On August 27, U.S. District Court Judge Stefan Underhill, a Clinton appointee, held that Connecticut’s public funding law for candidates is so discriminatory in favor of the two major parties, and against all other parties and candidates, that it is unconstitutional in its entirety. The opinion is 138 pages long. A link to the decision is found in this news story from Connecticut News Junkie. Thanks to Ken Krayeske for this news. The case is Green Party of Ct. v Garfield, 3:06cv1030. The Libertarian Party is a co-plaintiff.
Connecticut’s public funding law was passed in 2006 and used for the first time in 2008. Members of parties that polled 20% of the vote in the last election are entitled to public funding if they receive a certain number of qualifying contributions. Others must also obtain the qualifying contributions, but they need to submit a very large number of signatures, in addition.
The decision summarizes the problems with the law on page 71: “The CEP (Citizens Election Program) enhances the relative strength of major party candidates in ways that represent a severe burden on the political opportunity of minor party candidates for the following reasons: (1) it provides participating major party candidates public funding at windfall levels, well beyond what most major party candidates would typically be able to raise on their own from private fundraising sources; (2) it permits major party candidates who are as equally ‘hopeless’ as minor party candidates in many districts to become eligible for full funding without first requiring such hopeless major party candidates to make the same threshold showing of public support required of minor party candidates through the additional qualifying criteria; (3) the additional qualifying criteria for minor party candidates are nearly impossible to achieve, thus ensuring that minor party candidates will only very rarely qualify for the ‘enhancing’ benefits made available by CEP participation; and (4) in the event a minor party candidate does qualify for partial CEP funding, it handicaps that participating minor party candidate by automatically granting full funding to his or her participating major party opponent, and by prohibiting the partially-funded minor party candidate from raising private contributions, up to the full grant amount, in increments greater than $100.”
A correct ruling I am surprised. Now they should have to give the money back.
Now let’s see Connecticut write a law that is not
unconstitutional!
Public financing is bogus and too complicated (especially voluntary public financing.) Campaign spending limits (preferably banning campaign spending altogether, as they do in Cuba) is true campaign finance reform. Public financing wouldn’t even exist in America if we progressives would fight for campaign spending limits instead of trying to find ways around the 1976 Supreme Court ruling against those limits (a ruling no court should even have the power to make, no matter what that ruling actually is.)
This is great news!
Sen. McCain cut himself off at the knees by signing onto the state program. When Gov. Palin got on the ticket, they couldn’t raise a dime in small individual contributions from the considerable grassroots enthusiasm she generated.
Meanwhile, free from the state program, Obama raked in millions from small contributions that were merely a computer mouse click away.
Do you think that any major party presidential candidate will ever take public funding again?
I know the Connecticut law regarded elections in that state. But the point is the same – instead of public dollars, candidates can raise money from small individual contributions over the Internet. Doesn’t this accomplish what public financing is trying to do – counter balance the usual “special interest’s” and their money?