CT Campaign Finance Bill Unconstitutional In Part

Hat Tip: Prof. Hasen

Yesterday the Hartford Courant issued this editorial urging passage of a Connecticut campaign finance bill containing a public financing scheme. The bill was passed yesterday by the Legislature and is now headed for the Governor's signature.

Here is the problem with the bill, as described by the Courant

yesterday

The proposal as outlined by Democratic leaders Monday would set up a voluntary system of public financing of election campaigns for the General Assembly and statewide offices such as governor. It would in effect set campaign spending caps for candidates who accept public funds. It would prohibit political contributions by lobbyists and contractors, and by corporations through the ad book loophole. (emphasis added)

and today

The proposal as outlined by Democratic leaders Monday would set up a voluntary system of public financing of election campaigns for the General Assembly and statewide offices such as governor. It would in effect set campaign spending caps for candidates who accept public funds. It would prohibit political contributions by lobbyists and contractors, and by corporations through the ad book loophole. (emphasis added)
Like the Vermont law now being challenged in the Supreme Court, this law is unconstitutional on its face.

By banning contributions by lobbyists and contractors, the legislators set aside warnings by constitutional experts that a total ban might infringe on free-speech rights. Several senators, including some supporters, predicted a court challenge.

"I've heard people say, 'Oh, Andrew, just vote for it. Let the courts figure it out,' " said Sen. Andrew McDonald, D-Stamford, co-chairman of the judiciary committee.

McDonald complained that he was rebuffed when he suggested limiting total contributions by any one lobbyist to $2,500 in any election cycle.

"That would be clearly constitutional, and it would also clearly diminish any undue influence by lobbyists," McDonald said.

I understand that the legislature may have some (in my opinion unwarranted) concerns about te influence of lobbyist, but completely removing their freedom of speech in this area is not the way to go about it. To pass constitutional muster, the law has to have a compelling state interest and the law must be narrowly tailored to achieve that interest. This is not the way to remove the influence of lobbyists, if that is indeed a compelling state interest. I am sure that once the Governor signs the bill, there will be a court challenged filed.

But here is the dumbest outcome possible:

Opponents and supporters acknowledged that the complex bill would have unintended consequences -- one of which arose during the debate when Sen. David Cappiello, R-Danbury, rose to ask a question: Would the legislation prohibit him from making donations? His wife is a lobbyist for Anthem Blue Cross, and the lobbyist ban applies to spouses.

Sen. Donald DeFronzo, D-New Britain, a leading proponent of the bill, replied, "The answer is yes." "It seems a little ridiculous that a sitting state senator can't partake in certain political activities," Cappiello said.

And how. Keep an eye on this one.

Linked to Outside the Beltway, Right Wing Nation