CT Gov. Rell Exults After Vote Limiting Free Speech

Connecticut Governor Jodi Rell isexuberant after the passage of the new Connecticut campaign finance bill by the state legislature early yesterday morning.

The bill creates a system of public financing for candidates who voluntarily adhere to expenditure limits. While I think that such systems are inherently flawed because they use taxpayer funds for explicitly political activity, I will agree that the elected leaders of the state have the power to make a different determination.

However, the bill does have a number of major flaws in the bill, most notably the blatantly unconstitional prohibition of political contributions by lobbyists, state government contractors and their spouses.

Gov. M. Jodi Rell celebrated the passage of far-reaching campaign finance reforms Thursday, even though fellow Republicans largely abandoned her on the issue and a court challenge is possible.

"We have set the standard," Rell said. "We are now a role model for the rest of the nation. I think that Connecticut can be very proud of this bill."

Yes, Connecticut can be proud of their unconstitutional actions. Rell led efforts to get more Republican votes in the Democratically controlled legislature, but in the end only 4 Republicans in each chamber ended up supporting the bill.

House Minority Leader Robert M. Ward, R-North Branford, rebuffed overtures from Rell's senior staff and led a vigorous floor fight against a bill that he described as badly flawed.

The political parties and legislative leadership's political action committees will be permitted to make unlimited expenditures, such as paying for direct mail appeals, on behalf of candidates who accept public financing.

"I found that loophole to be so overwhelming I couldn't support the bill," Ward said.

Rell said that she also was troubled by those provisions, but that bans on lobbyist and state contractor dollars, as well as public financing, go far to minimize what she called the corrosive influence of special interests in politics.

See, once again, the perceived "corrosive influence of special interests in politics" receives the blame for bad legislation. Remember this is the same rationale given for nearly every campaign finance reform bill, but in the end, very little changes. The reason for no change--the democratic system of government is predicated upon the appeal of various interests (by definition all interests are special--to someone) to their government for various policies and redresses of grievances. Lobbyists will continue to petition the government on behalf of their clients. Thus, special interests will continue to dominate in the legislature, because most people don't care about everything the legislature does.

Here is the most egregious example of what the bill will do:

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.

The stupidity of this result surely must give more people pause, but the celebrations appear jubilant across the state. Perhaps when the lawsuits are filed, some celebrants will look at what they have wrought--but then again, probably not.