CT Campaign Finance
Reform down for the count?
Wealthy candidates opted out in 2010 Gubernatorial race...by
2012, Malloy administration's proposal to mix public financing and
unlimited private cash was roundly panned.
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? Check it out from non-LWV source here.
Older news.
FBI Agents Turning Screws On CT Legislators
Hartford
Courant
Kevin
Rennie, NOW YOU KNOW
4:20 PM EST,
February 20, 2014
Federal
criminal investigators returned Wednesday to their stomping
grounds, the Legislative Office Building in the state Capitol
complex. Agents were in search of information about ties among
some Republican legislators, a staffer and a Florida printing
company that produces gazillions of copies of post cards and
assorted brochures for candidates, many of whom use public funds
to finance their political campaigns.
On Thursday
afternoon, House Republican chief of staff George Gallo, a veteran
campaign hand, resigned as federal agents continued to ask
questions from their tense perch in the Legislative Office
Building.
The state's
misbegotten public campaign financing program did not invent
corruption, but it may have created a lucrative new way to exploit
some bad instincts. The expensive system involves raising a small
amount of money from contributors to snag a big chunk of public
money. The system gives a bucket of cash to candidates who
previously would barely have had a nickel to buy paint for lawn
signs.
Many of
these candidates have no clue how to spend it. They turn to that
curious hybrid class of politicos for direction: legislative staff
members who double as campaign consultants. It's a dangerous
combination but the rewards can be lucrative because there are
millions of dollars (your dollars) to be spent on campaigns.
Wednesday's questions, according to Capitol insiders, seemed aimed
at learning about possible kickbacks between a printer and a
campaign pooh-bah.
[Please read the rest of this article in the archives at the Hartford COURANT website]
Despite Latest Evidence of
Corruption, Lawmakers Consider Giving More Money to Parties,
PACs
CTNEWSJUNKIE
by Christine Stuart | May 29, 2013 8:34am
Behind closed-doors Tuesday, lawmakers were crafting legislation
that would help them funnel more money to political party
committees, legislative leadership committees, and political
action committees.
According to Rep. Ed Jutila, who co-chairs the General
Administration and Elections Committee, the “essence” of the
bill is an attempt to address the Citizens’ United decision that
allowed unlimited amounts of money to be spent by Super PACs
either for or against candidates — even if those candidates
participated in the public campaign finance system. Close to
$700,000 in independent expenditures from Super PACs was spent
in the 2012 election cycle.
“It’s one way to try and even the playing field,” Jutila said
Tuesday.
Jutila said the amount of money individuals can give to the
candidates participating in the Citizens’ Election Program will
not change under the omnibus campaign finance bill, but the
amount of money individuals can give to the two major parties,
leadership PACs, and town committees will increase under the
proposal.
The proposal comes just one week after a federal corruption
trial demonstrated exactly how much sway money has over
Connecticut politics and policymaking. During that trial, a
cooperating witness detailed how he was able to use the
donations to former House Speaker Chris Donovan’s failed
congressional campaign and three Republican leadership PACs
controlled by House Minority Leader Lawrence Cafero in an effort
to kill legislation detrimental to the interests of smoke shop
owners.
[Please read the rest of this article in the archives at the CTNEWSJUNKIE website]
Governor's controversial campaign finance fix rejected
Mark Pazniokas, CT MIRROR
March 29, 2012
Gov. Dannel P. Malloy's much-maligned proposal to let publicly
financed candidates raise unlimited supplemental funds if
opposed by a high-spending opponent was rejected Thursday by a
legislative committee.
Instead, the Government Administration and Elections Committee
increased the public grant for a gubernatorial race from $1.25
million to $2.5 million for a primary and from $6 million to $9
million for the general election.
The changes passed 10-5 on a party-line vote.
The Malloy administration's proposal to mix public financing and
unlimited private cash was roundly panned by Common Cause, the
Citizen Action Group, the State Elections Enforcement Commission
and newspaper editorial boards.
"That was just a conversation starter, and it started
conversations," said Sen. Gayle S. Slossberg, D-Milford. "But it
also allowed us to have a very important discussion about how do
you have a program that really works."
[Please read the rest of this article in the archives at the CT MIRROR website]
Supreme Court: matching grants in public financing are
unconstitutional
Deirdre
Shesgreen,
CT MIRROR
June 27,
2011
WASHINGTON--A
narrowly-divided
U.S. Supreme Court on Monday ruled that supplemental grants
triggered by an opponent's spending in state public funding
systems are unconstitutional.
