Courts Water Down Public Financing System
This article was published on August 4, 2010 in the Waterbury Republican-American
With the August 10th party primary elections just around the corner, turning on your television is getting more and more dangerous by the day. Candidates of all stripes are looking for you and they want your votes.
The rules governing how this blizzard of advertising is financed are convoluted on their best day and byzantine the rest of the time. Recent actions the federal appeals courts have made the situation worse.
Since 2008, Connecticut’s candidates for state offices, like State Representative, State Senator, or Governor, have had the option of participating in the state’s new public financing system, in which candidates can receive government checks to pay for their campaigns. After years of legal wrangling, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals finally passed judgment on the case Green Party of Connecticut v. Garfield , which dealt with the constitutionality of the program, called the Citizens’ Election Program (CEP).
The Court ruled that much of the framework for the CEP, such as the State’s ban on contributions from lobbyists, the ban on state contractors soliciting contributions, and the so-called “trigger” provision as well as the independent expenditure provisions are all unconstitutional. The core of the law, however, – politicians using government dollars to pay for their advertising – remains intact.
The immediate results of the ruling are very much in doubt. Numerous statewide candidates, like gubernatorial contenders Dan Malloy and Lt. Gov. Mike Fedele, have already qualified for and received funds for their candidacies. Unless the U.S. Supreme Court takes action, candidates for the General Assembly are very likely to receive their public money as well.
Though something of a reprieve for current candidates, the long term impact of the ruling doesn’t end publicly-funded campaigns, but it certainly waters them down. The invalidated matching funds provision, for example, provided additional money to CEP candidates who were challenged by high-spending, nonparticipating opponents. The counterweight funds helped to force candidate participation in CEP. Without them, many candidates will likely choose not to use the public dollars.
The program remains a good deal for candidates for the state legislature, though the ability of labor unions and, potentially, corporations to get involved means that the good deal will get steadily less good over time.
More broadly, there are key lessons that should be gleaned from the legal drama. Though it is sexy for the General Assembly to pass big, sweeping reforms that dramatically change that way things happen in our society, like elections, health care, or financial regulations, it is far preferable that legislators take a more studied approach to their responsibilities.
Instead in this case, lawmakers returned to the State Capitol recently to vote on fixes to the system. The vast majority of lawmakers who voted on the remedies will be receiving state money in the coming months to run their campaigns. This is a very poor way to make laws.
At a time when the State of Connecticut needs a robust discussion about our political future, the legal framework for having that dialogue cannot be held hostage to the rulings of the judiciary. By proceeding more deliberately and thoughtfully, the Legislature can avoid the need for protracted legal battles.
But this lesson isn’t just for legislators. It is more important for voters. As the various candidates arrive at the door and ask for votes, they must be asked about their legislating philosophy: do they prefer great big changes all at once or common sense reforms that occur less rapidly? This test of governing philosophy is likely to be more revealing than any other query that a potential legislator might face.
Given the chaos that has ensnared the recent efforts at dramatic social change, incrementalism seems far better suited to our times. It affects the social transformations that must take place, but does it while mitigating the upheaval that accompanies change.
