candidates. Re-arguments in the Supreme Court are rare, and the justices’ decision to call for one here may have been prompted by lingering questions about just how far campaign finance laws, including McCain-Feingold, may go in regulating campaign spending by corporations.

The argument, scheduled for Sept. 9, comes at a crucial historical moment, as corporations today almost certainly have more to gain or fear from government action than at any time since the New Deal.

The court’s order calling for re-argument, issued in June, has generated more than 40 friend-of-the-court briefs. As a group, they depict an array of strange bedfellows and uneasy alliances as they debate whether corporations should be free to spend millions of dollars to support the candidates of their choice.

The American Civil Liberties Union and its usual allies are on opposite sides, with the civil rights group fighting shoulder to shoulder with the National Rifle Association to support the corporation that made the film.

To the dismay of many of his liberal friends and clients, Floyd Abrams, the celebrated First Amendment lawyer, is representing Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican leader, a longtime foe of campaign finance laws.

“Criminalizing a movie about Hillary Clinton is a constitutional desecration,” Mr. Abrams said.

Most of the rest of the liberal establishment is on the other side, saying that allowing corporate money to flood the airwaves would pollute and corrupt political discourse.

“This is rough business,” said Fred Wertheimer, a veteran advocate of tighter campaign regulations. “We’re not dealing with campaign finance laws. We’re dealing with the essence of power in America.”

The case involves “Hillary: The Movie,” a mix of advocacy journalism and political commentary that is a relentlessly negative look at Mrs. Clinton’s character and career. The documentary was made by a conservative advocacy group called Citizens United, which lost a lawsuit against the Federal Election Commission seeking permission to distribute it on a video-on-demand service. The film is available on the Internet and on DVD. The issue was that the McCain-Feingold law bans corporate money being used for electioneering.

A lower court agreed with the F.E.C.’s position, saying that the sole purpose of the documentary was “to inform the electorate that Senator Clinton is unfit for office, that the United States would be a dangerous place in a President Hillary Clinton world and that viewers should vote against her.”

At the first Supreme Court argument in March, a government lawyer, answering a hypothetical question, said the government could also make it a crime to distribute books advocating the election or defeat of political candidates so long as they were paid for by corporations and not their political action committees.

That position seemed to astound several of the more conservative justices, and there were gasps in the courtroom.

“That’s pretty incredible,” said Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr.

The discussion of book banning may have helped prompt the request for re-argument. In addition, some of the broader issues implicated by the case were only glancingly discussed in the first round of briefs, and some justices may have felt reluctant to take a major step without fuller consideration.

The question of what Congress may do to regulate books is a hypothetical one: the relevant law, the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, more commonly called McCain-Feingold, applies only to broadcast, satellite or cable transmissions. That leaves out old technologies, like newspapers and books, and new ones, like the Internet. But the constitutional principles involved, some of the justices suggested, ought to apply regardless of the medium.

In an interview, Mr. Wertheimer seemed reluctant to answer questions about the government regulation of books. Pressed, Mr. Wertheimer finally said, “A campaign document in the form of a book can be banned.”

The McCain-Feingold law does contain an exception for broadcast news reports, commentaries and editorials. But a brief supporting Citizens United filed in January by the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press questioned whether the government should be making decisions about what is and is not news.

“ ‘Hillary: The Movie,’ ” the brief said, “does not differ, in any relevant respect, from the critiques of presidential candidates produced throughout the entirety of American history.”

In a measure of the importance of that group’s support, Theodore B. Olson, who represents Citizens United, referred twice to the brief at the argument in March. (He stumbled both times, though, calling the group the “Reporters Committee for Freedom of Speech” and the “Reporters Committee for the Right to Life.”)

After the argument, Mr. Wertheimer pushed hard to persuade the group to alter its stance.

“He e-mailed, he memo-ed, he advocated, he called a couple of people who were donors, and he cost us some money,” said Lucy Dalglish, the executive director of the committee.

But the group filed a second brief supporting Citizens United in July. “I got fair treatment,” Mr. Wertheimer said, “and they basically disagreed with my position.”

The disagreement echoes one within the civil rights community, said Burt Neuborne, the legal director of the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law and a former official of the A.C.L.U.

Mr. Neuborne said he disagreed with the A.C.L.U.’s longstanding position that regulation of corporate campaign spending may violate the First Amendment. The A.C.L.U.’s position was the product of “a huge fight” within the group, he said, adding that “it never was more than a 60-40 split on the board.”

The Brennan Center filed a brief supporting the government in the case, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, No. 08-205, while the A.C.L.U. filed one supporting Citizens United.

Mr. Neuborne and four other former A.C.L.U. officials took a middle ground, urging the court to rule narrowly to protect the documentary without making a major constitutional statement.

Indeed, it would not be hard for the court to rule in favor of Citizens United on narrow grounds. The court could say the film was not the sort of “electioneering communication” that McCain-Feingold, which mostly concerned television advertisements, was meant to address. It could say that communications that people had to seek out might be treated differently from uninvited advertisements. Or it could say that Citizens United was not the sort of corporation that can be regulated.

But the request for re-argument suggests that the court is on the verge of bolder action.

Conn. Campaign Finance Law Ruled Unconstitutional
NYTIMES
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
August 28, 2009
Filed at 2:22 p.m. ET

NEW HAVEN, Conn. (AP) -- A federal judge has ruled that Connecticut's public campaign finance law, seen by some as a possible national model, is unconstitutional because it discriminates against minor party political candidates.

Judge Stefan Underhill ruled late Thursday 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.

He says the program, known as the Citizens Election Program, enhances major party candidates' strength beyond their past ability to raise contributions, providing them public financing ''at windfall levels.''

The Green and Libertarian parties and others sued the state, arguing the law makes it difficult for minor party candidates to meet the criteria for getting public funds for their campaigns.

Attorney General Richard Blumenthal said the state will appeal the ruling to the 2nd Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals and will seek a stay of the ruling so that the program can continue operating.

''We believe it deserves review by the court of appeals because it conflicts substantially with decisions of the United States Supreme Court on some issues,'' Blumenthal said Friday. ''Certainly this decision raises significant legal obstacles to the campaign finance reform movement here and around the country but it's only one ruling very early in an ongoing court battle,'' Blumenthal said.

