From the State Elections Enforcement Commission:
The Connecticut State Elections Enforcement Commission today issued the following statement from Commission Chair Anthony J. Castagno regarding the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling earlier this week in the case of McCutcheon v. FEC that strikes down the federal cap on aggregate campaign contributions that individuals can give to candidates and party committees.
“We are troubled by this decision from the Supreme Court and believe it further erodes our country’s founding principles that the government exists for all the people, not just a few. It rejects the concerns of the majority of Americans who oppose the huge influx of money and its potential effect on the political process.”“Fortunately, however, Connecticut’s public campaign financing system is one of the best in the country, with strong disclosure requirements for all candidates and tight restrictions on fundraising and expenditures by those candidates receiving public campaign financing. With almost 80% of our legislature and 100% of constitutional officers elected without special-interest money, Connecticut’s campaign finance system can withstand decisions like McCutcheon.”
“Connecticut’s public financing program, the Citizens’ Election Program, continues to enable candidates to run campaigns free of special-interest money. But the system has been and continues to be threatened by ever more intrusive decisions from the Supreme Court.”
“In order to combat the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United, many attempts have been and continue to be made to enable political party committees to counter independent expenditures. This is another step down that road, but it is a troubling step that will increase the overall amount of money in campaigns. Connecticut steadfastly maintains its state contractor and lobbyist restrictions and its base contribution limits. As long as party money is not tainted by those sources, party support is preferable to unregulated support from special interests.”
“Elections can be corrupted by the influence of money. We, as citizens of Connecticut, have an interest and an obligation in upholding the integrity of the political process, preventing even the appearance of corruption and keeping the public’s faith in the integrity of the electoral process.”
“How this case affects Connecticut law is something that we are reviewing and we will continue to pay close attention to what this means for campaign finance law, in this state and nationally.”
The State Elections Enforcement Commission operates to ensure the integrity of the state’s electoral process. The Commission is responsible for ensuring independent, non-partisan enforcement of all election law in Connecticut as well as providing campaign finance advice and serving as the repository for campaign finance reports. It also serves as administrator to the Citizens’ Election Program.
“Elections can be corrupted by the influence of money.”
Elections can, votes in legislative bodies can, and decision making by boards and commissions also can be corrupted by thoughts of financial rewards.
And so our Charter prohibits City workers from serving on the Council. But State law provides an out of sorts, but the City Attorney’s office has found a loophole on which they hand an opinion that seems corrupted by something, if not money, then power, loyalty to one’s boss or maintenance of position in a hierarchy. Not a rational opinion in the eyes of the many who understand this type of influence and corruption. When will it change? Time will tell.
Well, well, well! Look who is crying over spilled milk–Connecticut State Elections Commission Chair Anthony J. Castagno.
“We are troubled by this decision from the Supreme Court and believe it further erodes our country’s founding principles that the government exists for all the people, not just a few. It rejects the concerns of the majority of Americans who oppose the huge influx of money and its potential effect on the political process.”
You make me laugh! I hope you and your staff is as troubled by the Supreme Court’s decision as I am troubled by this decision made by your Commission:
seec.ct.gov/e2casebase/data/fd/FD_2013_098.pdf
www .huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/02/mccutcheon-v-fec_n_5076518.html
This decision further erodes our state’s founding principles that the government exists for all the people, not just a few. Connecticut law provides a Statute of Limitations of five years, not “nearly” five years.
“Fortunately, however, Connecticut’s public campaign financing system is one of the best in the country, with strong disclosure requirements for all candidates and tight restrictions on fundraising and expenditures by those candidates
receiving public campaign financing …”
It’s best for all those stealing the money and you not doing a damn thing about it. Heck, you folks don’t even look at the reports. If your commission refused to investigate my complaint any further after having voted to investigate the complaint when first filed, what kind of message do you think you are sending to the recipients of CEP grants? What’s the sense of having strong disclosure requirements if they can have a fundraiser at 45 Lyon Terrace (Bridgeport City Hall/government building) and you ignore it completely?
“Elections can be corrupted by the influence of money. We, as citizens of Connecticut, have an interest and an obligation in upholding the integrity of the political process, preventing even the appearance of corruption and keeping the public’s faith in the integrity of the electoral process.”
If the average citizen spent time reviewing campaign financial disclosure statements on your Ecris system, they will first wonder what the hell are you folks doing and realize no one is watching the cookie jar you call CEP.
“… preventing even the appearance of corruption …” Really? I have another complaint with lots of “appearance of corruption” for you.
The question is are you still going to continue to protect the former Deputy Secretary of State and his Bridgeport clan?
“Connecticut’s public financing program, the Citizens’ Election Program, continues to enable candidates to run campaigns free of special interest money. But the system has been and continues to be threatened by ever more intrusive decisions from the Supreme Court.”
It may be free of special interest money, but the CEP money is used to pay the candidates/ special interest friends and family members. It’s a system of welfare. If I run for State Rep. for example and put up $30,000 of my own money, you would come in and match it by giving taxpayer dollars to the other candidate/s. Doesn’t that make you the ‘special interest?”
“Elections can be corrupted by the influence of money.” Yes indeed and that includes CEP money. If your allegations against Ernie Newton are true, then it was your (CEP) money that enticed him to commit a corrupt act. The system is threatened when the SEEC picks and chooses who to investigate and which hand to just merely slap when caught in the CEP cookie jar. Only Ernie Newton’s case has been referred to the State Attorney’s Office. Any comment on the recent comment of the judge hearing that case?
“How this case affects Connecticut law is something that we are reviewing and we will continue to pay close attention to what this means for campaign finance law, in this state and nationally.”
You and I know damn well what this ruling means–set precedent. Federal Law supersedes State Law. This means I can challenge your law in State or Federal Court. I am not going to worry too much about what the Supreme Court is doing. I’m worried about what some Bridgeport recipients of CEP grants are doing with the grant money. Commission Chair Anthony J. Castagno need to review what his staff is doing and pay close attention to what decisions such as the one made regarding case No. 2013-098 will have as far as public trust goes. Let the Supreme Court do their job and make sure your staff does theirs.
Joel, now I’m wondering if Ernie Newton’s campaign was ever short five hundred dollars.
Maybe it’s time for the SEEC to be investigated.