Redstate

I am absolutely sure that the lawmakers are well aware of the consequences. Another "Incumbency Protection Act" so to speak.

It is another sad day for free speech, the US Constitution AND the Connecticut Constitution, which states:

Sec. 5.   No law shall ever be passed to curtail or restrain the lib-

          erty of speech or of the press.

I guess that just went into the waste basket. HOPEFULLY this will open up to litigation.

snout under the tent.  Shortfalls to be made up by corporate taxes?  Who pays corporate taxes, why the users and buyers of corporate services.  Next step?  Also there are some restrictions on corporate contributions but i notice none on the unions.  Like it or not corporations represent constituencies and not just the shareholders.  And naturally, spending caps.  Another incumbency protection act, as if they need it.  But when you have a racket you can never do enough to enhance and protect it.  A step,however small,towards public financing among other shortcomings.

or we are not.

Connecticut chooses not.

Superior fundraising is one of the major advantages of incumbents--this is pretty basic political science.  How does removing this advantage (funding challengers and incumbents equally) help incumbents? Thanks and best wishes for your reply.

the general response is that the incumbnent enjoys a built in advantage in the amoun tof knowledge the body politic has of his name and positions and that any challenger needs additional airtime (bought by money) to make up that ground.

I don't know that I really agree with it, look at the heavy regulation in Israeli elections as an example of a succesful system. Of course it is possible that the nature of their politics makes it that most prime minister candidates are already well known and as a parliament legislative elections ar efor parties not individuals.

But still, this is a movement from the current system, where incumbents have much more money than challengers, to a system where incumbents and challengers have equal amounts of money.  I don't think it's fair to call this an "incumbent protection" scheme.  Maybe a better plan would be to give incumbents less public money than challengers...

It is definitely fair to say that it protects the incumbent because, even if both elected to take the money the incumbent has an advantage with name recognition.

The biggest reason that this is better for the incumbent, though,  is that the incumbent can call a press conference about some bill he is proposing, low-income housing ribbon cutting he is attending and it makes the papers...as unregulated news items. The incumbent gets a wealth of free advertising. The only way an opponent can get the same advertising is by paying for it.

Now lets also say that incumbents can fundraise better, it makes the scenario even worse because it will then be more likely the incumbent can afford to decline the election money and the opponent cant.

And with the stricter regulations it is even harder to get money.

Another side note, there are now also more restrictions on corporations, excluding one large corporate sector; news organzations. They are huge organizations that have just as much personal interest in who wins as any other corporation but they can pour out as many op-ed pieces as they want without worrying about being arrested for speaking their minds. I mention this as a side note because it doesnt necessary fall under incumbent protection as the paper can side for the opponent but it is another unequal aspect of the law that shows its failures.

As for giving more money ot one side and not the other, well, who decides? This nation is a representative Republic in which the citizens are SUPPOSED to petition the government, which means lobbying. Free speech is sacred and political speech goes to the top of the list. If I want to tell someone I support a candidate I should be allowed to. If I want to buy airtime to tell a LOT of people about my support I should be allowed to. If I want to get together with a million like minded people, pool our resources and buy a LOT of airtime, I should be allowed to do that too.

If you want to pass any kind of campaign reform it should be solely in the matter of disclosure, not spending limits.

As the power of blogs grows they will want to regulate speech here too.

I blame McCain for giving these Socialist Regulators hope.

I live in CT and have a stong knowledge of this bill.  This bill has such a big loophole it it amazing.  It still allows Partys and the 3 leadership Caucus PACS per caucus it created to give unlimited "organization expenditures."  These are expenditures make in coordination with the candidate committee and do not have to be reported, other than during the 1/4 filing required of PACS.  This is the just the first loophole that the Democratic Majority acknowledged, yet refused to amend.  Rather they claim they will "fix it next session"  

YEAH RIGHT!

If there is not enough money available, any shortfall would come from corporate taxes.

Yep agree. I'd imagine things will work like this. Dem's run the fund down to elect their people and Repub's urged not to use the program. Shortfalls made up by 'evil corporations' who will just pass the buck to the consumer. Another Campaign financing grift for sure. The only good thing here is they won't need the Public Unions for fundraising now... they have the whole public paying for it all!

I've been blogging about this over at http://ballots.blogspot.com.

I have an interesting dialog going with the governor's PR guy, over whether the governor will sign the bill if parts of it are unconstitutional.

I'm waiting for a more specific answer than he's given me so far, but he's written back twice today, non-form letter answers.

In my professional, but biased, opinion, the legislation has at least several problems.

The stand by your ad requirements compel speech, which the Supreme Court has repeatedly held is  unconstituional. A court did uphold, wrongly, the previous version of CT's compelled speech law.

The bill discriminates against minor parties, with extra hoops they have to jump through to get any money. Buckley and McConnell upheld that sort of discrimination federally, and I don't yet know much about the CT constitution's equal protection clause cases.

The bill retaliates against independent expenditures. Buckley held that the government can't ban independent expenditures, so what states have been trying to do is regulate them to death instead of an outright ban, but I doubt the retaliation policy is legal.

If other redstate readers spot specific issues that raise constitutional concerns, I'd like to hear about them so I can pass that on to Rell before she signs (as expected) or vetos (unlikely) the bill. gtbear - gmail.

Campaign finance reform laws are long needed and welcome, IMO.

Who needs spinners when we can spin ourselves dizzy!

Folks, from what I am reading, Connecticut voted to restrict the flow of money into campaigns that is not of the people, by the people or for the people.  Corporations that account for most of this money are not 'people', and should rightfully be kept out of it.  I have nothing against corporations.  I work within one.  There is enough opportunity in the marketplace for corporations to live and thrive in.  Politics and government should be the peoples' business, not multi-national corporations whose loyalty is often not instep with the peoples'.

They, too are corporations. Time Warner, Viacom, Gannett, etc. If corporations cannot advertise, then should the sunday talk shows be banned? Should there be a newspaper blackout during elections?  News organizations are huge entities whose loyalties may not be the same as the citizens either. They also are the ones who choose who gets on and who doesnt (remember during the presidential elections how folks like richard clarke got a whole hour on 60 minutes to tout his book but the swiftboat vets got snubbed?). Since they can steer airtime/facetime/article time towards their favorite candidate, other corporations should also be allowed to advertise.

Besides, neither the connecitcut constitution nor the us constitution state that free speech shall not be limited, oh, except for businesses.