{news} FW: A Victory for CT Green Party's Campaign Finance Lawsuit- Not Final- But Very Very Int

[David Bedell]

And here's the AP story as run in the Boston Globe:

http://www.boston.com/news/local/connecticut/articles/2008/03/21/federal_judge_dismisses_part_of_campaign_finance_law_challenge/

The Associated Press
Federal judge dismisses part of campaign finance law challenge

By Susan Haigh, Associated Press Writer  |  March 21, 2008

HARTFORD, Conn. --A federal judge has dismissed part of a challenge of Connecticut's new public financing law, but agreed to hear claims that the law is unfair to minor party and petitioning candidates.

U.S. District Court Judge Stefan Underhill said the plaintiffs did not prove that a part of the law concerning matching funds was unconstitutional. The plaintiffs include the state's Green and Libertarian parties and the Connecticut ACLU.

Under the voluntary public financing system, which took affect for 2008 elections, a participant can get additional money if his or her opponent is not a participant and spends beyond the public financing limits. The participating candidate can also obtain more public funding if an independent group, such as the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, exceeds the public program's spending limits.

The plaintiffs claimed that the possibility of the participating candidate getting more public funds would discourage the non-participant from participating, essentially violating his free speech rights.

But Underhill disagreed. In his ruling released late Thursday from Bridgepport federal court, Underhill said the provision did not stymie anyone's First Amendment rights. A call was left seeking comment with the Green Party and ACLU.

Deborah Goldberg, democracy project director at the Brennan Center for Justice in New York, said Friday that Underhill set an important precedent for other states, such as Maine, Arizona, North Carolina and New Mexico, that have some type of public financing systems.

"Most of the other states have these type of matching funds provisions," she said. "We're very concerned about upholding the precedents that sustain these systems."

Underhill did determine that the plaintiffs have adequately alleged that Connecticut's public funding system includes "unfair and unnecessary burdens" on certain candidates, such as minor parties. He'll take up that matter at the end of April.

To qualify for public funds, all candidates must raise a certain number of contributions in $100 or less increments from individuals. But minor party and petitioning candidates must satisfy at least two additional requirements -- obtaining signatures or having received a certain percentage of votes in the last general election.

The plaintiffs claim the system unfairly benefits major party candidates.

"The Connecticut legislators who drafted this law in the dead of night knew that they were creating a system that would perpetuate two classes of political parties that are separate and unequal," said S. Michael DeRosa, a plaintiff in the lawsuit, said in 2006.

Goldberg said the provision makes sense.

"There are definitely different standards," she said. "Part of the concern when you have a public financing system, that you are fiscally responsible. You don't want frivolous candidacies."

Meanwhile, the same federal court judge is considering claims from lobbyists at the state Capitol that rules banning them from making campaign contributions are unconstitutional. 

© Copyright 2008 The New York Times Company
 

_________________________________________________________________
In a rush?  Get real-time answers with Windows Live Messenger.
http://www.windowslive.com/messenger/overview.html?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_Refresh_realtime_042008