Social Networks We Use

Categories

CT Tech Junkie Feed

NASA’s Orion Spacecraft Completes Successful Unmanned First Mission
Dec 5, 2014 11:30 am
An unmanned test flight of NASA’s new Orion spacecraft was successful this morning, flying higher than any human-rated...more »
2014 Connecticut International Auto Show to Feature Electric Vehicles And More
Nov 20, 2014 9:00 am
State automobile retailers are hoping to educate consumers about the benefits of electric vehicles at the Connecticut...more »

Our Partners

˜

OP-ED | Reject Rotten Campaign Finance Bill

by Susan Bigelow | May 31, 2013 7:00am
(5) Comments | Commenting has expired
Posted to: Campaign Finance, Election Policy, Opinion


As the legislative session wheezes to a close, a major campaign finance bill has yet to be voted upon. The current version has largely been drafted behind closed doors, which is just as bad a sign as you’d expect.

Campaign finance bills were once a source of pride for this state. The 2005 campaign finance reform was one of the most durable and wide-reaching accomplishments of former Gov. M. Jodi Rell’s administration. It was passed back in the immediate post-Rowland days when getting money out of politics was briefly in fashion at the Capitol. That reform created the system of public campaign financing, but also enacted plenty of new restrictions on PACs and banned contractors and lobbyists from making contributions.

This new campaign finance bill works to undo and undermine pieces of that landmark law. First, the 2005 law banned so-called “ad books,” which allow contributions from businesses that might otherwise be banned from contributing. These are incredibly lucrative: back in 2005 it was estimated that a fifth of legislative campaign income came from the ad books. This bill resurrects them, for no good reason other than politicians’ desire for more money.

Another provision increases the amount that can be donated to party committees. Rep. Ed Jutila, D-East Lyme, says this is a “reaction” to the execrable Citizens United Supreme Court decision, which allowed Super PACs to spend unlimited amounts of money supporting candidates or causes. Funneling more money to party committees is “one way to try to level the playing field,” claimed Jutila.

Please. This is the same argument we seem to hear every election cycle when parties and candidates want more cash: “If we don’t spend more money, the other side definitely will!” It’s the cynical excuse the Obama campaign used to justify dropping out of the federal public campaign finance system. It seems like they’re not trying to level the playing field so much as put it completely out of reach for most people. Trust me: more money in politics isn’t going to make politics any cleaner or better. There’s more money than ever in politics, after all, and somehow things have yet to improve.

The last thing we should be doing right now is trying to draw more money in to the system, especially in the wake of the Robert Braddock Jr. corruption trial. After all, Braddock was convicted of conspiring to hide the source of campaign donations to former Speaker Christopher Donovan’s congressional campaign: tobacco store owners hoping to influence the then-Speaker against pending legislation that would have negatively impacted their businesses. Putting forward a bill that actually increases how much money people can send to party committees while claiming it’s all in the name of fighting back against moneyed interests seems like the height of hypocrisy.

The bill also targets, for depressingly obvious reasons, the Independent Party. This all probably comes from the ads Linda McMahon was running near the end of her last campaign for the U.S. Senate. She encouraged voters to vote for her on the “Independent” line (the Independent Party had cross-endorsed her). About 46,000 voters did so, which was 10,000 more than the similarly cross-endorsed ballots Chris Murphy received on the Working Families line. Of course, Murphy clobbered McMahon by nearly 200,000 votes, so it didn’t actually matter, but that didn’t stop Democrats from trying to disallow party names like “Independent Party” because, as Sen. Anthony Musto, D-Trumbull, said, people might get that confused with “unaffiliated.” This is also known as the “voters must be really stupid” rule.

In fact, draft copies of the bill also specify that no party may use words like “United States,” “America,” “Connecticut,” the name of a city or town, or any words relating to a symbol for the government or the country. One of the best-known features of this country is that we’re a democratic republic, but somehow I don’t think the Republicans or Democrats will have to change their names. Unfortunately, small parties all over the state, including the long-established Independent Party, will be forced to change.

There is nothing remotely progressive or decent about these parts of the bill. Lifting the ban on “ad books” and raising the contribution limits for state party committees undermines the 2005 campaign finance reform law, and targeting small parties seems both cruel and sadly political. The legislature shouldn’t pass this bill, and if they lose their sense and do so, the governor should veto it.

Susan Bigelow is an award-winning columnist and the founder of CTLocalPolitics. She lives in Enfield with her wife and their cats.

Tags: , , , , , ,

Share this story with others.

Share | |

(5) Comments

posted by: mattw | May 31, 2013  8:47pm

Notably, there is already a law on the books (9-453u) banning party names that mean the opposite of “enrolled” or “affiliated.” And it genuinely does confuse voters, though more when they’re registering than when they’re voting (note the performance of Rocky Anderson as opposed to Linda McMahon).

That said, the whole bill is a dog.

posted by: ACR | May 31, 2013  9:04pm

ACR

FYI - Town Committees always had ad books, and they probably should.


I’ve no disagreement with the rest of the piece save for pointing out that the state parties have access to two budgets, federal and state rendering the complaint regarding state parties regaining the use of ad books for their state budgets somewhat empty.

posted by: William Jenkins | June 1, 2013  10:27am

You really ought to wait until the final version of the bill is voted on because most of what you’re complaining about isn’t in what the House passed last night.

posted by: Susan Bigelow | June 1, 2013  12:27pm

From what I’m seeing the version passed by the House is even worse. More money, more negative campaigning. I’m not impressed at all, and the gist of my argument still applies. We’re undermining the 2005 reform a little at a time.

posted by: William Jenkins | June 2, 2013  7:05pm

The “Independent Party” was not eliminated so you’re wrong about that. “Ad books” that were already allowed for town committees now apply to political committees and state party committees but not candidate committees as you implied.

State party committees contribute a very small portion of their total yearly budgets to state races so increasing contribution limits from individuals and now letting them use “ad books” really only gives them a little more money for salaries and overhead. It’s not like millions of dollars are now going to flow into any state level races.  If you think that’s the case then you’re uninformed.  You’re being shrill about nothing in this case.

Trying to link Robert Braddock who was the finance director for a FEDERAL candidate to changes in STATE law is an apples/oranges comparison.  Federal laws and regulations govern federal campaigns, the state legislature only concerns itself with STATE laws and STATE campaigns.

The “gist” of your wrong arguments don’t apply to the bill that was ultimately voted on.