{news} New Haven ADVocate covers Clean election trial day 1

[Tim McKee]

Clean Elections on Trial: Day 1
===============================


Notes from the federal trial challenging Connecticut's historic campaign
finance reform law.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comments (0)
Wednesday, December 10, 2008
By Andy Bromage Andy Bromage photoMark Lopez, the Green Party of
Connecticut's lawyer, outside federal court in Bridgeport on Day One of
the clean elections trial.

Beth Rotman spends most of her time cheerleading the success of
Connecticut's historic clean elections program. But last year, she penned
a confidential memo to colleagues expressing grave doubts about a
loophole she said could undermine the program.

Rotman, director of the publicly-financed Citizens Election Program,
warned Andy Sauer and Karen Hobert Flynn of Common Cause that candidates
could skirt the Program's spending limits by raising money through
"exploratory" committees. Rotman wrote that because "expenditure limits
apply to the candidate's candidate committee, candidates may use
exploratory committees to raise and spend large sums of money, and
circumvent the overall goals of the Citizens' Election Program."

The memo was one of several pieces of evidence argued over during day one
of a bench trial at U.S. District Court in Bridgeport concerning the
state's fledgling campaign finance reform law. The Green Party of
Connecticut, the ACLU and the lobbyists' association are challenging the
law in the grounds it favors Republicans and Democrats over minor parties
and illegally bars lobbyists from donating to political campaigns.

The Rotman memo was not allowed into evidence because U.S. District Judge
Stefan R. Underhill wasn't convinced that Rotman wrote it in her official
capacity.

"If she writes a holiday card and says, 'Gee, that law we passed really
stinks,'" that wouldn't be admissible, Underhill said from the bench.

Luckily for the Green Party's lawyer, Mark Lopez of New York (pictured at
top), Rotman made similar remarks to the General Assembly that were
allowed into evidence.

For more than seven grueling hours in the wood-paneled courtroom, Lopez
laid out a numbers-laden case to prove the law screws third parties and
protects the ones in power. Lopez had one day to make his case to
Underhill before the defendant state Elections Enforcement Commission and
intervening defendants – New York University's Brennan Center for
Justice, Common Cause and Connecticut Citizen Action Group -- get to
present their side on Wednesday.

THE 'INFERIOR MAJOR PARTY'

The gist of Lopez's argument is this: The Citizens Election Program gives
major parties a benefit that minor parties don't have – and that's
unconstitutional. The benefit is guaranteed campaign cash, whether they
perform well in elections or not.

As major parties, the Democrats and Republicans are guaranteed public
funds to run for governor, legislature and the constitutional offices
(attorney general, secretary of the state, treasurer and comptroller)
provided they raise a minimal amount of seed money in increments of $100
or less.

Minor parties like the Greens, by contrast, can only get the full grant
if they raise the benchmark amount of cash, and if they won 20 percent of
the vote for a seat the prior election, or submit valid signatures equal
to 20 percent of the vote. Minor candidates can get lesser grant amounts
for lesser shares of the vote --- two-thirds of the grant for 15 percent
and one-third for 10 percent.

Green Party co-chair Mike DeRosa has run for state Senator in Hartford
the last several elections and never once broken the 11 percent
threshold.

De Rosa sat in the front row of the courtroom Tuesday (on those
punishing, church pew-style benches) as his lawyer described the bundles
of money his incumbent Democratic opponent raked in. State Sen. John
Fonfara earned a $75,000 primary grant and $85,000 election grant this
fall even though neither DeRosa nor their Republican challenger qualified
for the public grant and ran on just a few thousand bucks combined. That
created a lopsided election that resulted in Fonfara spending twice what
he has in prior elections against candidates who posed virtually no
threat, Lopez said.

The bottom line, according to Lopez: Republicans are just as hopeless as
the Greens or the Libertarians in certain districts. Why should their
access to the public election trough be any different than a minor
party's? If Republicans had the same qualifying rules as minor parities,
Lopez claimed, many that received public funding this year wouldn't have.

