News » December 26, 2005

Cleaning Up Elections in Connecticut

By Hank Hoffman

Former governor John G. Rowland announcing his resignation.

Take one governor in hot water. Raise heat until the governor goes to prison. Combine with a unified and persistent coalition of reform advocates, and mix in widespread outrage at corruption. Add a dash of bipartisanship. What have you got?

In Connecticut, it’s the recipe for breakthrough campaign finance reform.

On November 30, the Connecticut House of Representatives followed the state Senate in approving a measure introducing voluntary public financing for legislative and statewide offices. A week later, Republican Gov. Jodi Rell—who took office after Gov. John Rowland resigned in a corruption scandal—signed it into law.

Advocates, seeking to get big money out of politics, call the key provision “Clean Elections.” By raising a specified goal in small contributions, major party candidates can opt to receive a public grant to finance their campaigns rather than go the conventional route of begging from well-heeled interests. The measure also bans contributions from lobbyists and state contractors, limits campaign spending for recipients of public financing, and places new restrictions on political action committees, or PACs. Public financing for legislative races takes effect in the 2008 election cycle and in 2010 for statewide offices.

Connecticut, which had earned the nickname “Corrupticut” after a recent rash of state and municipal scandals, is the first state to create a public financing mechanism for legislative races by legislative action. Arizona and Maine had previously adopted clean elections through referenda.

Democrats control both houses of the Connecticut General Assembly and House Majority Leader Christopher Donovan (D-Meriden) made sure that the Democrats had the votes to pass the measure. Although Rell was clear in her support for the measure, only four Republicans in each chamber voted for it.

“This sets the bar higher for what people who want reform can expect from their lawmakers,” says Nick Nyhart, executive director of Public Campaign, a national campaign finance reform group. As an advocate in the early ’90s, Nyhart had co-authored the first version of the bill, and credits the victory in part to the fact that when the scandals broke, a long-time measure backed by reformers was ready. Groups like the Connecticut Citizen Action Group (CCAG) and the state Common Cause chapter insisted on a strong bill with the Clean Elections component or the “entire reform community would walk.”

The new law will “stop the endless money chase,” says Tom Swan, CCAG executive director. “It will result in the transformation of the political process where the power of voters will be increased and corporate control lessened.”

But the law is not without its critics. The ban on lobbyist and contractor contributions may spark a court challenge over free speech issues. Republicans, and some reformers, view a provision that allows PACs controlled by party leadership to aid campaigns with “in-kind” contributions as having the potential for abuse.

Particularly contentious are the thresholds needed for third-party candidates to receive public financing. Critics say the legislation favors the Democratic-Republican duopoly by forcing third party candidates to collect signatures of eligible voters equal to 10 percent of the previous election turnout as well as to reach the same threshold of small contributions as the larger parties. A third party candidate has to collect signatures of 20 percent of the number of voters in the previous election to obtain a full grant.

Donovan defends the third party provisions as a “not unreasonable” method to screen out fringe candidates. The provisions are better than federal law, he argues, because funding isn’t based on the number of votes a candidate receives, which delays eligibility until the next election cycle. Plus, he notes that the current third party provisions were one of the prices of getting the votes for passage.

While Jon Green, director of Connecticut’s Working Families Party, supports the bill overall, he describes the third party provisions as “unquestionably unfair in principle.” Green supports a lower signature threshold, around 3 to 5 percent, and notes that the significant small donation requirement would likely eliminate all fringe parties.

• Help In These Times publish more articles like this. Donate today!
• Subscribe today and save 46% off the newsstand price!

• subscribe to print magazine

• stay in touch with our email newsletter

  Subscribe to our regular weekly e-mail newsletter. It's packed with updates on recent and upcoming stories, events, campaigns and things every progressive should be informed about.

   

• email this article to a friend

  Your Name Your Email Recipient Email

  Personal message Thought you might be interested in this article from In These Times.

   

  Please help us prevent spam by verifying the word you see in the image above

  Send to multiple recipients. Just separate each email address with a comma.

• Reader Comments

  I would like to see more on this topic. Perhaps a series of small articles?  Longer articles?  Bullits?

  Just when a story gets compelling, it abruptly ends—-like the author was running out of ink.

  Posted by wileywitch on Dec 30, 2005 at 3:17 AM

  I agree with Wileywitch

  Posted by briancady413 on Dec 30, 2005 at 5:48 PM

• register a new account »Posting Security

  To participate in our forums, please register for a free account.

  Username Password

    Remember me
  

  Retreive lost password »

Also featured Evo Morales Has Plans for Bolivia
Snap, Crackle Patents
Christmas in New Orleans

Full contents
Previous issues
Subscribe and save!

Also by Hank Hoffman

• The Beehive Collective
  Images of human beings don’t appear in the world conjured in the posters… morePosted on November 19, 2003
• Green Scare
  Activists targeted as ‘terrorists‘Posted on May 9, 2002
• Springtime for Dissent
  75,000 gather in Washington.Posted on April 26, 2002
• To the Extreme
  FBI testimony only provokes fear of new CointelproPosted on October 1, 2001
• Massive Attack
  Logging allies launch coordinated effort to cripple Rainforest Action NetworkPosted on September 3, 2001