Mark Lopez, attorney for the Green and Libertarian parties, said he was ''absolutely delighted'' with the ruling.

''We hope the legislature is called into session and quickly fixes this in time for the 2010 elections,'' Lopez said.

Andrew Schneider, executive director of the ACLU of Connecticut, which represented the Green and Libertarian parties, called the ruling ''a victory for free speech and equal protection for all candidates.''

''We are all for laws that increase the ability of more people to participate in the democratic process, but Connecticut's law did the opposite by creating a different set of rules for unaffiliated and minor party candidates that made participating even more difficult,'' Schneider said.

But Gov. M. Jodi Rell insisted Connecticut's law is a national model and that she supports appealing the decision. She did say the law could be changed to address the concerns of minor parties.

''It was, and will remain, the means to keep special interest and lobbyist dollars out of our election process,'' Rell said.

Connecticut lawmakers adopted the campaign reforms in 2005 response to corruption scandals involving former Gov. John Rowland and other officials.

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 less increments from individuals. But minor party and petitioning candidates must satisfy additional requirements, including having to obtain signatures or having had 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.

To qualify for partial public funding, candidates from minor political parties had to win at least 10 percent of the vote in the previous election or collect at least 10 percent of the signatures of registered voters. Full funding required 20 percent.

Underhill wrote that the legislature ''essentially set the threshold criteria at the level guaranteed to ensure extremely minimal minor party participation'' and said the decision ''raises the specter of major party entrenchment.''

He contrasted Connecticut's public financing system with Maine and Arizona, where minor party candidates are not subject to additional qualifying criteria.

The law also discourages minor party candidates from participating in the program because once they raise a minimum level of fundraising the program releases significant additional funding to the major party opponent, the judge said.

Underhill also said the law uses a statewide formula that permits any major party candidate to become eligible for full public financing even though in many legislative districts one of the major parties abandoned the race or the candidate lost in a landslide.

Blumenthal said the law does provide funding to minor party candidates on a sliding scale. He said officials were concerned about providing ''windfalls to candidates who have very small support.''

Underhill acknowledged that ''good motives'' underlie the law.

''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 nationwide movement to increase transparency in the political process,'' Underhill wrote.

But he said the effort involves fundamental constitutional rights that demand narrow and carefully tailored regulations.

Underhill ordered state officials from operating the Citizens Election Program.

------

Associated Press writer Susan Haigh in Hartford, Conn., contributed to this report.

EXCLUSIVE: Obama raised cash after leaving Senate
Washington Times
Jim McElhatton
Friday, March 27, 2009

EXCLUSIVE:

President Obama continued collecting money for his 2010 Senate re-election campaign even after he resigned his seat from Illinois, including a maximum $2,300 donation the day after Christmas from a top executive of a Wall Street firm that had received a government bailout.

Four contributions - $4,800 in all - were donated to the Obama 2010 fund on Dec. 26, according to Federal Election Commission reports.

The money came from some of Mr. Obama's top presidential fundraisers: Bruce A. Heyman, managing director at Goldman Sachs, which received a $10 billion bailout last year; Steven Koch, vice chairman at Credit Suisse First Boston; and John Levi, a lawyer at the law and lobbying firm of Sidley Austin LLP.

The donations are legal, but the timing is unusual because Mr. Obama formally left the Senate on Nov. 16 and already had a surplus in his Senate campaign treasury.

Under federal election law, Mr. Obama and five other former members of Congress now serving in his Cabinet or the White House can retain congressional campaign funds for years, even if they don't plan to run for Congress again. They can spend the money for any political purpose.

Mr. Obama's transportation secretary, former Rep. Ray LaHood, Illinois Republican, has given $60,000 of his leftover funds to help reduce the campaign debt of his son's failed run for state office. White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, a Democrat who represented Illinois in the House, is one of three administration figures with at least $1 million left over in their congressional campaign funds, FEC records show.

"Other than converting the money to personal use, which is the one thing they can't do, these campaigns can basically operate as political slush funds," said Meredith McGehee, policy director at the nonpartisan Campaign Legal Center.

"As much as people talk about change in Washington, and we're seeing plenty of it, money still talks. And one of the ways you remain a political player is to make sure you still have money in your political account," she said.

A former Obama campaign aide said the late-December donations collected for Mr. Obama's Senate campaign were solicited "by a fundraiser who worked for the campaign to cover outstanding expenses that needed to be paid to wind down the campaign committee."

At the time, Mr. Obama's Senate campaign reported more than $100,000 in cash on hand, and his separately run presidential campaign fund was flush with $15.4 million in the bank.

Among the Christmastime contributions, $1,000 came from Mr. Koch, the vice chairman at Credit Suisse, who, like Mr. Heyman, raised at least $200,000 for Mr. Obama's presidential campaign, according to data compiled by the watchdog group Public Citizen.

Phone calls to Mr. Heyman and Mr. Koch placed through their offices were not returned, and a Goldman Sachs spokeswoman declined to comment. John Levi, who gave $500, is a lawyer at the Chicago law firm of Sidley Austin, where Mr. Obama met his wife, Michelle, in 1989 while he was working as a summer associate and she was an associate at the firm.

Mr. Levi said he wasn't authorized to discuss the matter and declined to comment.

The Obama appointees are hardly the first former members of Congress whose fundraising committees remained open after they took executive branch jobs. Former Attorney General John Ashcroft's old Senate campaign fund remained active for years after he joined President George W. Bush's Cabinet, as did the campaign fund for former Sen. Spencer Abraham, Michigan Republican, who was Mr. Bush's first secretary of energy.

Such dormant congressional campaigns still can raise and spend money in a variety of ways. They can keep old donations in the bank, pay down debts or give the money to other politicians. They also can donate it to charity or return contributions to donors.

Mr. LaHood recently terminated his campaign fund, but not before tapping into his leftover money to help his son's political career.

On. Nov. 15, Mr. LaHood's campaign transferred $60,000 to Friends of Darin LaHood, his son's campaign fund. Just 11 days earlier, Darin LaHood lost his bid to become state attorney in Peoria, Ill.

This father-to-son campaign transfer would violate campaign finance laws in federal campaigns and in most state elections. But since Illinois has no cap on state-level donations, the transfer was legal, said David Morrison, deputy director of the Illinois Campaign for Political Reform, which advocates contribution limits.

