Repressing the Citizen Activist
CTGOP hosted the second Chairman’s Roundtable Discussion last Thursday evening in Waterbury, in which the Executive Director of the State Elections Enforcement Commission, Jeff Garfield, and Beth Rotman, the head of the Citizens’ Election Program, made a presentation on how the new rules impact Town Committees. Over 100 Republican Town Committee Chairs, Treasurers, and State Central Committee Members assembled to listen to the presentation and ask questions of Mr. Garfield and Mrs. Rotman.
The new Citizens’ Election Program (CEP) - touted by Executive Director Garfield as the “most progressive campaign finance law in the nation” to the pin-drop quiet audience - offers candidates for the State Senate and State House the option to participate in the public financing system. Candidates for the State House who raise contributions from 150 individuals in towns touched by their district and $5000 will receive 25,000 taxpayer dollars. Same deal applies to Senate candidates, though they need 300 donors and $15,000 raised to get 85,000 taxpayer dollars. In both cases, the public money would represent the whole their campaigns have to spend for the entire election cycle, and they aren’t allowed to raise anything more. They cannot accept contributions from PACs, lobbyists, or state contractors.
The new laws and regulations associated with the Citizens Election Program have a significant impact on Town Committees. In the past, Town Committees were the vehicle that drove many State House and State Senate campaigns, with Town Committee funds regularly being expended to defray some of the costs associated with waging a campaign for elected office. The new laws signficantly restrict the relationship between the candidate and Town Committee. The most egregious example given at the presentation was the case of the candidate who attends a Town Committee fundraiser. If a Town Committee hosts a spaghetti dinner and a candidate for State House/State Senate attends the event, then the cost of the fundraiser must be apportioned on finance reports on a pro rata basis to each CEP-participating candidate in attendance and the Town Committee. This requirement, along with a host of others, creates a situation where the Treasurer of the Town Committee - always a volunteer position - is burdened with sifting through new regulations and shuffling paperwork ad nauseam. Many Treasurers would rather resign their post - and they do.
In addition to the traditional conservative complaint about spending taxpayer dollars on lawn signs, little orange footballs, pizza, and helium - hey, it’s the Pizza Hut and The Party Store Stimulus Act - the Citizens’ Election Program substitutes repressive bureaucracy for common sense, and absolutely no thought was given to making the program simple. Regular people who give up their time to attend Town Committee meetings, donate money here and there, and volunteer at events shoudn’t be treated like criminals because they are interested in the future of their State. Mr. Garfield and Mrs. Rotman mostly avoid fault in this regard as they are charged with implementing a lousy law - though they have been guilty of some “bureaucratic empirebuilding” with some of the regulations they’ve been handing down. The legislators who wrote the law are to blame - like Rep. Chris Caruso from Bridgeport.
Many of these laws were passed in the wake of the John Rowland fiasco, and seemed like a natural reaction at the time. It is clear now, however, that our collective kneejerk allowed a particularly lousy law to go into effect, which will now be foisted upon those interested in the future of their communities. A simply designed, electronic reporting system that emphasizes rapid disclosure of contributions, rather than draconian limits on who can contribute, how much they can contribute, and how each contribution should be accounted for, would be a better model for campaign finance in Connecticut. But common sense and ease of use are rarely the hallmarks of state government.