"You can't artificially [give money to] one set of inferior candidates
and not another," Lopez said. "By picking the 20 percent number, the
legislature is conferring serious advantage on an inferior major party
candidate."

Lopez made another point: By the state's own definition, races with a
margin of victory that's 20 points or more are non-competitive. In state
Senate races this year, nine major party candidates who got a full public
grant lost by 20 points or more. In state House races, 33 candidates who
got full grants did.

"Major party candidates who received full funding – for lack of a better
way to put it – are getting their heads handed to them," Lopez said.

ROADS NOT TAKEN

Lopez spent the first hour or so laying out proposed fixes to the law
that the legislature never enacted.

One amendment would have banned PACs (political action committees) and
leadership committees (fund-raising committees controlled by the leaders
of the legislature) from raising and spending money on a candidate's
behalf, possibly the biggest loophole heading into the 2010 governor's
race. It died.

So-called "organizational expenditures" are an end-run around the
spending limits that allow special interest PACs to funnel hundreds of
thousands of dollars to candidates they are banned from giving to
directly by funneling it through party and leadership committees that
spend it on their behalf.

That happened to a certain extent this fall – Fonfara, for instance, took
a gratuitous $4,500 in organization expenditures on top of the $160,000
public largesse – but will be an even bigger factor in 2010, when
gubernatorial candidates will get just $3 million for the primary and
general elections.

"We have a situation where Gov. Rell could raise another $3 million
through the state central committee," Lopez said. "The party can run a
stealth campaign behind the façade of the public financing program."

Another amendment would have addressed the "exploratory" committee
loophole that Rotman discussed in her memo. It died.

Jeffrey Garfield, diretor of the state Elections Enforcment Commission
and the lead defendant named in the case, even testified before the
legislature on desperately needed fixes that were ignored.

At one point, Judge Underhill asked Lopez: "What is the relevance of
bills not passed, the alternatives not passed?"

Lopez replied: "They show – did the legislature have alternatives that
were less prohibitive to minor parties?" The answer, Lopez inferred, is
yes.

The state's lawyer, Assistant Attorney General Perry A. Zinn Rowthorn,
said Garfield will testify that his concerns were unfounded.

Rotman says the same thing about the exploratory committee – kind of. In
a brief chat outside the courtroom during a break, Rotman said candidates
for legislature didn't use exploratory committees to skirt spending
limits, but acknowledged the real test – the governor's race –is yet to
happen.

IT WORKS IN MAINE AND ARIZONA

Connecticut's public financing law is based, in part, in ones Maine and
Arizona. Those states set lower limits for third parties to qualify for
public financing, something Lopez argued actually levels the playing
field between major and minor party candidates.

Lopez reminded the court of something even more damning. Connecticut
justifies higher thresholds for third parties, in part, in the name of
protecting the public treasury from frivolous candidates.

But election officials from Maine and Arizona told Connecticut officials
that neither state had such a problem, according to Lopez. The campaign
drain just isn't an issue there.

'I OBJECT'

The defendants had a team of eight lawyers seated around two big wooden
desks. Zinn Rowthorn and his colleagues continually interrupted Lopez to
object to his characterizations of the law, or dispute facts he was
asserting.

Judge Underhill grew less patient over time, telling the defendants
they'd get their turn on Wednesday. You can refute all this tomorrow, the
judge said.

If Lopez is as objectionable, they'll get a taste of it themselves today.





******************************************
Tim McKee, Manchester CT, main number cell-860-778-1304, 860-643-2282
 National Committee member of the Green Party of the United States and is a spokesperson for the Green Party of CT.
BLOG-http://thebiggreenpicture.blogspot.com

-- 
Be Yourself @ mail.com!
Choose From 200+ Email Addresses
Get a Free Account at www.mail.com

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://pairlist10.pair.net/mailman/private/ctgp-news/attachments/20081211/090a0b38/attachment.html>