January 28, 2010
Poll says residents want public financing law fixed
By Mark Pazniokas
Want to handicap the odds of saving the state's voluntary system of publicly financing campaigns?
The Senate majority leader is optimistic about the legislature revising the law, which was found unconstitutional last summer. The Senate minority leader is betting against it.
"I think we are coming close to the point where it is too late," said Senate Minority Leader John P. McKinney, R-Fairfield.
Common Cause bolstered its efforts to save the public financing of campaigns in Connecticut with a poll Wednesday that shows support for the reforms passed in 2005 after the resignation of Gov. John G. Rowland.
The group is trying to nudge legislators to cure legal defects in the law that could kill the Citizens' Election Program just as candidates for statewide office otherwise would be receiving their first grants.
"Nearly 8 in 10 respondents indicated their support for public financing of elections. This is a message that the governor and legislators can't ignore," said Cheri Quickmire, executive director of Common Cause Connecticut.
A telephone survey by Zogby International found that 79 percent of residents favor the program and 58 percent support Gov. M. Jodi Rell and legislators making changes necessary to conform to the court ruling against it.
U.S. District Judge Stefan Underhill in August ruled that the program is unconstitutional, saying it favors Democrats and Republicans at the expense of minor party candidates. The state's appeal of his decision is pending.
Senate Majority Leader Martin M. Looney, D-New Haven, said that he believes legislators are close to finding a way to level the field for how candidates for major and minor parties would qualify for public funds.
More problematic, he said, is trying to save provisions that would provide supplemental funds to candidates who are the target of negative ads by independent groups or who face high-spending, privately financed opponents.
"That's a thorny subject, and there's been no consensus," he said.
Under the present law, qualifying candidates for governor are eligible for $1.25 million for a primary and $3 million for the general election. The state could double those grants to help offset higher spending by a privately financed candidate.
In an interview, Rell said the legislature needs to quickly address Underhill's objections. She asked lawmakers to amend the program in November, but legislators could not reach a consensus then, either.
"The biggest problem for me right now is the uncertainly for candidates. They don t know which way to go," she said. "They are in a state of limbo."
Despite his pessimism, McKinney said he hopes the legislature can resolve that uncertainty.
"I absolutely believe we must do something," he said, adding it would be unfair to candidates to simply hope the state wins on appeal.
A complicating factor is the U.S. Supreme Court recently struck down federal restrictions on corporately financed attack ads, calling it an abrogation of free speech.
Underhill upheld a provision of the Connecticut law that bans lobbyists and state contractors from making or soliciting campaign contributions. The lobbyists are appealing.
Their lawyer, R. Bartley Halloran, said he believes the Supreme Court decision means that the state must demonstrate a compelling reason to ban the solicitations, which are a form of political speech. But he acknowledged that the state might be able to restrict, though not totally ban lobbyist and contractor contributions.
Attorney General Richard Blumenthal has said that the Supreme Court case, Citizens United, should not influence the Connecticut appeal, but the appeals court has asked both sides to submit briefs exploring the relevance of the decision.
Karen Hobert Flynn of Common Cause said that Citizens United has had one positive effect for reformers: Several states are taking a look at public financing as a way to counter what they expect will be a deluge of independent campaign spending by corporations and unions.
"In Connecticut, we did it," she said. "Now, we need to fix it and preserve it for the future."
Legislators have said they hope to hold public hearings on possible changes to the law soon after the General Assembly begins its 2010 session on Feb 3.
Dannel P. Malloy, one of the Democrats exploring a run for governor, quickly seized on the poll as a reason for the rest of the field to to participate in public financing.
One of Malloy's better-known rivals for the nomination, Ned Lamont, who spent $17 million of his money on a U.S. Senate race in 2006, has refused to commit. Tom Foley, a wealthy businessman seeking the Republican nomination, has said he will not seek public funds.
"This poll should serve as proof of just how strongly Connecticut voters feel about campaign finance reform, and as a warning for those candidates who think they can brush aside the Citizens' Election Program in order to try and buy a nomination," Malloy said.
It is unclear how persuasive legislators will find the poll, which found that 50 percent of those surveyed did not know enough about the Citizens' Election Program to initially have an opinion.
Of the rest, 45 percent approved and 5 percent disapproved.
But 79 percent of respondents expressed support after the pollster read this definition:
"Under the Citizens' Election program, candidates collect a set amount of small contributions of
$100 or less to qualify for a limited amount of public funds. Once qualified, they must adhere to
strict campaign spending limits and can no longer accept campaign contributions. Knowing this,
do you strongly favor, somewhat favor, somewhat oppose or strongly oppose the Citizens' Election
Program?"
The 2005 law bans contributions from lobbyists, state contractors and their spouses. It creates a voluntary system of public financing campaigns in which candidates qualify for funds by raising threshold amounts, relying on contributions of no more than $100. No funds are payable until a candidate qualifies for the ballot in a primary or general election.
In the case of candidates for governor, they must raise $250,000 to qualify for a primary grant of $1.25 million and a general-election grant of $3 million. More than 70 percent of legislative candidates used public financing in 2008. This would be the first election it was available to candidates for governor and other statewide constitutional offices.
The poll was based on a survey of 503 people. The margin of error is plus or minus 4.5 percentage points.
Share your ideas
Contribute to The Connecticut Mirror's op-ed page.
03SepEditor's Choice Elsewhere on the Web
|
Jumping ship: Both candidates for U.S. Senate are highlighting support from members of the opposing party, Heart's Brian Lockhart reports. Democrat Richard Blumenthal's campaign issued an open letter from six Republicans who are "putting aside partisanship" to back the attorney general. Meanwhile, a spokesman for Republican Linda McMahon says she is approached daily by "disaffected Democrats" who plan to vote for her.
From tax breaks to preferential parking, Connecticut should offer an array of incentives to encourage the use of electric vehicles on the state, a new report says. The goal is 25,000 electric vehicles by 2020-a number that represents less than 1 percent of some 3 million vehicles now registered. The Hartford Business Journal summarizes the findings of the Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Council; the full report is here.
Sarah Palin might still be unknown south of Ketchican if John McCain had listened to his daughter. In her new book, "Dirty Sexy Politics," Meghan McCain says she felt "shaken and troubled" after meeting Palin, her father's pick for vice president, reviewer Steven Livingston says in the Washington Post. Her preference: Joe Lieberman, "a brilliant politician . . . one of the kindest, friendliest, and funniest people I have ever met."
|
CTMirror Mobile
Visit m.ctmirror.org on your mobile device for the latest headlines right in your palm.



The League of Women Voters of Connecticut is stunned and appalled at the January 21 Supreme Court Decision in Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission — a step which the League fears has sold out our democratic process to the highest bidders.
The League’s national organization filed an amicus brief in this landmark case and called the decision “constitutionally irresponsible.” The League believes that one of the basic pillars of American democracy — that elections should not be corrupted by vast corporate wealth and that the voters should be at the center of our democratic system — has been undermined.
The League has repeatedly called upon the legislature to move quickly to fix the Citizens’ Election Program and to repeal sections of the legislation that would send the State back to pre-reform days when Connecticut was scoffed at as ‘Corrupticut.’
The League urges Democrats, Republicans, minor party members, and non-affiliated voters of Connecticut to do whatever is in their power to preserve at least our Citizens’ Election Program which assures that individual voters are the deciders in the Connecticut election process. Let your state legislator know that you’re proud of being a clean elections state and that you’re tired of special interests crowding out the voices of average citizens.