State Rep. James F. Spallone (D-Essex), the co-chair of the legislature's Government Administration and Elections Committee, today called for increasing the clean elections grants for candidates for governor in response to a federal appeals court ruling striking down a provision for supplemental grants.
The Second Circuit Court of Appeals in New York, earlier this month, affirmed a trial court decision holding parts of Connecticut's landmark campaign finance reform law unconstitutional. One part of the law that was stricken provided so-called supplemental grants to publicly financed candidates facing high-spending opponents who had opted out of the Citizens Election Program (CEP). The supplemental grants for governor were capped at $3 million and would have been triggered by the spending of the candidate's opponent. The appeals court held that tying the extra grants to the opponent's spending could "chill" the free speech of the high spending opponent.
"The supplemental grants were an important part of the program, giving clean elections candidates a fighting chance against high spenders," Spallone said. "We now have four candidates for governor from the major parties, one Republican and one Democrat who are participating in the program and one Republican and one Democrat who are not participating and have indicated they would spend record amounts in the campaign.
"It is the duty of the General Assembly and Governor Rell, in response to the court's decision, to repair the program in way that keeps it as intact as possible. Given the fact that the court ruled less than one month before a primary and less than four months before the general election, our options are limited.
"Under these circumstances, the simplest, fairest way to address the loss of the supplemental grants is to raise the base grants to levels commensurate with recent spending levels."
Spallone pointed out that raising the base grants would not represent new spending.
"First, we would only be raising the base grants for governor, not for the underticket or the legislature.
"Second, the funds were already projected to be spent for supplemental grants--at all levels--so the money is in the Citizens Election Fund (CEF), and less would be spent.
"Third, it is clear that if a privately funded candidate were running against a CEP candidate this year, the supplemental grants would have been triggered during the general election."
Spallone also said there are issues of fundamental fairness at play.
"Lt. Governor Fedele and Mayor Malloy opted into a program knowing they could receive up to $6 million for the general election campaign if facing a high spending opponent. They have upheld their end of the bargain, raising qualifying contributions, agreeing not to accept political action committee contributions and agreeing to the spending cap. They have planned their campaigns accordingly and have been able to end their fundraising so they can concentrate on meeting voters. For the state to fail to repair the supplemental grant provisions now would be fundamentally unfair, and a failure to hold up our end of the bargain.
"In order to preserve the integrity of this worthy system, designed to reduce special interest influence in our politics, we must make this repair. Next year, we can take on longer term fixes to deal with the loss of supplemental grants and other issues," Spallone said.
Spallone also said he is encouraged that a consensus is emerging concerning elimination of the so-called "time bomb" provision that could result in automatic repeal of the CEP in the face of a court injunction and on the regulation of lobbyist contributions and fundraising, recently allowed by the court's decision.
