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."