The 5-to-4
decision means Connecticut will not be able to revive the matching
grants that helped fuel the bids of both Democrat Dannel P. Malloy
and Republican Michael C. Fedele in last year's expensive
gubernatorial contest, as they competed against two wealthy,
self-funding opponents.
The case at
issue in today's ruling involved an Arizona law that--just like
Connecticut's--provided candidates participating in the state's
public financing system extra funds based on their opponents'
spending. Proponents of such matching-grant provisions argued that
they fostered a more robust debate in elections, made public
financing more workable, and helped guard against corruption by
limiting special interest campaign contributions.
But
opponents said they actually stifled free speech and punished
candidates who declined to participate in public financing-because
any money they injected into their own campaigns could trigger
public grants to their opponents. In Monday's ruling, the majority
agreed with the latter argument, saying that Arizona's matching
grant system "substantially burdens protected political speech"
and violates the First Amendment.
[Please read the rest of this article in the archives at the CT MIRROR website]
Supreme Court campaign
finance case has implications for Connecticut
Deirdre Shesgreen, CT
MIRROR
March 28, 2011
WASHINGTON--Connecticut's
public campaign financing program will be on
trial--indirectly, anyway--before the U.S. Supreme Court
today, when the justices will hear oral arguments in an
Arizona case to determine whether supplemental grants,
triggered by an opponent's spending are constitutional.
Such payments were doled
out to both Democrat Dannel Malloy and Republican Michael
C. Fedele during Connecticut's heated gubernatorial
primary contests last summer, as they scrambled to keep up
with their wealthy self-funding opponents. Just weeks
before the state's primary election, a federal appeals
court deemed those supplemental grants unconstitutional,
prompting a special legislative session in Hartford to
deal with the fall-out.
But two months earlier, a
federal court in California ruled that a similar Arizona
system, which also provided candidates participating in
the state's public financing system extra funds based on
their opponents' spending, was constitutional.
Now, the Supreme Court
will decide the issue, which touches on a wide range of
thorny legal questions, from campaign finance rules to
freedom of speech.
Opponents of triggered
extra payments say that system "punishes" candidates who
don't participate in public financing and hinders their
free speech. Supporters say such a system actually
encourages more robust debate in elections and keep
campaigns free of corruption by limiting the influence of
special interest campaign contributions.
For now-Gov. Malloy, the
funding from Connecticut's Citizens' Election Program was
certainly critical. He got $2.5 million for the primary
and $6 million for the general election in CEP funds.
[Please read the rest of this article in the archives at the CT MIRROR website]
CAMPAIGN
FINANCE
VETO OVERRIDDEN BY SENATE AUGUST 6; HOUSE TO
TAKE IT UP FRIDAY THE 13th?
Senate Passes Campaign-Finance Law Fix; Rell
Promises Veto
Hartford Courant
By DANIELA ALTIMARI
10:07 PM EDT, July 30, 2010
HARTFORD —
Amid one of the most contentious election cycles in years,
lawmakers labored through the day Friday in an attempt to fix
the state's campaign finance law, deemed unconstitutional by a
federal appeals court. The Senate approved the changes Friday
night and sent them on to the House.
The repair put forth by the legislature's Democratic majority
and approved by the state Senate along party lines Friday
night restructures the taxpayer-funded Citizens Election Fund
and increases the size of the grants to those running for
constitutional offices. In the case of gubernatorial
candidates, the grants would double from $3 million to $6
million.
But Gov. M. Jodi Rell, who has called campaign finance reform
and clean elections a key part of her legacy, vowed to veto
any measure that raises the ceiling on grants.
"I cannot in good conscience endorse an additional $6 million
in public funding that will be used by candidates to bombard
each other — and the public — with a relentless series of
negative messages from now until November,'' Rell said in a
statement.
"The public is already fed up with the nasty, negative
campaign ads that are playing almost non-stop on TV and radio.
Now legislators want to give away even more public funds — as
much as $6 million — to keep these attacks going.''
[Please read the rest of this article in the archives at the Hartford COURANT website]
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.
[Please read the rest of this article in the archives at the Hartford COURANT website]
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."
[Please read the rest of this article in the archives at the CT MIRROR website]
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.
[Please read the rest of this article in the archives at the New Haven Register website]
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.
[Please read the rest of this article in the archives at the Manchester Journal Inquirer website]
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.
[Please read the rest of this article in the archives at the Hartford COURANT website]
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.
[Please read the rest of this article in the archives at the Hartford COURANT website]
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.
[Please read the rest of this article in the archives at THE DAY (New London, CT) website]