Appeals Court Rules On CT Public Financing, Bring On The Lobbyists

From Ed Mahony, Hartford Courant:

In a decision that will have immediate implications for one of the most competitive state political campaign cycles in years, a federal appeals court overruled a lower court’s conclusion that the state’s landmark campaign finance reform law unconstitutionally discriminates against minor party candidates.

However, in a densely worded, 56-page decision, the U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the lower court’s invalidation of two of the finance reform law’s “trigger provisions” that govern excess and independent campaign expenditures. The decision, written by appeals court Judge Jose Cabranes of New Haven, said the trigger provisions violate the first amendment rights of candidates and other individuals and organizations to “spend their own funds on campaign speech.”

The decision on public financing of campaigns was one of two released in New York Tuesday on the state’s campaign finance reform law.

A second 38-page decision upheld some and rejected other parts of the state law restricting campaign contributions and political activity by lobbyists and state contractors.

The appeals court upheld U.S. District Judge Stefan R. Underhill’s conclusion that the law’s ban on contributions by state contractors, prospective state contractors, the principals of contractors and prospective state contractors is valid under first amendment free speech protections.

But the appeals court reversed Underhill and struck down the provisions of the law that bans contributions by lobbyists and their families and that prohibits contractors, lobbyists, and their families from soliciting contributions on behalf of candidates. Such prohibitions violate the first amendment, the decision said.

Dick Blumenthal statement:

ATTORNEY GENERAL’S STATEMENT ON SECOND CIRCUIT RULINGS IN PUBLIC CAMPAIGN FINANCE CASES

“Today’s decisions uphold significant provisions of the Citizens Election Program and the state’s ban on political contributions by state contractors, but strike down bans against lobbyist donations and solicitations of contributions. The decisions also strike the provision providing additional funding to candidates when an opponent spends beyond a publicly financed candidate’s threshold.

“Both cases have been returned to Judge Underhill in the U.S. District Court to decide whether provisions struck down today render the entire public financing law unconstitutional. Judge Underhill has not established a schedule for his review and ruling.

“Our office will continue to fulfill its obligation to defend the statute. In the meantime, publicly financed campaigns may continue to operate pending Judge Underhill’s ruling without previous prohibitions against lobbyist contributions. Public finance payments already made to candidates remain valid and may be retained and spent.”

Dan Malloy response:

MALLOY RESPONDS TO CAMPAIGN FINANCE RULING

The following is a statement from Dan Malloy, the Democratic Party’s endorsed candidate for Governor:

“Today’s decision is just one step in a long process, a process that I am confident will result in Connecticut’s public financing law remaining in place. In the short term, the decision has no impact on the primary election I’m engaged in – I’m as confident as ever that we’re going win on August 10th because this campaign represents values and experience that money can’t buy.

“The questions facing Connecticut are do we want elections to be auctions won by the wealthy, and do we want to go back to the old way of doing business? I can’t imagine we do, and I bet the people of Connecticut agree. That’s why I’m confident that the State Elections Enforcement Commission and the Attorney General will pursue a remedy that puts the interests of the people first, and that the system so many worked so hard to put in place will be preserved and enhanced.”

Tom Foley reaction:

Tom Foley for Governor Statement on 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals Ruling on Green Party vs. Garfield

Stamford, Conn., — Today the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on Green Party vs. Garfield, issuing a mixed ruling on Connecticut’s taxpayer financing system. Tom Foley for Governor’s Campaign Manager Justin Clark released the following statement on the court’s ruling:

“The Tom Foley for Governor Campaign disagrees with the overall finding that the Citizens Election Program is constitutional and disagrees with using taxpayer money to fund political campaigns. However, we are pleased the court struck down the unconstitutional ‘top up’ provision of the law.” Mr. Clark noted that the “top up” provisions are at issue in the state court case argued yesterday and that Tom’s constitutional arguments in that case are vindicated by this decision.

The court issued the following statement on the “top up” provision:

“The CEP’s trigger provisions impose a ‘penalty’ on the right of candidates and other individuals and organizations ‘to spend personal funds for campaign speech.’ Davis v. Fed. Election Comm’n, 128 S. Ct. 2759, 2771 (2008). As a result, the trigger provisions violate the First Amendment unless they are ‘justified by a compelling state interest.’ Id. at 2772 (quotation marks omitted). In the case before us, the state’s asserted interests—promoting participation in the CEP and eliminating corruption or the perception of corruption—are not sufficiently ‘compelling’ to justify a burden on the right to spend personal funds for campaign speech. See id. at 2773-74.”

From Fedele campaign:

FEDELE CAMPAIGN STATEMENT ON SUPERIOR COURT VICTORY

(West Hartford) – Chris Cooper, Communications Director for Fedele 2010, today made the following statement after Hartford Superior Court ruled against Tom Foley’s request to obstruct the disbursement of up to $2.5 million in Clean Election Funds:

“It is no surprise that the court has rejected Tom Foley’s frivolous lawsuit, intended to obstruct an honest debate on the issues, and disenfranchise the small-dollar contributions of nearly 3,000 ordinary citizens – in favor of Foley’s personal fortune derived from running a working class town off the map,” said Cooper. Now voters will have a choice between Tom Foley, a candidate who has used this frivolous suit in a failed attempt to distract voters from his scandal plagued past and serial misrepresentations of his record – and Mike Fedele, a candidate who has pledged to veto tax increases, and bring enhanced ethics and accountability state Government, and this campaign.”