Through the tireless work of reformers, the state formerly known as Corrupticut now has one of the cleanest election laws in the country so stunning that one good-government activist likens it to "a beautiful bride."
Through the nefarious scheming of power brokers, Connecticut also has a brand-new election slush fund so self-serving that one critic calls it "the No Incumbent Left Behind Law."
Both are the same law, passed through a special legislative session by Democratic honchos in the middle of the night, and signed on Pearl Harbor Day by Republican Gov. Jodi "I'm not John Rowland" Rell.
Depending on whom you talk to, the law is either the best election-reform bill ever adopted in the U.S., or an abomination masquerading as real reform. And both reactions come from members of the Clean Up Connecticut Campaign, a coalition that has pushed for election reform for a decade.
The law won't kick in until the 2008 election cycle. Already, though, reformers are hotly debating whether and how the legislature should change the law in the session that begins Feb. 8.
These differences are among people who support drastic change in Connecticut's campaign-finance system. On whether this law was the change we needed, they are far from consensus.
Actually, the reformers agree that they like certain aspects of the new campaign-finance law:
- It bans campaign contributions by lobbyists and state contractors. (The American Civil Liberties Union of Connecticut objects to the outright ban on lobbyist contributions, but executive director Roger Vann acknowledges that other reformers love the ban.)
- It ushers in public funding for candidates who qualify. In return, they must agree to spending limits.
- Together, public financing and the restrictions on fat-cat donors should make politicians less beholden to private contributors and, at least theoretically, give challengers a much better shot at incumbents.
- It contains a loophole that reformers agree about closing: Political action committees run by legislative leaders can make "in-kind" contributions to candidates they favor.
The major disagreement revolves around minor parties specifically, the hurdles they must leap before qualifying for public campaign funding.
Democrats and Republicans can get the public money simply by raising a set amount from small donors. But third-party candidates who already have to collect voters' signatures to get on the ballot must round up even more signatures to receive public money.
To get full funding, they need signatures equaling 20 percent of the turnout in the last election. For statewide office, that adds up to more than 200,000 signatures. With signatures from 10 percent, candidates get half the money.
"This is partisan, self-serving politics at its worst," fumes Mike DeRosa, co-chairman of the Connecticut Green Party. "Show me the fairness."
The Greens, calling the third-party requirements unconstitutional, are threatening a lawsuit that could scuttle the entire campaign-finance law. DeRosa was disappointed not to find more support for that view at a Clean Up Connecticut meeting this month.
"I think these folks are so eager to pass a reform bill that they close their eyes to the fact that this is a deform bill," he says. He contends that his party is "absolutely" worse off under the new system than under the old, because incumbents can help themselves to public money while also getting fat handouts from party leaders through the PAC loophole.
That's nonsense, says Tom Swan of the Connecticut Citizen Action Group, who doubles as the reform coalition's executive director. He accuses the Greens of "whining" about a system that is "much fairer than what they had before."
Swan calls the petition requirements for third-party legislative candidates "reasonable." In the Hartford-area Senate District 1, where DeRosa has thrice challenged the incumbent Democrat, the Green could get full public funding with about 3,600 signatures.
"When in the hell has a minor party ever had that kind of money?" Swan asks. "They may be outspent two to one, as opposed to 10 or 15 to one now."
Striking a more moderate tone are two other Clean Up Connecticut Campaign members: the ACLU's Vann and Andy Sauer of Common Cause Connecticut.
"The hurdles that are put in the path of third-party candidates are excessive," Vann says, and he will work to change them in the coming legislative session.
But he's not talking litigation at least not yet: "We want to give the legislature a chance to fix it."
Sauer who emphasizes that he's speaking only for Common Cause, not for the coalition says the third-party requirements are "unnecessary" and that he supports changing them. At the same time, he calls the law "a very, very good law. This law is like a beautiful bride coming down the aisle, and all the cynics can do is point out the flaws."
More like the Bride of Frankenstein, says DeRosa.
"Why is this bill happening now, anyway?" he demands. "It's happening because of the embarrassment of having the [ex-] governor in jail and the [ex-] treasurer in jail. It's an attempt to shore up a corrupt system."