"While everything is legal, when people donate to their sons or daughters, we've always found that to be a really questionable practice," said Melanie Sloan, executive director of the nonpartisan Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. "Donors to Ray LaHood probably didn't think the money was going to go to his son."

After Mr. LaHood was named transportation secretary, his committee filed papers terminating his House campaign with the Federal Election Commission. Through a spokeswoman, Mr. LaHood declined to comment about the transfer.

Three top Obama appointees have campaign accounts with more than $1 million each:

•Mr. Emanuel has two open accounts. His principal campaign committee, Friends of Rahm Emanuel, had more than $1.7 million in the bank at the end of last year.

Mr. Emanuel's leadership committee, Our Common Values, raised more than $1 million in donations in 2007 and 2008, with the money going almost entirely to Democrats. The committee now has less than $15,000 in the bank, according to records.

• Former Sen. Ken Salazar, Colorado Democrat, reported $2 million in his campaign bank before he became Mr. Obama's secretary of the interior.

• Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton's campaign fund for her Senate seat from New York has more than $5.3 million in the bank, but her presidential campaign committee remained nearly $6 million in debt at the end of 2008. The biggest debt is owed to Penn, Schoen & Berlan Associates, headed by Mrs. Clinton's former campaign strategist, Mark Penn.

Labor Secretary Hilda L. Solis, a Democrat who left her House seat from California for a Cabinet post in the Obama administration, reported more than a quarter-million dollars left in her campaign fund at the end of the year.

Former members of Congress are under no deadlines to decide what to do with the money.

"There's no restrictions in terms of how long excess campaign funds can remain in a campaign account," said campaign finance lawyer Michael Toner, a former Federal Election Commission chairman who was appointed by Mr. Bush in 2002.

A Threat to McCain-Feingold
NYTIMES Editorial
January 12, 2009

After the presidential election, the Republican National Committee filed a lawsuit that could drive a stake through the heart of the campaign finance system. It challenges the constitutionality of the McCain-Feingold law’s ban on “soft money” contributions. If the suit succeeds, it will seriously damage democracy by allowing a virtually unlimited amount of corporate and other special-interest money to flood into politics.

There is no denying that the campaign finance system is badly broken. It suffered even more harm when Barack Obama became the first major-party nominee to refuse public financing and the spending limits that come with it. One of Mr. Obama’s top priorities should be fixing the system’s flaws, including the core problem that it does not provide enough money for a strong presidential campaign in modern times. But it will be impossible to fix the system if the R.N.C. prevails in court.

The Republicans are trying to remove the restrictions that McCain-Feingold puts on contributions to national political parties. Now, the parties are allowed to accept no more than $28,500 a year from individuals, and nothing at all from corporations or labor unions. The R.N.C. wants to strip away these restrictions so it can accept unlimited amounts of “soft,” or unrestricted, money from corporations and rich people.

The suit, which is before a special three-judge panel in Washington, claims that the limits are unconstitutional. The R.N.C. says it uses much of the money it raises for activities not related to federal elections, such as redistricting, grass-roots organizing and issue advertising. It argues that the First Amendment prohibits limiting contributions for these purposes.

The problem with this argument is that the Supreme Court has already rejected it. In 2003, in McConnell v. F.E.C., the justices upheld the precise provisions the Republicans are now challenging.

In its ruling, the court emphasized that it does not matter what the money is spent on. Because the national parties have close ties to federal elected officials, the court said, large donations to the parties inject special-interest money into the federal government and have a corrupting effect on politics.

The McConnell decision should end the matter. But the R.N.C. seems to be hoping that because of changes in the court — in particular, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor’s replacement by Samuel Alito — it can persuade the court to undo this recent and important precedent.

The Republican Party’s suit was clearly prompted by its troubles in the 2008 election, in which Mr. Obama proved far more adept at fund-raising than John McCain. It is disturbing that the R.N.C. sees its salvation in clearing the way for corporations and other special interests to flood its campaign coffers once again.

In its 2003 ruling, the Supreme Court declared that McCain-Feingold’s limits on soft money were a permissible means “to confine the ill effects of aggregated wealth on” national politics. The courts should reaffirm that well-reasoned decision — and Mr. Obama and Congress should get to work fixing the current badly flawed, out-of-date campaign finance system.

Report: Madoff spent nearly $1 million on politicians
By Don Michak, Manchester Journal Inquirer
Published: Monday, December 29, 2008 10:28 AM EST

Bernard Madoff, the New York financial adviser behind an alleged $50 billion Ponzi scheme said to have cost the town of Fairfield $42 million in pension fund investments, spent nearly $1 million since 1991 to gain influence in Washington, according to a nonpartisan campaign finance watchdog group.

An analysis by the Center for Responsive Politics shows that over that period Madoff, his wife, and others associated with his company, Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities, made a total of $610,300 in contributions to federal candidates, parties, and committees.

The center says federal lobbying records also show that Madoff’s firm spent $590,000 to gain influence in the nation’s capital, with all but $10,000 of that money going to the firm of Lent, Scrivner & Roth, whose clients also have included AT&T, Chevron Texaco, Keyspan Energy, and National Grid.

Nearly 90 percent of the Madoff-linked campaign contributions went to Democrats, according to the center, with the most — $102,000 — going to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee.

Among the individual Democratic politicians who received significantly smaller contributions were Sen. Charles E. Schumer of New York, who collected $12,000; Sen. Edward Markey of Massachusetts, who got $10,000; Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, who got $2,000; and Sen. Christopher J. Dodd of Connecticut, who got $1,500.

Dodd received a $500 contribution from Madoff in 1995 and a $1,000 contribution from Madoff’s brother, Peter, in 1993.

Madoff was arrested Dec. 11 and charged with fraud in running a Ponzi scheme that took cash from hedge fund managers, individuals, and nonprofit organizations.

Along with the Fairfield pension money, Madoff’s investors reportedly included the Fairfield-based Orthopedic Specialty Group, whose retirement fund involved more than 130 doctors and their employees.

One of those physicians has said the group the group would seek help from Dodd his Connecticut colleague, Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman.

Meanwhile, Attorney General Richard Blumenthal has asked the trustee appointed to oversee the liquidation of the Madoff firm for more information about Connecticut charities that may have been Madoff clients and could lose their investments.

