Fedele Wins One
Photo by Steve Kotchko
Posted 7/15/10
Two court rulings, issued within hours of each other on July 13, rocked the Connecticut political world, both of them tied to Connecticut’s controversial campaign financing law. The law created a voluntary system for public financing of campaigns, using dollars from the state’s continuing unclaimed properties fund. It also restricted or prohibited campaign contributions or soliciting by lobbyists, state contractors and others—all in the interest of campaign reform.
The first ruling, by the U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals, was a complex mixed bag of results that made it hard to determine winners and losers.
The federal court overruled a lower court decision that maintained Connecticut’s campaign law was unfair to minor party candidates, and it also said the law’s ban on campaign contributions by state contractors was valid. However, the Appeals Court frowned on so-called “trigger provisions” that provide extra funds to candidates using public financing if wealthy rivals, relying on their own fortunes, spend beyond certain thresholds. And the court also ruled that the state law’s ban on campaign contributions by lobbyists is unconstitutional. Not surprisingly, reaction to the diverse ruling was all over the ball park.
Republican Gov. Jodi Rell, a strong advocate of public financing, claimed the concept was “alive and well”, despite the court ruling. As for the stricken ban on lobbyist contributions, Rell suggested the legislature could change the law to allow lobbyist contributions, but restrict them to the same limits mandated for other contributors. “It was the best intention of the legislature and myself when we put (the ban on lobbyist contributions) in place, because we thought we were making a difference (for campaign reform),” she said, adding: “We will abide by the court’s ruling. I think the law will have to be tweaked in a number of places.”
Fergus Cullen, executive director of the Connecticut-based Yankee Institute, a conservative think tank, hailed the Appeals Court ruling that picks apart the Connecticut campaign financing law. Cullen said the law contains “perverse incentives, convoluted logic and unconstitutional provisions” is “fatally flawed” and “should be repealed.”
However, Democratic Secretary of the State Susan Bysiewicz, the state’s top elections official, said she is actually “encouraged” by the federal court ruling because it upheld the state law’s ban on contractor contributions to campaigns and allowed the public financing program to continue.
What happens now? Democratic Attorney General Richard Blumenthal said that after the Appeals Court ruled, it sent the whole issue back to the lower court judge, U.S. District Court Judge Stefan Underhill, for further action. Blumenthal said there was no detailed timetable for Underhill’s review and ruling.
“In the meantime,” said Blumenthal, “publicly financed campaigns may continue to operate pending Judge Underhill’s ruling without previous prohibitions against lobbyist contributions.” He said: “Public finance payments already made to candidates remain valid and may be retained and spent.”
While politicians and journalists were digesting the federal court decision, State Superior Court Judge Julia Aurigemma issued her own ruling in a related campaign financing controversy.
Republican convention-endorsed gubernatorial candidate Tom Foley asked the court to block public financing funds for his GOP primary rival, Lt. Gov. Michael Fedele, claiming Fedele violated rules on collecting contributions to meet the threshold for public financing.
The judge ruled against Foley saying Fedele obeyed the details of the campaign financing law and is “legally entitled” to state campaign funds. She noted that the law required Fedele to choose between public financing and traditional contributions. Fedele chose public financing, so he “cannot raise any private funds now,” and if she blocked the public funds, Fedele would suffer “great harm.”
For Fedele, a decided underdog in the GOP gubernatorial tilt, the ruling was manna from heaven. “It’s my understanding that it’s a green light for us,” he said. Fedele told reporters he expects to spend all of his $2 million in public funds prior to the August 10th primary, probably on TV ads to build his name recognition.
Fedele also predicted Foley’s court fight would backfire and hurt him with GOP primary voters. “We believe this was a frivolous lawsuit,” said Fedele. The Lieutenant Governor hinted that voters will not take kindly to a millionaire candidate, leading in the polls, like Foley, trying to shut off funding for an underdog. Fedele said: “If I was a candidate ahead by 26 points, I would not be too concerned about trying to silence my opponents.”
Foley, however, remains determined on the funding issue, vowing to appeal Aurigemma’s ruling to the State Supreme Court. Foley, who once called the public financing law “ridiculous”, continued to claim that Fedele did not follow the rules in the law. Said Foley: “Lt. Gov. Fedele should not be trying to find a loophole so that he can spend taxpayers’ dollars on his campaign, especially when our state budget is hundreds of millions of dollars in deficit.”
Lawmakers, who were urged by Rell and others to make changes in the campaign law when the U.S. District Court first cited flaws, don’t appear to be in a hurry to make changes after the Appeals Court ruling. “We are evaluating our options,” said State House Speaker Christopher Donovan (D-Meriden). “We need to do a more thorough analysis before we can determine when we will come into session and exactly what actions we will take.”