The state chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union and several minor party candidates said Thursday they filed a federal lawsuit claiming Connecticut's campaign finance law violates the candidates' rights to free speech and association.
...
Democratic and Republican candidates would qualify for public financing of $25,000 for a House race, $85,000 for a Senate contest and $3 million to seek the governor's office if they meet private fundraising thresholds of $5,000 for a House campaign, $15,000 for a Senate race and $250,000 for governor.
...
"The Connecticut legislators who drafted this law in the dead of night knew that they were creating a system that would perpetuate two classes of political parties that are separate and unequal," said S. Michael Derosa, a plaintiff in the lawsuit and the Green Party's candidate for secretary of the state. (AP)
How did I know Mike DeRosa would be involved somehow... Sigh.
There's a fine line between encouraging complete equality and opening the door to a whole slew of minor candidates like DeRosa who would, even if fully funded, draw only about 5-10% of the vote: if that.
Yes, the thresholds are a little extreme. They should be lower, or some sort of sliding scale should be introduced (get 10% of the signatures, get 10% of the money). But full equality would just be a funding nightmare. We just couldn't do it.
I have a feeling that this law will be struck down. If so, it may time to look at other ways of leveling the playing field in the state.
Source
"ACLU files lawsuit challenging campaign finance law." Associated Press 6 July, 2006.
5 comments:
Say what you will about Mike DeRosa - his lack of political instincts, his inability to run a campaign, his poor leadership of the Green Party - but jeez, he's willing to stand up against a law that clearly discriminates against third parties, and prevents alternative opinions from reaching the ballot. The problem is equating money with speech, and it runs contrary to the Founding Fathrs "decent respect to the opinions of mankind."
Had M Jodi Smell and her Repub/Dem cronies passed a legit campaign finance law, she wouldn't be in the hot water she is in with Lisa Moody - this is trouble of their own making.
To say that a state rep candidate who can't raise $5,000 has no support is to once again equate money with speech. How is it that the Secretary of the State sets one bar for ballot access, the polling institutions set another, unknown, unaccountable bar for electoral legitimacy and then the Legislature sets a third, almost impossible bar for financial legitimacy.
Suppose the Working Families Party used the campaign finance law as collateral, and found a bank (or union or welathy individual) to loan them $400,000 to collect 200,000 signatures ($2 a signature is reasonable) and obtained the $1.2 million in state funding. Boy, the Dems and Repubs probably didn't envision that.
Where there is a will, there is a way, and this law is unfair. As much as I hate to quote DeRosa, he is right that the law is designed to perpetuate a two-party monopoly. Coke and Pepsi both taste like malted battery acid.
The worst part of the campaign finance law is that it legislates the value of an elected office and sets a threshhold on what a vote is worth. If we extrapolate from the new law, votes in Hartford's 5th district, that of grand doyenne Marie Lopez Kirkley-Bey, cost a baseline of $1.50 per vote. That figure comes from her 2004 vote totals, where she won her seat with 3,570 votes (to libertarian Richard Lion's 350 or so challenge votes). This year, she is running unchallenged (which isn't good for her neighborhood), and she will raise a minimum of $25,000, if not more. For what? A contender would have to raise $5,000 from the poorest neighborhood in the country to contest Kirkley-Bey, and wouldn't have a chance because of the entrenched Democratic machine.
Clearly, her Democratic leadership has solved the drug addiction, homelessness, prostitution, illiteracy and extreme poverty in her district. The amount of money wasted in a race like this is unfathomable, and all who signed off on the legislation should be ashamed for tilting the table towards incumbency.
This capaign finance law changes the locks on the doors to make them look friendlier, but there's still the same repression of more voices and choices for voters.
Derby Conservative - That's just the point. Raising $5k for state rep (and going upwards from there for higher offices) should be the threshold for all candidates to qualify for public financing, not just for Democrats and Republicans. Unfortunately, the new public financing law requires minor party candidates to also gather a gazillion signatures to qualify for public financing.
There should be a single threshold that all candidates meet to qualify for public financing. As you point out, the law sets a significant fundraising threshold. It also requires that money to be raised in relatively small amounts and from in-district donors. As a result, it is a pretty good method of preventing crank candidates from qualifying for public financing.
The additional signature requirement for minor party candidates is nothing more than a blatant attempt by the Democrats and Republicans to shut those minor party candidates out of the process.
For the record, (yeah I know, don't say "for the record" if you're posting anonymously,) I'm not a member of the Green Party. I also think Mike DeRosa is one of the more foolish people I've ever met. Even with the high bar for minor party candidates, the new public financing system is a lot better deal for those candidates than the current campaign finance laws.
I'm new to this, but I used to work with Mike DeRosa in a non-political capacity over a year ago and we had no idea how involved he was in Green Party politics. What's his deal? I'm just curious, but it does sound like everyone comes up with the same impression of him that we all did.
I guess The ACLU will be very busy in the months ahead. I heard they are thinking about getting involved in The Town of Washington with the anti war crowd who held a"untown meeting" because the Board of Selectman voted down their request to have a Special Town meeting on July 3rd. So they had a meeting anyway and they are planning to bring a bunch of names back to the Board of Selectman and again try to get this on an agenda.
I think The ACLU should stay out of it and as far as this campaign Finance Law sounds like a Green Party Manuever as is The Town of Washington deal along with the Liberal Dems.
Post a Comment