The Washington, D.C.-based center also said that a search of the financial disclosure forms filed by members of Congress did not turn up any personal investments with Madoff’s firm.

Yale Professor Defends Connecticut's Campaign Financing Laws
By MARK PAZNIOKAS
The Hartford Courant
December 11, 2008

BRIDGEPORT

— A political scientist strongly defended Connecticut's new program of publicly financed campaigns Wednesday against discrimination claims by the Green and Libertarian parties. Donald P. Green, a Yale University professor and expert on American campaigns, testified in federal court that the state has imposed reasonable requirements for minor candidates to qualify for public financing.

The Green and Libertarian parties are asking U.S. District Judge Stefan R. Underhill to declare the new law unconstitutional, saying it is burdensome and unfair to minor parties. Green disputed a contention by the minor parties, which was supported by a sworn statement from former Gov. Lowell P. Weicker Jr., that the law was designed to protect the two major parties.

"My view is that the [new law] makes it easier for minor parties" to compete, Green testified.

Another minor party, the Working Families Party, refused to join the challenge and instead has offered a sworn statement defending the law.

"The qualifying requirements, while challenging, are achievable," the Working Families Party said.

To qualify for public financing, any candidate must demonstrate public support by raising seed money in small amounts. For a state House race, candidates must raise $5,000 in seed money and collect donations of between $5 and $100 from 150 donors. Qualifying candidates then are given a $25,000 public grant for a general election. The grants for a gubernatorial campaign are $3 million. Minor party candidates are eligible for the full grant only if their party won 20 percent of the vote for that office in the previous election — or if they gather signatures equal to 20 percent of the vote.

But Green said that the public financing law, known as the Citizens Election Program, accommodates minor parties by providing partial grants if they are supported by as little as 10 percent of the electorate. In a House race, they are eligible for a one-third grant of $8,333 if they were supported by 10 percent of voters at the polls or by petition. At 15 percent, they can get a grant of $16,666.

A one-third grant of $8,333 is more money than 98 percent of minor-party candidates were able to raise in 231 races from 1998 to 2006, Green said. Green testified that the requirements are necessary to weed out fringe candidates, who could undermine legislative or public support for using state money to subsidize campaigns.

"You have a system that is inherently fragile, as are all public financing programs," Green said.

Maine and Arizona, the only other states with statewide public financing and whose programs became law through a referendum process, give full grants to minor candidates if they are supported by only 5 percent of the electorate.

The 20-percent requirement is reasonable as it reflects a standard that Connecticut and five other states use to define a major party, Green said. Any party is considered a major party in Connecticut if its gubernatorial candidate drew 20 percent of the vote in the previous election — or if at least 20 percent of voters register as members.

Only Democrats and Republicans meet that standard, although Weicker's A Connecticut Party enjoyed major-party status for four years after he won the 1990 governor's race. It reverted to a minor party after its nominee, Eunice S. Groark, drew 19 percent of the vote in 1994.

Feedback sought on campaign finance program
DAY
Posted on Nov 19, 10:21 AM EST

HARTFORD, Conn. (AP) -- Connecticut elections officials are gathering comments on the state's new public financing program for political campaigns.

The State Elections Enforcement Commission is holding the first of two hearings Wednesday afternoon. A second hearing is planned for Dec. 5.

This year's election was the first for the voluntary Citizens Election Program. About 75 percent of General Assembly candidates participated. They received public funds to run their campaigns in return for agreeing to strict fundraising and spending limitations.

Connecticut passed the public financing law in 2005. Advocates say the program removes special interest money from the political process and increases candidate participation rates.

Money Makes the Political World Go Around
NYTIMES
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: November 2, 2008
Filed at 10:14 a.m. ET

WASHINGTON (AP) -- In a presidential race filled with broken barriers, money has shattered far more than its share.

Together, Democrat Barack Obama and Republican John McCain have amassed nearly $1 billion -- a stratospheric number. Depending on turnout, that means nearly $8 for every presidential vote, compared with $5.50 in 2004.

Using all that cash, the candidates have traveled more miles, employed more workers and advertised more than ever.

But it has been Obama, with his $641 million and 3.2 million donors, who has rewritten the rules for financing campaigns.

He abandoned the public financing system -- after pledging to participate if McCain did -- and became the first major party candidate to raise private funds to pay for a general election since the campaign money reforms of the Watergate era. McCain did take public funds, but Obama's success left little doubt that taxpayer-supported presidential campaigns, as currently configured, are 20th century relics.

Neither Obama nor McCain participated in public financing during the primaries. McCain's acceptance of $84 million in general election public financing also came with limitations on spending. He continued to raise money for the Republican Party, though, which so far has spent about $100 million on his behalf to supplement his public funds.

Obama mastered new technology, turning the Internet into an incredible political networking tool and attracting record numbers of donors giving less than $200. While that flood of money raised new questions about the safeguards of Internet fundraising, it also helped dilute the role of big money donors and fundraisers.

''When you have that many contributors, I think it does, in a weird way, cleanse the system even though it seems like that much more money,'' the Federal Election Commission chairman, Republican Donald F. McGahn II, said recently. ''That many more contributors disperse the influence of any one contributor.''

Some of the financial highlights from the presidential campaign:

--Too much to put under the mattress: All the presidential candidates in the 2007-2008 contest took in $1.55 billion, nearly twice the amount collected by candidates in 2004 and three times the amount from 2000. The total includes fundraising for the primaries as well as the general election.

The total is almost the same as what the Federal Trade Commission says food and beverage companies spend in a year marketing their products to children.

--Selling politics like burgers: With all that money, Obama has blanketed the country with his message. As of mid-October, he had spent $240 million on broadcast ads to penetrate old battlegrounds and to help create new ones. He spent $77 million in the first two weeks of October, more than McDonald's spends on ads in a month. He pinpointed audiences with ads on such video games as ''Guitar Hero'' and ''Madden NFL 09.''

He also went global, with national network advertising that culminated with a $4 million-plus half hour buy on prime time six days before the election. His spending stretched McCain's resources; the Republican had spent about $116 million as of mid-October.

