{news} Big win in Connecticut lawsuit!

[David Bedell]

And here's the story from the Hartford Courant.  Thanks especially to Mike
DeRosa for his perseverance on this issue!

At least Gov. Rell says, "If necessary, we can amend the law to address the
concerns of minor parties," and apparently SOTS Bysiewicz agrees with her.
Atty. General Blumenthal is flat-out wrong in wanting to defend the law in
its present form. (See last couple paragraphs below.)

David Bedell

http://courant.com/news/politics/hc-campaign_finances0829.artaug29,0,3702527.story

CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM
Federal Judge Throws Out Connecticut's Landmark Campaign Finance Law

By EDMUND H. MAHONY

The Hartford Courant

August 29, 2009

Connecticut election officials reacted with sharp criticism and promised an
all-out legal fight Friday after a federal judge threw out the state's
landmark campaign finance law, saying it puts minor party office seekers at
an unconstitutional disadvantage when they challenge traditionally
better-financed major party candidates.

U.S. District Judge Stefan R. Underhill said the state's cutting-edge
campaign finance reforms, known as the 2005 Citizens' Election Program, were
built on good intentions and inspired by "a regrettable legacy of corruption
that has pervaded all levels of elected office in recent decades."

But he said the reform law, the product of months of legislative effort,
"imposes an unconstitutional, discriminatory burden" on minor party
candidates. That burden is created, he said, because the reforms enhance the
ability of Republicans and Democrats to raise money without imposing
spending limits on major party candidates who take advantage of public
financing.

Specifically, Underhill said:

The reforms provide funding to participating candidates at levels "well
beyond" historic spending levels. Those funding levels amount to "an
impermissible subsidy" for major party candidates rather than a substitute
for traditional sources of funding.

The new public financing scheme "artificially enhances" the political
strength of many major party legislative candidates by ignoring actual
support for those candidates in their districts. By doing so, it permits any
major party candidate to qualify for full public financing without the
demonstration of support that minor party candidates must show before
becoming eligible for full financing.

The qualifying criteria for minor party candidates are so difficult to
achieve that most will never become eligible for even reduced levels of
public financing.

The procedures enacted for distribution of public financing could tend to
discourage minor party candidates from even trying to participate. That is
because the law triggers release of additional money to major party
candidates when their minor party challengers achieve even minimal
fundraising milestones.

The Green Party of Connecticut, lead plaintiff in the suit upon which
Underhill's decision is based, praised the opinion.

"It is a very important victory," said David McGuire, a Connecticut ACLU
lawyer who represented the Green Party. "It is a victory for free speech and
a victory for all political candidates. It really does level the playing
field now."

The response from state political figures of all major party stripes,
however, was strong, if respectful, condemnation.

"My office will appeal and seek an immediate stay of this decision, which
misapplies constitutional doctrine to strike down our state's campaign
finance reform system," said Attorney General Richard Blumenthal. "This
decision is only one ruling by one lower-court judge, but it could create
significant legal obstacles to campaign finance reform efforts here and
around the country. It deserves and needs review by an appellate court."

Blumenthal said he will appear in Bridgeport before Underhill next week to
seek an immediate stay of the order, a measure that would indefinitely
postpone the order from taking effect. If Underhill denies a stay,
Blumenthal said, he will apply to the U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals. In
any event, Blumenthal, a Democrat, said he will ask the appellate court to
reverse Underhill's decision.

Gov. M. Jodi Rell, another supporter of the campaign reforms, was equally
critical. When the legislature adjourned without passing reforms in the
spring of 2005, she pushed the leadership to create a blue ribbon panel to
craft a bill. Later that year, she convened a special legislative session,
which enacted the law in December.

"Connecticut's Campaign Finance Reform Act is a model in the nation," said
Rell, a Republican. "I will do everything possible to keep this program
intact and will support an immediate appeal of the decision. I cannot, and
will not, let Connecticut return to the days of unfettered special interests
controlling our electoral process. If necessary, we can amend the law to
address the concerns of minor parties."

Secretary of the State Susan Bysiewicz, the state's chief elections
regulator and a Democrat, said Underhill's ruling, if left in force, could
create "chaos" in the 2010 election cycle for legislative and statewide
officeholders.

Candidates already budgeting for campaigns could have their efforts upended
if faced with a loss of public financing, she said. Candidates considering
runs may demur if forced to forgo public financing.

Bysiewicz said the new laws "worked extremely well" when they took effect
for the first time during the 2008 election cycle. She said 83 percent of
candidates for state Senate and 74 percent of those running for the state
House took advantage of the public financing. She said money was provided to
a total of 236 candidates: 135 Democrats, 96 Republicans, 3 independents and
2 Working Families party candidates.

"Judge Underhill's decision is very unfortunate and it comes at a very
inopportune time in our election process," she said. "I think it is
important that we keep this law in place. If there are imperfections, if
there are flaws, I think we should fix them. We should not throw out the
entire law."

Jeffrey B. Garfield, executive director and general counsel for the State
Elections Enforcement Commission, who worked with legislators in crafting
the law before retiring a month ago, was equally critical.

"Judge Underhill will not have the final say on how Connecticut shall serve
it citizens," Garfield said. "In 2008 we saw a glimpse of the promise that
public campaign financing holds. Three-quarters of the legislators sitting
in office came to office using the citizen election program."

The small but vocal Green Party said Underhill's major party detractors were
missing the point. Regardless of how many office-seekers took advantage of
public financing last year, minor parties - less organized, operating
without staffs that can circulate petitions, and the infrequent
beneficiaries of large contributions - were put at a disadvantage, party
officials said.

"It may have been well-intentioned," McGuire said. "It probably was
well-intentioned. But the truth is it made the playing field less level. It
created substantial obstacles for the third party candidates. And Judge
Underhill said himself it is virtually impossible for a candidate who is not
a Republican or a Democrat to get around."

The minor parties charged in their suit that the reforms arbitrarily
provided major party candidates with incentives and resources to run
well-heeled campaigns, while making it more difficult for minor party
candidates to obtain the same resources.

At one point in his decision, Underhill said steps should be taken to
preserve the ability of minor party candidates to serve as checks on their
major party opponents and their representatives in government.

"We're very pleased the court ruled that real campaign finance reform
requires a level playing field," said Michael DeRosa, co-chairman of the
state Green Party.

Blumenthal said he is confident Underhill's decision will be reversed.

"We believe that this ruling substantially conflicts with Supreme Court
precedent and principle because the minor party candidates, very simply,
have failed to demonstrate that they bear an unconstitutional burden as a
result of this law," he said. "In fact, they are no worse off than without
campaign finance assistance."

Blumenthal disagreed with political figures such as Rell and Bysiewicz who
expressed hope that flaws in the law identified by Underhill could be
remedied while preserving the larger package of reforms. He said the various
components of the law interlock to such a degree that changing one aspect
could cause the entire package to collapse.

"This truly craters the whole framework of reform," Blumenthal said.

Copyright © 2009, The Hartford Courant