Green Party Gets Good Ruling On CT Public Finance Law

When the Connecticut legislature crafted the public financing law for political campaigns, the usual suspects were happy. The law provided public funding for state offices. Some would say generous funding. The Green Party didn’t exactly like how the law was crafted, filing a lawsuit that argued that the law favored the major political parties and incumbents. Yesterday, a judge ruled in their favor, essentially overturning the public finance law.

Here’s the ruling in its entirety Underhill Opinion.

Key grafs:

For the reasons explained below, therefore, I conclude that the CEP imposes an unconstitutional, discriminatory burden on minor party candidates’ First Amendment-protected right to political opportunity by enhancing participating major party candidates’ relative strength beyond their past ability to raise contributions and campaign, without imposing any countervailing disadvantage to participating in the public funding scheme.

This opening statement leads the charge that the plaintiffs, that is the Green Party, succeeded in arguing that the law favored incumbents.

First, the CEP provides public funding to participating candidates at windfall levels, well beyond historic expenditure levels in most races, thus creating merely illusory expenditure “limits” for participating candidates.

First bit ‘o evidence, Judge Stefan Underhill declares, that the funding levels were out of line with what candidates actually raised in the past and thus artificially created budgets that increased minimum funding levels which would favor the major party candidates.

Second, the use of a statewide proxy artificially enhances the political strength of many major party General Assembly candidates by disregarding the level of public support for those candidates within their actual legislative district; in the past three election cycles, in nearly half of the legislative districts, one of the major parties has either abandoned the district or its candidate has won less than 20% of the vote, in other words, losing in landslide fashion. By using a statewide proxy, the CEP permits any major party candidate to become eligible for full public financing without first requiring those candidates to demonstrate the same significant modicum of public support that minor candidates must establish before becoming similarly eligible for full funding.

Then Judge Underhill said that under the way public support is measured, actual public support within a legislative district is superseded by statewide support.

Third, the CEP’s additional qualifying criteria for minor party candidates are so difficult to achieve that the vast majority of minor party candidates will never become eligible to receive public funding at even reduced levels. For instance, the legislature chose to set the necessary thresholds for the prior success requirement at vote levels that very few minor party candidates have historically attained, thus ensuring most minor party candidates would need to qualify for the CEP under the petitioning requirement.

With this graf, Underhill declares that the game is fixed and that under the rules minor party candidates can’t tap into the funding.

Underhill goes into more legal details, so read the whole thing for that.

The Courant rounds up the comments, from major party candidates:

“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.”

My guess is that a stay will be hard to get. It’s not like Underhill said the public finance law was unconstitutional, he said it was unfair. And fairness under law is usually a big deal.

“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.”

Er, what special interests are we afraid of here. Underhill is saying the Republican and Democratic parties are special interests too.

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.

Ah yes, but what new candidates came out of this? In Norwalk we got Bruce Morris, unopposed, taking public money to run his unopposed campaign. Isn’t that a signal that something is amiss here?

And the Courant provides the response from the Green Party:

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.”

source: The Courant, Federal Judge Throws Out Connecticut’s Landmark Campaign Finance Law, By EDMUND H. MAHONY, August 29, 2009