--Bad apple, bad money: Some fundraisers put campaigns in awkward situations. Barack Obama donated to charity tens of thousands of dollars in donations to his past campaigns that were linked to convicted Chicago developer Antoin ''Tony'' Rezko. Democratic Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton returned more than $800,000 to donors whose contributions were linked to Norman Hsu, a fundraiser who was wanted in California on charges of bilking investors. Hsu was subsequently indicted in New York on federal charges of fraud and violating campaign finance laws.

--Bundle up some cold hard cash: Perfecting a fundraising practice initially mastered by George W. Bush, presidential candidates enlisted fundraisers to raise thousands upon thousands of dollars for them. These are the well-connected money people to whom a campaign is ultimately indebted. Both McCain and Obama list their fundraisers -- or bundlers, as they are known -- on their Web sites. McCain's are easier to find than Obama's. But unlike McCain, Obama lists the fundraisers' home towns.

--Who are those small donors, anyway: Obama has raised about half of his money in increments of $200 or less. The average contribution is $86, the campaign says. But the success of the Internet fundraising effort has also led to some puzzling donors. Individuals have been credited with giving tens of thousands of dollars to the Obama campaign, far more than the $2,300 limit. Obama has reported more than $17,000 in contributions from a donor identified as ''Doodad Pro'' and more than $11,000 from one identified as ''Good Will.''

''I wouldn't be surprised if the FEC doesn't address this in the next couple of years -- what you have to put on your Web site for soliciting contributions,'' said Bradley A. Smith, a former FEC chairman and a law professor at Capital University Law School in Columbus, Ohio.

--I show mine, you don't show yours: Federal law requires candidates to identify only those donors who contribute, in the aggregate, more than $200. But McCain has made his entire donor database available through his Web site. Obama has not, drawing criticism.

Earlier stories...from the red-white-and-blue days!

Rell Exults After Vote; GOP Legislators Parted With Governor
December 2, 2005
By MARK PAZNIOKAS, Courant Staff Writer

Gov. M. Jodi Rell celebrated the passage of far-reaching campaign finance reforms Thursday, even though fellow Republicans largely abandoned her on the issue and a court challenge is possible.

"We have set the standard," Rell said. "We are now a role model for the rest of the nation. I think that Connecticut can be very proud of this bill."

The Democratic-controlled Senate and House combined for nearly 14 hours of debate Wednesday night and Thursday morning, concluding at 2:44 a.m. with passage by the House on an 82-65 vote.

Seven hours earlier, the Senate voted 27-8 to approve the legislation, which bans contributions from lobbyists and contractors and creates a voluntary system of publicly financing campaigns for state office.

Only four Republicans in each chamber supported the bill, which was drafted by Democrats.

House Minority Leader Robert M. Ward, R-North Branford, rebuffed overtures from Rell's senior staff and led a vigorous floor fight against a bill that he described as badly flawed. The political parties and legislative leadership's political action committees will be permitted to make unlimited expenditures, such as paying for direct mail appeals, on behalf of candidates who accept public financing.

"I found that loophole to be so overwhelming I couldn't support the bill," Ward said.

Rell said that she also was troubled by those provisions, but that bans on lobbyist and state contractor dollars, as well as public financing, go far to minimize what she called the corrosive influence of special interests in politics.

"I believe we got 85 percent or more of what I had hoped we would be able to have in a bill at the end of June," said Rell, who intends to sign the bill in the next few days. The legislature had ended its regular session in June deadlocked over campaign finance reforms, an issue that Rell had made a priority soon after succeeding John G. Rowland as governor in 2004.

Rell said that she would seek legislation in the 2006 regular session to correct flaws in the bill. She wants to limit party and leadership expenditures and lower the threshold that petitioning and minor-party candidates must meet to qualify for public funds.

Petitioning candidates must gather signatures from 20 percent of affected voters, nearly an impossible task, to qualify for the same public funds available to Democrats and Republicans.

The Green Party is considering challenging the provision in court, said Michael DeRosa, the co-chairman of the party. The American Civil Liberties Union of Connecticut is exploring a challenge on two grounds - the unequal treatment of major and minor candidates, and the violation of lobbyists' free speech rights. Courts have held that political contributions are a form of speech.

"We are obviously concerned about the constitutional issues raised by the law," said Roger C. Vann, executive director of the state's ACLU chapter. Vann said that he expected no decision on a lawsuit for weeks.

"This kind of case potentially would go all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. It would be potentially a long and difficult battle," he said. "We don't take these decisions lightly."

Passage of the legislation was a personal victory for the Democratic legislative leaders, who had been repeatedly outmaneuvered by Rell on the issue, most recently by her calling legislators into special session to tackle reform after they had refused to do so on their own.

House Speaker James A. Amann, D-Milford, and Senate President Pro Tem Donald E. Williams Jr., D-Brooklyn, delivered on a promise made Monday: If necessary, Democrats could have passed the measure without a single Republican vote.

Senate OKs Campaign Finance
COURANT (Associated Press)
8:22 PM EST, November 30, 2005

HARTFORD, Conn. -- The state Senate approved some of the most sweeping reforms of campaign finance laws in the country on tonight, including tight restrictions on contributions and a voluntary, publicly funded election system.

The House of Representatives was to take up the bill later in the evening. A close vote was expected.

"The bill before us ... does things that no other state in this union has done. It will give us the cleanest, most comprehensive system," said Sen. Donald DeFronzo, D-New Britain, co-chairman of the Government Administration and Elections Committee.

The Democrat-controlled Senate voted 27-8 in favor of the bill. Four Republicans supported the legislation, which would take effect on Dec. 31, 2006. Republican Gov. M. Jodi Rell said she will sign the bill into law if it reaches her desk.

"This is truly a historic bill. I'm optimistic that it's going to be passed ... I'm looking forward to being able to sign it into law," she said in a taped message sent electronically to reporters. "I have said all along that Connecticut citizens really want us to eliminate the corrosive and compromising influence of special interest money."

To reduce the influence of special interests, the bill bans campaign advertising booklets and political contributions from lobbyists and state contractors.

It comes in the wake of a corruption scandal last year that sent former Republican Gov. John G. Rowland to prison and led to his former co-chief of staff and a major state contractor pleading guilty in federal court. Connecticut has also been rocked by two mayors going to prison in recent years.

