As the 2010 campaign season approaches, candidates for the legislature and statewide office face a difficult decision about how to pay for their campaigns. The relatively new public financing system is — as a practical matter — on pause at a critical moment in the campaign cycle.
The problem is especially difficult for candidates running for governor who can’t be sure whether the public campaign money they are working toward qualifying for will be available to them next year, or if they will be forced at the last minute to switch gears and begin raising money from private sources.
Earlier this year, a federal court judge struck down Connecticut’s new campaign finance law and declared it unconstitutional. His main concern was how the system treated minor party candidates. He said it gave an unfair advantage to candidates endorsed by the Democratic and Republican parties. The judge’s original ruling ordered an immediate halt to the new system, but that order was put on hold pending an appeal by the state.
It should come as no surprise that campaign finance reforms written by incumbents who are members of the two major parties would give an advantage to major party candidates. But there it is. The decision came as a big surprise to the authors of the legislation. The Connecticut political class — still betting that posing as ethics puritans is popular with the voters — has launched an all out appeal effort.
The legislature isn’t sure what to do. The Government, Administration and Elections Committee held an informational forum at the end of October and decided there are no good options. The legislature could meet quickly and try to address the concerns raised by the federal court ruling, but there is no guarantee they’d get it right. Another option is to wait for the appeal process to take its course, but that could take until the middle of next year and throw the entire campaign season into turmoil as candidates scramble for cash.
It appears obvious that the drafters of Connecticut’s public finance law knew they were laying out a questionable course because they included what is called a “reversion clause.” In plain language it says: if someone challenges this new law and we can’t fix it by April of 2010, we will go back to the old way of doing things. Candidates will have to raise campaign money on their own under the law as it existed in 2005. It should have been named the “never mind clause.”
It is generally believed that a credible campaign for governor in Connecticut requires about $4 to $6 million. That’s why under the public financing system, qualifying candidates can access up to $5 million for the primary and the general election. Changes in how campaigns are run may have already made that number too small, but even if it is enough, there is no time left to raise it by pre-2005 means.
For the last five years, Democratic and Republican operatives have debated whether it makes sense for a candidate for governor to use the public financing system, or risk scorn by raising campaign money through private sources. Shame has forced most to conclude they have no choice but to “volunteer” to accept public funds.
Experience demonstrates that it takes at least eighteen months to raise $5 million one donor at a time. Now, with less than a year to go before the election, the future of the new system is in doubt, giving any candidate who wants to ensure he can compete a good reason and a solid defense to forgo public financing.
Dean Pagani is a former gubernatorial advisor. He is vice president of public affairs for Cashman and Katz Integrated Communications in Glastonbury.
