On January 13, the 2nd circuit heard two hours of oral arguments in Green Party of Connecticut v Garfield, 09-3760. The three judges were Jose A. Cabranes, a Clinton appointee; Amalya Kearse, a Carter appointee; and Peter W. Hall, a Bush Jr. appointee.

The first hour was devoted to the part of the case over restrictions on lobbyists. The plaintiffs in this half of the case do not include the Green and Libertarian Parties. The Connecticut public funding law also includes provisions making it illegal for lobbyists and their spouses and children from contributing to candidates for state office, or even for advocating on behalf of any candidates for state office. The U.S. District Court had upheld this half of the law.

The second hour was devoted to the part of the case over public funding. The U.S. District Court had invalidated the public funding provisions because they discriminate against minor party candidates, and especially against independent candidates. The public funding law also could be said to injure candidates who either choose not to use public funding, or those who can’t qualify for public funding, because if such a candidate manages to raise a large amount of private funding, his or her publicly-funded opponents get substantial amounts if additional public funding.

The judges seemed more active in questioning during the first hour, than during the second hour. This is a complex case, and normally the 2nd circuit might prefer to take a good amount of time to reach its decision on both halves of the case. On the other hand, there is considerable pressure on the panel to reach a quick decision, because candidates running in 2010 are disadvantaged, not knowing whether the public funding provisions will be in effect this year or not. The public funding provisions were written so that if any part of the formulas for determining how various types of candidates qualify for money, the entire public funding program is void.