Democrats Plan To Vote This Week On Campaign Reform
12:17 PM EST, November 28, 2005
Associated Press

HARTFORD, Conn. -- The General Assembly's Democratic leaders said today they will vote this week on a compromise plan to reform Connecticut's campaign finance laws.

The Democrats planned a 1:30 p.m. news conference at the Legislative Office Building to detail the compromise. They were to be joined by officials from the League of Women Voters, Common Cause of Connecticut and the Connecticut Citizen Action Group, who have been lobbying lawmakers to remove the influence of special interests on state political campaigns.

Democrats could not reach agreement on campaign finance reform during the regular session. The Senate and House of Representatives wound up passing dueling bills this spring. Republican Gov. M. Jodi Rell called the legislature into a special session in October to try again, but lawmakers said they weren't ready.

They called themselves into another special session that has continued for weeks. Leaders say they have spent that time trying craft a bill that can garner enough votes for passage. Rell has not yet seen the bill, according to her staff. She is scheduled to meet with legislative leaders around 4 p.m.

The legislation is expected to create a voluntary, public financing system for state candidates, ban contributions from lobbyists and state contractors and place limits on political action committee contributions. The reforms would not likely take place until after the 2006 elections.

Supporters say the legislation would establish the most strict rules for campaign fund-raising in the nation.

Set An Example In The State; Cleaning up campaign finance would improve the legislature and the state.
New London DAY editorial
Published on 11/25/2005

Connecticut can set an example for other states by passing a comprehensive campaign-finance-reform bill that takes power out of the hands of lobbyists and special interests and returns that authority to the voters. This was the message delivered this week to state officials by leaders of the national League of Women Voters. It should be a rallying cry for all legislators who want a cleaner, more ethical Connecticut.

The issue has lingered in a special session in the legislature, largely because Democrats don't want to start any reforms now.

Gov. M. Jodi Rell proposed a tough reform package earlier this year. She wants to make it illegal for state contractors and lobbyists, Political Action Committees and campaign ad book clients to contribute to candidates. She would also accompany that package with taxpayer-supported campaign financing.

This is a good plan. It takes the influence from special interests and it would lead to limitations on spending that would make election races fairer at all state levels. No longer would incumbents, well-financed by special interests seeking to influence legislation and contracts, be able to pile up huge sums of money and thus discourage potential opponents from running against them.

A result would be the removal of many nefarious pressures on legislators and a system of government more dedicated to serving the people and not the special interests.

Though lobbyists provide many of the funds that now support candidates, those same lobbyists would welcome the changes. No longer would they be pressured by special-interest groups to contribute to or to raise funds for the many campaigns they're now asked to support.

Connecticut has seen the imprisonment of its former governor, John G. Rowland, and former Mayors Joseph P. Ganim of Bridgeport and Philip A. Giordano of Waterbury, as well as the resignation of state Sen. Ernest Newton from Bridgeport – all relating to corruption investigations. Peter Ellef Sr., Gov. Rowland's former co-chief of staff, and William Tomasso, one of the principal contractors in Connecticut, are awaiting sentencing after pleading guilty to corruption charges.

Does anyone think the state can continue to tolerate its present campaign-finance system – with all the incentives to mischief contained in it?

The legislature should get down to business and pass a reform bill that contains virtually all the recommendations of Gov. Rell. And they should set an early date for implementing the legislation.

League Of Women Voters Wants State Campaign Finance Reform
By SUSAN HAIGH & ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published on 11/23/2005

Hartford— As the debate over campaign finance reform dragged on at the state Capitol, the national president of the League of Women Voters attempted to jump start the talks on Tuesday. Kay Maxwell and other League officials met with legislative leaders and Gov. M. Jodi Rell's staff, urging them to reach an agreement and pass a reform bill now. The League is offering to help the policy-makers come to a compromise, possibly acting in a mediator role or lobbying to make sure the legislature passes a bill.

“We are consensus builders. Our organization is built on consensus and we are looking for ways to bring people together,” she said.

Maxwell, a Greenwich resident, said all eyes are on Connecticut, and passage of such a major proposal could have a ripple effect in other states and in Congress. Campaign finance reform is one of the four issues the national association is focusing on this year.

“We're at a certain point. It is doable. We've got this opportunity and we don't want this opportunity missed,” Maxwell said in an interview with The Associated Press.

The Democrat-controlled legislature is still technically in a special session to vote on a campaign finance reform bill, but no vote has been scheduled. The leaders have been meeting behind the scenes trying to come up with a compromise bill to present to rank-and-file members. House Majority Leader Christopher Donovan, D-Meriden, said he remains hopeful that a vote will be taken in the coming weeks. He said a draft bill may be ready before the end of the month.

“We're hoping to have something pretty solid, very soon,” he said.

Legislators could not reach a compromise during this year's regular session, with the House of Representatives and Senate passing dueling bills. Both bills created a new, voluntary publicly financed system for all state candidates. They also banned campaign contributions from lobbyists, state contractors and political action committees, and placed new limits on the legislature's PACs.

One of the major sticking points was the implementation date for the reforms. While Rell and Republicans want to start the reforms immediately, many Democrats want to wait until after the 2006 election. Christine Horrigan, director of government issues for the League of Women Voters of Connecticut, said the League is willing to wait for reforms to take place. She said it's better to pass a bill that changes the system rather than have no bill at all.

“They can't let the perfect be the enemy of the good,” she said.

Jara Burnett, co-president of the League's Connecticut branch, said she also hopes lawmakers' efforts won't be derailed by concerns over third-party candidates. Some legislators are worried that a special interest group might take advantage of the public financing program by running a sham candidate as a spoof or a single-issue candidate to attack the major party candidates.

While she doesn't want to see 150 names on the ballot, Burnett said she believes the new system won't be a free pass for third-party candidates. They'll still have to prove they are viable candidates who are worthy of the public financing. Maxwell said she understands that many incumbents fear the change that comes with campaign finance reform. But she said something needs to be done to end the public's perception that government is bought and paid for by special interests.

“We've got an opportunity here because of things that have happened in Connecticut,” she said, referring to former Gov. John G. Rowland and former Bridgeport Mayor Joe Ganim serving prison sentences for corruption-related crimes.

“People are tired of having special interests run their elections and run their government,” she said. “They want to take it back.”

