A few weeks ago the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut ruled constitutional provisions of Connecticut’s Campaign Finance Reform Act banning contributions from lobbyists and those with state contracts. Such bans are all the rage among "reformers" these days, fueled by the notion that Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich would have been an exemplary public servant if only it wasn’t for those darn lobbyists and contractors trying to corrupt him. I’ve written here before on why Connecticut’s so-called "pay-to-play" ban, had an identical law been in effect in Illinois, wouldn’t have prevented Governor Blagojevich’s alleged attempt to extort campaign contributions from the head of Chicago Children’s Hospital, probably the most sensational of the charges against him.
Now, I’m going back through and reading the Connecticut District Court’s decision upholding their ban on lobbyist and contractor contributions. There is much to object to, or even snicker at. One of my favorites is the decision’s noting that "Contributions from registered… lobbyists and state contractors in Connecticut has never been historically substantial… lobbyists, state contractors, and their immediate family members contribute only a small percentage of a candidate’s overall campaign funds."
Combine that nugget with Connecticut’s extremely low contribution limits of $250 for state representatives and $1,000 for state senators, and you have to ask yourself "So what’s the point?" If lobbyists and contractors don’t contribute much in the aggregate and can’t contribute much individually, how exactly is banning them from contributing going to reduce corruption or even the appearance of in Connecticut? It’s yet one more example of how, even if the "reformers" are right about how contributions corrupt politics, their proposed solution has no chance of working.
But the distressing part, at least to those of us who care about the First Amendment (or the rest of the Bill of Rights, for that matter), comes about halfway in, on page 45. There, the opinion boldly states that "Because the ban eliminates the right of lobbyists, state contractors, and their immediate family members to engage in the symbolic expression that even a nominal contribution would permit… it is necessary to balance that deprivation against the rights that remain unaffected in order to determine whether the ban is unconstitutionally severe." Basically, the judge is saying that because those banned from contributing are still free to volunteer for a candidate, write a letter to the editor supporting the candidate, and engage in other forms of political speech, it’s OK to strip them of their right to support the candidates of their choice with a contribution.
Perhaps it’s my own lack of legal education and knowledge, but I find this stunning. It’s OK to strip people of some rights so long as you leave them others? I don’t recall this lesson in any of my civics or political science classes, and I paid pretty close attention in those!
Imagine a judge writing that it was OK to deny a criminal defendant their right to cross examine witnesses, because the defendant retained the right to counsel and a jury trial, and still couldn’t be forced to testify against themselves. The howls of protest would be near universal, I suspect.
But if all we’re doing is stripping the First Amendment right to support candidates from lobbyist and those selected to sell goods or services to the government, well, no problem. The ingrates should be grateful they’re still allowed to vote!
What an appalling way of thinking about the First Amendment and our right to about politics, candidates, public policy, and the government.
You can read the full decision and all of its disdain for the political rights of speech, assembly, and petition here: https://www.ifs.org/docLib/20081219_20081219connecticutjudgment.pdf
