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

Sun Mar 23 11:20:20 EDT 2008

Unfortunately this article let stand uncontested Deborah Goldberg's foolish statement justifying the signature requirement for 3rd parties and independents as being  necessary to prevent frivolous candidates. The answer to this is that frivolous candidates are eliminated by the fund-raising requirements already in the bill.

There are already provisions that do just that in that any candidate who wants to qualify for public funding must meet certain fund-raising requirements, ie, raise a certain amount of money on their own, in order to qualify. This is where frivolous candidates are eliminated. The requirements make no distinction between major and minor party candidates or independents. It is an equal bar for all.

There is no possible justification under the "frivolous candidate" argument to add the additional hoop to jump through applying only to 3rd party candidates, of obtaining signatures, especially one that can never be achieved.

Allan

> From: dbedellgreen at hotmail.com> To: ctgp-news at ml.greens.org> Subject: RE: {news} FW: A Victory for CT Green Party's Campaign Finance Lawsuit- Not Final- But Very Very Int> Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2008 06:00:36 +0000> > Connecticut Green Party - Part of the GPUS> http://www.ctgreens.org/ - http://www.greenpartyus.org/> > to unsubscribe click here> mailto:ctgp-news-unsubscribe at ml.greens.org> > 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_042008To be removed please mailto:ctgp-news-unsubscribe at ml.greens.org> _______________________________________________> CTGP-news mailing list> CTGP-news at ml.greens.org> http://ml.greens.org/mailman/listinfo/ctgp-news> > ATTENTION!> The information in this transmission is privileged and confidential and intended only for the recipient listed above. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify us immediately by email and delete the original message. The text of this email is similar to ordinary or face-to-face conversations and does not reflect the level of factual or legal inquiry or analysis which would be applied in the case of a formal legal opinion and does not constitute a representation of the opinions of the CT Green Party. The responsibility for any messages posted herein is solely that of the person who sent the message, and the CT Green Party hereby leaves this responsibility in the hands of it's members.> > NOTE: This is an inherently insecure forum, please do not post confidential messages and always realize that your address can be faked, and although a message may appear to be from a certain individual, it is always possible that it is fakemail. This is mail sent by a third party under an illegally assumed identity for purposes of coercion, misdirection, or general mischief.> > CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify the sender by e-mail at the address shown. This e-mail transmission may contain confidential information. This information is intended only for the use of the individual(s) or entity to whom it is intended even if addressed incorrectly. Please delete it from your files if you are not the intended recipient. Thank you for your compliance.> > To be removed please mailto://ctgp-news-unsubscribe@ml.greens.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://pairlist10.pair.net/mailman/private/ctgp-news/attachments/20080323/5b982330/attachment.html>