High Court Hears Arguments on Campaign Finance Law
By DAVID STOUT The New York Times

                                    WASHINGTON, Sept. 8 The long-running battle over campaign financing
                                    arrived in the Supreme Court today, getting an extraordinary four-hour
                                    hearing at which the nine justices were alternately told that Congress
                                    either far exceeded its powers with new legislation or was only trying to
                                    clean up an ingrained perception that the political process is corrupt.

                                                       Kenneth W. Starr, the former independent
                                                       counsel who became a household name
                                                       during his investigation of President Bill
                                                       Clinton (news - web sites), told the justices
                                                       that the new law "goes too far" and that it
                                                       "intrudes deeply into the political life of the
                                                       nation." Mr. Starr represents Senator Mitch
                                                       McConnell, the Kentucky Republican who is
                                                       the new law's chief Congressional opponent.

Not at all, the law's backers countered.

                                                       Seth P. Waxman, counsel for the sponsors of
                                                       the law, argued that if the court struck down
                                                       the law, as its opponents are asking, it would
                                                       be surrendering to a "a counsel of despair"
                                                       over ever reforming the campaign-finance
                                                       system.

                                                       The first half of the four-hour argument was
                                                       devoted to the ban on "soft money"
                                                       contributions to the national parties, and to
                                                       curbs on the transfer of money from the
                                                       national parties to their state and local
                                                       committees.

                                                       The solicitor general, Theodore B. Olson,
                                                       described the law as a right and logical
                                                       response to "the relentless pursuit of big
                                                       contributions" that has tainted the political
                                                       process in the public mind.

                                                       Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and
                                    Justice Sandra Day O'Connor (news - web sites), widely seen as
                                    potential swing votes, were closely watched, not only by lawyers on both
                                    sides but also by the law's Senate sponsors, John S. McCain,
                                    Republican of Arizona, and Russell D. Feingold, Democrat of Wisconsin,
                                    who sat in the audience.

                                    Today's session was extraordinary in several respects. The justices were
                                    sitting in the first special court session since the summer of 1974, when
                                    the Supreme Court heard arguments on whether President Richard M.
                                    Nixon should be compelled to surrender his tape-recordings.

                                    Moreover, the justices devoted quadruple the usual time it allots for an
                                    arguments. With a break for lunch, the justices were hearing eight
                                    lawyers dissect or defend a 61-page statute whose basic ideas have
                                    already inspired countless debates.

                                    In a sense, today's arguments began to form about three decades ago,
                                    when the Watergate scandals brought unsavory disclosures of powerful
                                    people and interest groups giving enormous amounts of money to
                                    politicians, and perhaps wanting something in return.

                                    The excesses of the Watergate era set off such waves of revulsion that
                                    Congress enacted limits in 1974 on how much people could donate to
                                    candidates for federal office, and how much the candidates could spend.

                                    Whether money is viewed as "the mother's milk of politics" (in the words
                                    of Jesse Unruh, onetime Speaker of the California Assembly) or poison,
                                    or both, the issues are far from clear-cut. Foes of the campaign-finance
                                    law, led by Senator McConnell, argue that its restrictions are unjustified
                                    and unconstitutional, violating Americans' rights to free speech and free
                                    association.

                                    Supporters of the law counter that it is necessary to repair widespread
                                    skirting of old regulations, and that turning down the money spigots will
                                    not dry up the parties but rather force them to broaden their bases of
                                    donors.

                                    And, of course, one politician's "fat cat" is another's scrupulous patriot,
                                    and "special interests" can mean big business or big labor, or something
                                    else entirely, depending on one's perspective.

                                    No one really disputes that modern campaigns, especially those for the
                                    White House, are tremendously expensive, and that the well-heeled
                                    candidate has a big advantage.

                                    In 1976 the Supreme Court ruled that, while it was constitutional to curb
                                    donations to candidates, it was an unconstitutional infringement on free
                                    speech to limit what the candidates could actually spend.

                                    This ruling, in Buckley v. Valeo, either gutted the 1974 reform legislation,
                                    or reimposed a degree of sanity, depending on who is arguing. (The case
                                    took its title from Sen. James L. Buckley, a one-term Conservative Party
                                    legislator from New York, and Francis R. Valeo, Secretary of the Senate
                                    at the time.)

                                    The ruling stirred the creative juices of politicians and
                                    lawyers. They came up with subtle ways to let people and
                                    organizations give money to benefit the parties of their
                                    choice, without officially giving money to benefit specific
                                    candidates, at least theoretically.

                                    Such unrestricted money from corporations, unions and
                                    individuals became known as "soft money," and many critics
                                    said it continued the long-time contamination of American
                                    politics. The flood of soft money continued unabated into the
                                    1990's.

                                    But in 1995, two senators with not much else in common
                                    teamed up to introduce legislation to really limit the influence
                                    of money in politics. They were Mr. McCain, the Republican,
                                    and Mr. Feingold, the Democrat.

                                    Senators McCain and Feingold first introduced their
                                    legislation in 1995. But time and again their bill, and
                                    companion legislation in the House, failed to gain traction.

                                    Mr. McCain and Mr. Feingold (and their chief allies in the
                                    House, Representatives Christopher Shays, Republican of
                                    Connecticut, and Martin T. Meehan, Democrat of
                                    Massachusetts) gained crucial support in 2002, following the
                                    collapse of the Enron Corporation and the accompanying
                                    spotlight on corporate shenanigans and political donations
                                    by corporate interests.

                                    Campaign-finance legislation finally passed both Houses by
                                    comfortable margins early in 2002, and President Bush
                                    (news - web sites) signed it.

                                    The legislation's main features were to ban soft money and
                                    curb advertising by unions, corporations and nonprofit
                                    groups. Offsetting those limitations were increases in the
                                    amount of "hard money" that individuals could contribute
                                    directly to candidates, to $2,000 from $1,000 per election,
                                    with increases for inflation.

                                    The law took effect after last November's elections. In May, a
                                    panel of three federal judges struck down the law's ban on
                                    soft money but said the parties could not use it to pay for
                                    televised "issue" advertisements in the weeks before
                                    Election Day.

                                    The panel stayed its ruling, meaning that the law remains in
                                    effect until the Supreme Court rules. There has been
                                    considerable speculation that the justices would like to
                                    decide the case by the time the 2004 campaigns begin in
                                    earnest. The high court could leave some provisions of the
                                    McCain-Feingold law intact while undoing others.

