Licking their chops at the prospects of reaping millions in campaign dollars, Connecticut lawmakers today overrode Governor Jodi Rell’s veto of the state’s revised “clean elections” law, despite calls to spend the money on social services. The revamped bill clears the way for lawmakers to collect tens of thousands of dollars for the campaigns, from the government. The bill is also expected to provide a major immediate boost to the gubernatorial campaign of the Democratic nominee, Dan Malloy. Despite the appearance of corruption thus created, all but one Democrat voted for the override. Democrats dominate the Connecticut legislature.
This is the latest in Connecticut’s back and forth over whether to have taxpayers fund the state’s elections. A few years ago, Connecticut lawmakers voted for a system in which campaigns would be funded coercively by government, rather than through voluntary citizen contributions. You and I have to spend our money to speak, whether we give to unions, the Environmental Defense Fund, Right to Life, MoveOn, or the local chamber of commerce. Connecticut lawmakers would like us to fund their campaign speech, too. However, earlier this summer, a federal appeals court ruled that the law was unconstitutional. With this bill, the legislature sought to make changes to meet the court’s mandate and again allow tax dollars to flow to political campaigns, even upping the amounts candidates would receive. The state budgeted approximately $40 million for program, with about $3 million expected to go immediately into the campaign of Democratic gubernatorial nominee Malloy. Republican nominee Tom Foley, a former Ambassador to Ireland, is paying for his own campaign and so is not eligible for government funds. Rell vetoed the bill, but today the House followed the state Senate to override the veto on a mostly party line vote.
Opponents of the bill had proposed that the funds go for social services, which have been cut as the state struggles to balance its budget. Although there are plenty of people willing to fund political campaigns on a voluntary basis, in the end Connecticut lawmakers, possibly concerned about Malloy being outspent by Foley, and certainly happy to have government subsidies for their own politicking, decided it was more important to spend the money on political campaigns than to spend it on human priorities or getting the state’s fiscal house in order.
