OPINION: Spirited debate illustrated merits of clean elections

Apr. 1—The state legislative proposal to change Connecticut law to allow wine sales in supermarkets displayed political debate in its rawest form. Two powerful interests lobbied state senators and representatives to see things their way. There were no lofty policy aspirations, just pure self-interest.

Yet, refreshingly, driving the debate were the respective arguments and organizing ability of the two opposing factions — not how much campaign dough they could throw at state lawmakers. That is because Connecticut remains a rare state in which most legislative candidates use public financing for their campaigns, not special-interest donations. Reformers call this approach "clean elections," because it greatly reduces the influence of dirty money.

The Connecticut Food Association, representing grocers, criticized the Connecticut law that limits wine sales to package stores as antiquated and out of line with most states. Consumers want the convenience of buying wine when buying groceries, the group's lobbyists argued.

The Wine and Spirits Wholesalers of Connecticut, representing an industry with about 1,250 independent package stores, warned lawmakers that a decision to enrich supermarkets via wine sales would drive many small, family-owned package store operators out of business and severely erode profits for others.

In trying to persuade legislators, the grocers association invoked heavy lobbying, including hiring former Democratic House Speaker Joe Aresimowicz, now a lobbyist, to make its case. Package store organizers, meanwhile, rented several buses to pack a Feb. 2 General Law Committee hearing.

In the end the deadline for bills to report out of committee passed without the proposed wine-law change moving forward. It is possible the bill could be revived, but unlikely.

Money and politics

Would the outcome have been different if Connecticut did not have public financing of campaigns? It is impossible to say. But certainly these special interest groups would have directed sizable campaign donations toward state lawmakers. The Goliath in this fight, the big supermarket chains, would have had the advantage.

Following a series of scandals, including the bribery and contract steering that drove Gov. John G. Rowland out of office and into federal prison, a bipartisan effort — the Democrats held the legislative majority while Republican M. Jodi Rell served as governor — led to the creation of the Citizens Election Program.

Turning to public funding of campaigns was a remarkable achievement given the significant advantage incumbents have in raising campaign funds the traditional way. Bill supporters essentially voted against their own political interests. How often does that happen?

In 2008, the first election after the passage of CEP, 73% of candidates running for the General Assembly participated in the voluntary program. Participation has remained high. In the November 2022 election, 87% of candidates for the state legislature used the program rather than turn to special interests, or self-funding, to finance their campaigns.

Money and politics

Candidates must demonstrate broad support by raising money from individuals by way of relatively small donations, rather than depending on special interest donors who expect loyalty in return.

To qualify for funding in the last general election, a Senate candidate had to raise $17,300 from at least 300 donors, with contributions ranging from $5 to no more than $290. House candidates, who have smaller districts, had to raise $5,800 from at least 150 donors, using the same contribution limits. Eligible Senate candidates qualified for up to $112,795 to run their campaigns, House candidates, $33,175. Candidates facing no opposition, or qualifying late in the election cycle, received significantly less funding.

In 2006, the last year before CEP, half the funding for candidates came from special interests, half from individuals. Since CEP, 99% of funding comes from the individual donations necessary to qualify for the public funds. Candidates using the program cannot accept other donations.

I have serious doubts if Connecticut's ban on assault rifles and its other strict gun laws would have passed with broad bipartisan support if the NRA could have used its campaign-donation muscle to threaten or reward candidates. Likewise, would Connecticut have seen family leave legislation pass, or the gradual increase to a $15 minimum wage approved, if business interests could have used big donations to buy votes?

How CEP changed things is well illustrated by what happens with bottle-deposit money. For years, unclaimed nickels went back to beer and soda distributors. Year after year efforts to instead send the money, $24 million annually, into the state coffers, where it could offset expenses, were defeated. Not surprisingly, the beverage industry was a big campaign donor. In 2008, the newly elected legislature, with three-quarters having run using CEP, finally voted to return the unclaimed bottle deposits to the general fund.

Races for governor

Where the CEP has not worked is in the race for the most powerful position — governor. The past two elections featured two extremely rich guys largely self-funding their campaigns, with Democratic Gov. Ned Lamont twice defeating Republican Bob Stefanowski. Since enactment of the CEP, only one race for governor featured both candidates using public financing, in 2014 when Democratic Gov. Dannel P. Malloy defeated Republican Tom Foley, a race that was also a rematch.

A sound argument can be made that the program must provide more money to gubernatorial candidates and get it to them earlier in the election cycle. Otherwise, candidates for governor won't participate, instead using special-interest donations or their own wealth. Legislation now before the General Assembly would do that, with a House proposal increasing state funding for a gubernatorial general election campaign to $12 million, a Senate proposal to $15.5 million. Candidates for governor can now qualify for a maximum of $7.7 million, not enough to confront PAC money and a well-financed opponent.

Critics recoil at spending so much public money on campaigns, but the alternative — candidates bought by and controlled by special interests — is far less appealing. Connecticut is only one of three states with public campaign financing. Arizona and Maine are the others. To move away from a political system that gives too much influence to the wealthy and powerful, more states need to follow suit.

Paul Choiniere is the former editorial page editor of The Day, now retired. He can be reached at p.choiniere@yahoo.com.