State Capitol Summer
Photo by Steve Kotchko
Posted 8/9/10
The state legislature is back at the State Capitol this month, another in their all-too-familiar series of “special” sessions. However, this summer, instead of wrangling over the state deficit, lawmakers are trying to fix Connecticut’s much-publicized but court-challenged election reform law.
As we referenced here last week, the Democrat-controlled House and Senate met July 30 and approved legislation crafting various “fixes” in the law to satisfy federal courts that ruled the Connecticut statute contained unconstitutional elements. Republican Gov. Jodi Rell quickly vetoed the measure, claiming a part of the bill that boosted grants to gubernatorial candidates to $6 million in state funds was reckless, given the recessionary economy.
On Aug. 5, the State Senate reconvened and voted 24 to 10 to override Rell’s veto, sending the bill to the State House where an override attempt is pending.
Unlike some past special sessions that became mired in partisan debates that dragged on for hours, this Senate set-to seemed to be “debate lite” lasting just 18 minutes. Apparently the pressure of the August 10th primaries statewide, and the coming general election campaign for all lawmakers promoted brevity.
Republicans, led by Rell, continued to claim the $6 million dollar limit on gubernatorial public financing grants (vs. $3 million) is a “political welfare program”. Rell said it was wrong to boost the grants at a time “when our economy continues to be weak.”
Rell’s complaint seemed odd because unlike some GOP lawmakers who said from the start that spending any taxpayer dollars on political campaigns was wrong, the Governor was a key supporter of campaign finance reform and public financing. It could be argued her backing was the catalyst to final passage.
Some Democrats argued Rell’s opposition to the $6 million dollar figure was a pre-emptive strike on the possible Democratic gubernatorial nominee Dan Malloy, who is utilizing the public financing law to fund his campaign.
Republican senators however insisted recessionary issues argued against the higher limit. “Spending $6 million more in this economy with anticipated deficits in the coming years is inappropriate,” said State Sen. Michael McLachlan (R-Danbury). “We are asking the taxpayers to foot another $6 million,” said GOP Senate leader John McKinney (R-Fairfield). “This is money that belongs to the taxpayers of the state of Connecticut.”
Technically, McKinney is correct, but the public financing money is not a new appropriation or level of taxation. The dollars come from the state’s ongoing unclaimed properties fund.
Democrats argued the extra money wasn’t really new money, but simply an attempt to be fair to public financing candidates while obeying the details of the federal court rulings. The U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the state law’s so-called “trigger provision”; allowing public financing candidates added funds if wealthy rivals choose to spend more as the campaigns wear on.
“The Court struck down the trigger mechanism, so we have replaced that with an increased base grant independent of what levels of spending are undertaken by other candidates,” said State Senate Majority Leader Martin Looney (D-New Haven). Democrats said up to $9 million dollars had already been allocated for the gubernatorial contest, so “capping” the total at $6 million was actually a money saver.
Rell also bashed Democrats for allegedly soiling the clean election law by granting new loopholes for lobbyists. She claimed a change in the bill allows lobbyist contributions to candidates participating in public financing to count as qualifying contributions. Candidates must reach a threshold of donations, before getting public funds.
The Governor also questioned why new political restrictions on lobbyists and state contractors won’t take effect until January, allowing looser rules in this year’s important fall campaigns. GOP senators echoed that criticism.
“Clean elections meant no contractors, no lobbyists,” said McKinney. “You’ve let lobbyists back in the game, that is no longer clean,” he said.
Democrats did not answer the GOP charges in details, they simply said they were trying to save the campaign reform law and answer the Court’s objections, which did include criticism that the law unfairly restricted lobbyist participation in political life.
“This is a reasonable prudent bill that stays within the guidelines and implications of what is permissible and impermissible (by the federal courts),” said Looney.
After both sides in the Senate made their cases in summary fashion, the Senate quickly voted to override Rell’s veto, and immediately sent the bill to the State House.
However, because this is summer and vacation season, House Democratic leaders decided to hold off on action until Aug. 13, diligently checking vacation schedules and support levels to insure they can secure the 101 votes needed to complete the override of Rell’s veto.
The Governor said she’d continue to fight against the bill, apparently hoping she can “will” Democrats to rethink their action. “Whether the House of Representatives will muster sufficient votes (to override) remains an open question,” said Rell.