So-called “reformers” defend taxpayer financing of campaigns by claiming that such programs are the silver bullet that will eliminate corruption — and even the perception of corruption — in politics, thus touting “participating” candidates as “clean” and virtuous. However, reports keep coming out demonstrating that so-called “clean” candidates are often the dirtiest of all.
As we pointed out only a month ago, the Arizona Citizens Clean Elections Commission voted not only to fine pro-“reform” Arizona State Senator Doug Quelland $45,500, but also to oust him from office, for violating the very “clean” elections law he had championed.
Last week, another example of “clean” candidates behaving badly hit the news, but this time from the other side of the country, in Connecticut. Indeed, the Connecticut drama demonstrates even further that taxpayer financing does not prevent politicians from engaging in base corruption, and may do so in order to get their hands on taxpayer money for their campaigns.
As the New Haven Register editorialized:
“State Sen. Joseph J. Crisco Jr. of Woodbridge certainly knows better. He has been a state senator for 16 years. He is the deputy leader of the Senate’s Democratic caucus. He is the Senate chairman of the legislature’s Insurance and Real Estate Committee. He is a past chairman of the Appropriations Committee.
And yet, he broke almost every conceivable part of public campaign finance law in a failed attempt to get $85,000 in public money for his last election campaign.
Among other offenses, he forged the names of his campaign treasurer and his deputy treasurer, had the forged names notarized in his presence, acted as his own campaign treasurer and received contributions and spent money without a properly formed campaign committee.”
The Hartford Courant‘s “Now You Know” column described Senator Crisco’s wrongdoings in more detail, based on the State Senator’s admissions to the Connecticut State Elections Enforcement Commission:
“[T]he commission reached an agreement with Crisco in which he admitted signing the name of his campaign treasurer on a series of campaign finance documents in 2007 and 2008. The consent agreement calls those ‘inauthentic signatures.’ The rest of us would be clearer: Crisco forged the signature of his purported campaign treasurer, Robert Goodman.”
The Courant went on to note:
“Each document included a warning that making a false statement is a crime. It is not ambiguous. One would think Crisco would know that on his own — that making a false statement is a crime.”
But perhaps even more surprising then Senator Cisco’s blatant illegal acts was the Connecticut State Elections Commission’s reaction to them. As the column in the Courant stated:
“The commission, after reciting seven pages of appalling acts by Crisco, contorts and debases itself on the eighth page by minimizing Crisco’s repeated violations. The senator failed to ‘appreciate the seriousness’ of campaign finance laws and of ‘the significance of legal signatures.'”
Despite such dirty election law violations — which everyone seems to agree were designed to illegally obtain taxpayer money to finance his political campaign — the State Elections Enforcement Commission let Crisco off the hook with only a minor fine.
Why? The Courant‘s column offers a theory:
“Crisco agreed to pay a $4,000 fine in return for the commission not initiating any further proceedings. It could and should have referred this to the chief state’s attorney. That, however, would risk the wrath of the General Assembly. The commission is sitting on tens of millions of dollars for 2010 campaigns. An angry legislature could take that to fund legitimate state programs, leaving the commission and the public financing of elections bereft.”
In other words, it is possible that the State Elections Enforcement Commission ignored a violation of the laws it was created to enforce in order to protect itself, taxpayer financed legislators and candidates, and the state’s less-than-“clean” elections program from the very legislators who created the Commission and taxpayer financing for campaigns in the first place.
Thus, the Commission’s decision only to slap Senator Cisco on the wrist can be — and is being — seen as the easiest path to ensure the Commission’s and the less-than-“clean” elections programs survival.
How does this reduce either corruption or the appearance of corruption? Answer: it doesn’t.
Since we can’t read their minds, we will never know for sure whether the illegal behavior of politicians like State Senators Crisco and Quelland stemmed from their misunderstanding of the laws or their more likely desire to break the laws to benefit themselves and their campaigns. Regardless, all of this provides yet another clear example of how taxpayer financing laws are doing little — if anything — to prevent corruption in politics or reduce that perception among the public.