Washington, D.C.– A bipartisan group of organizations today announced
                   the creation of Americans For Reform (AFR) - an umbrella coalition of
                  several grassroots organizations that will mobilize to pass meaningful
                  campaign finance reform legislation, like the McCain-Feingold and
                  Shays-Meehan bills. AFR includes traditional campaign finance reform
                  advocates and new organizations who - for the first time - are joining the
                  fight to ban soft money (see attached list of current members).

                  "This coalition represents a wide range of organizations that may disagree on
                  many issues, but are committed to working together for bipartisan reform of
                  our corrupt campaign finance system," Senator John McCain (R-AZ) said.
                  "I look forward to working with this coalition and the millions of Americans
                  across the country demanding reform. Together we will motivate Congress
                  to pass real reform this year."

                  "The formation of this broad-based coalition is an exciting development for
                  the reform effort," Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI) said. "It is clearer than
                  ever that campaign finance reform is an issue whose time has come. With the
                  help of groups and individuals of every political stripe we will give the
                  American people their government back."

                  Americans For Reform will focus on building congressional support for
                  campaign finance reform by coordinating strategy and tactics among
                  grassroots organizations. The group will build grassroots support for reform,
                  coordinate a media campaign nationally and in key states, place targeted ads
                  and promote campaign finance reform on its Web site
                  www.americans4reform.com.

                  Americans For Reform has also launched a town hall meeting series to
                  discuss campaign finance reform featuring McCain, Feingold, and other
                  congressional supporters and member organization representatives. The first
                  meeting of the series was in Little Rock, Arkansas on Monday, January 29.
                  AFR will sponsor additional town hall meetings across the country to build
                  support for campaign finance reform legislation. The next meeting will also
                  feature McCain and Feingold on February 12 in Chicago, IL. More dates
                  and cities will be announced soon.

                  "Campaign finance reform matters to everyone, not just reformers. That's
                  why the Americans for Reform coalition will be loud and strong in helping to
                  pass meaningful campaign finance reform," said Common Cause President
                  Scott Harshbarger. "We are bringing the talent, resources, and grassroots
                  ability of the business community, environmental activists, religious leaders
                  and medical, public health and senior advocacy groups to make real changes
                  to help real people with real problems held hostage by big money in politics."

                  The McCain-Feingold and Shays-Meehan campaign finance bills have both
                  been introduced in their respective legislative bodies. McCain-Feingold will
                  be taken up by the Senate by March 19 or 26 under an agreement reached
                  with Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott and McCain. Both bills ban soft
                  money contributions from unions, corporations, and wealthy individuals.
                  McCain-Feingold also contains language, offered by Senators Olympia
                  Snowe (R-ME) and Jim Jeffords (R-VT), which would require outside
                  groups running campaign ads disguised as "issue ads" to play by the same
                  campaign finance rules as the candidates themselves, during the last weeks
                  of a campaign. "We commend the Americans For Reform effort to seek a
                  bipartisan, common sense, and real solution to campaign finance reform,"
                  said Rep. Mike Castle (R-DE), President of the Republican Main Street
                  Partnership, the nation's largest organization of moderate GOP elected
                  officials. The Main Street Partnership, which includes Snowe and Jeffords, is
                  a strong supporter of the Shays-Meehan campaign finance bill and other
                  bipartisan reform efforts.

# # #

American For Reform Coaltion Members

                  20/20 Vision
                  AARP
                  Alliance for Better Campaigns
                  American Heart Association
                  American Public Health Association
                  American Public Power Association
                  American Reform Party
                  Warren Buffett
                  Campaign for America
                  Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids
                  Children's Defense Fund
                  Church Women United
                  Committee for Economic Development
                  Common Cause
                  Consumer Federation of America
                  Democracy 21
                  Environmental Defense
                  Episcopal Church
                  League of Women Voters
                  National Association of Community Action Foundation
                  National Council of Churches
                  Natural Resources Defense Council
                  NETWORK
                  Public Campaign
                  Public Citizen
                  Republican Main Street Partnership
                  Sierra Club
                  U. S. PIRG
                  Union of American Hebrew Congregations
                  United Church of Christ, Justice and Witness Ministries
                  United Methodist Church
                  Women's Action for New Directions

# # #

Additional Comments From American For Reform Members

                  Sierra Club
                  Carl Pope, executive director of the Sierra Club noted their membership in
                  the Coalition will help fight a system that allows corporate polluters to buy
                  access and influence from policymakers.

                  "Americans for Reform and McCain-Feingold is the first step to keep
                  corporate polluters at bay in our fight to keep our drinking water safe and
                  preserve clean air to breathe," said Pope.

                  American Heart Association
                  American Heart Association Chairman of the Board William J. Bryant
                  pointed to the McCain-Feingold and Shays-Meehan as a way to finally curb
                  the heavy-handed influence of special interests such as the tobacco industry.

                  "For more than 40 years, the tobacco industry has used its deep pockets to
                  buy political access and influence. The tobacco industry's products kill more
                  than 400,000 people a year, nearly half of whom die from smoking-related
                  cardiovascular disease," Bryant said.

                  Democracy 21
                  Fred Wertheimer, president of Democracy 21, an organization that focuses
                  on using the technology revolution to strengthen democracy, noted the
                  importance of the campaign finance battle.

                  "A national consensus exists today that soft money is corrupting our
                  democracy and needs to be banned," said Wertheimer. "The coming battle
                  to enact the McCain-Feingold bill in the Senate and the Shays-Meehan bill
                  in the House will determine whether the national consensus for reform can
                  overcome the defenders in Washington of the corrupt status quo."

                  Tobacco-Free Kids
                  William V. Corr, executive vice president of the Campaign for
                  Tobacco-Free Kids, welcomed the formation of the Americans for Reform
                  coalition citing the continued leadership of Senator John McCain and Russ
                  Feingold in seeking to reform our nation's campaign finance system and give
                  government back to the people.

                  "This system not only costs our nation by harming our governmental
                  institutions - it also costs lives," Corr said. "There is no better example than
                  the tobacco industry's success in 1998 in defeating the comprehensive
                  tobacco legislation sponsored by Senator McCain. This bill was defeated in
                  the Senate by a filibuster even though 57 Senators supported it."