CGA Government Administration and Elections Committee, March 19, 2012 Public Hearing
Comments On RB 5528 “AAC Changes to the Public Financing Act and Other Election Laws”
Submitted By Cheryl Dunson, President
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The League of Women Voters of Connecticut is a nonpartisan, nationwide organization with over 1800 statewide Connecticut members dedicated to improving the electoral process. On behalf of the League, I would like to thank you for giving us the opportunity to comment upon RB 5528 AAC Changes to the Public Financing Act and Other Election Laws. As a result of the out-of-town absence of our Campaign Finance
Specialist Christine Horrigan, I offer the following preliminary comments on RB 5528 on behalf the League. We hope that the committee will consider any further comments provided by Ms. Horrigan in the future.
The League of Women Voters of Connecticut has strongly supported campaign finance efforts with the following goals in mind: ensuring the public’s right to know, combating corruption and undue influence, encouraging candidates to run for public
office and re-connecting with citizens. We actively worked for passage of the historic 2005 Campaign Finance Reform law and the subsequent “fixes” in response to court rulings. We also were strong proponents of the 2010 law “AAC Independent
Expenditures” that included “stand by your ad” provisions and expanded language on what constitutes “coordination.”
In an age where the cost of running for office has exploded, the courts have recognized that making a contribution is a form of protected speech, and the subsequent emergence of well-funded groups about which little is known who seek to influence elections, more can be done in the public interest.
We support the proposed expanded disclosure rovisions. This bill requires corporate or organizational entities to disclose all sources of the contributions for campaign-related activities. If any funds are transferred from another entity for the purpose of a campaign
related expenditure that would also have to be specifically disclosed. Particularly noteworthy is the provision to require corporations incorporated or registered to do business in the state that wish to engage in election related spending to propose
annually a political activities budget and to present such budget to shareholders for adoption (Sec. 29); in other words, this provision gives the shareholders the knowledge
and the power to authorize or vote down spending relating to Connecticut’s elections.
The League also supports: mandatory electronic filing by lobbyists of any election-related expenditure (Sec10); expansion of the “stand by your ad” provision to require identification of a website link which will provide the names and addresses of donors (Sec20); and a requirement for television broadcasters to provide a searchable database of elections-related ads with key information such as the contact info for the
purchaser of the ad, the date and amount of expenditure and whether it was made in support or opposition to a targeted candidate or ballot measure (Sec 20).
Taken together, the League believes that these provisions will increase the public’s knowledge of who is spending how much to influence the outcome of our state’s elections and help instill confidence in our electoral system.
In contrast to our support for the disclosure provision, the League is concerned about the across-the-board doubling or near doubling of contribution limits to the Citizens’ Election Program (Sec 13-17) that appears to be in a response to the court’s ruling eliminating “trigger funds”. Another provision which also appears to be in response to the court ruling is to enable participating candidates to raise unlimited amounts
in response to a nonparticipating opponent whose spending approaches the limit or exceeds the eligible grant amount. We fear that these provisions will once again create an opportunity for undue influence.
As proposed, some of the changes to individual limits are:
Individual contributions
To State Central
Committee
To Gubernatorial
Candidates
To Statewide Offices
Per Election
Changes to the limits on contributions by political committees organized by businesses
or organizations include...
CLICK BELOW TO READ THE FULL TESTIMONY
Comments On RB 5528 “AAC Changes to the Public Financing Act and Other Election Laws”
Submitted By Cheryl Dunson, President
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The League of Women Voters of Connecticut is a nonpartisan, nationwide organization with over 1800 statewide Connecticut members dedicated to improving the electoral process. On behalf of the League, I would like to thank you for giving us the opportunity to comment upon RB 5528 AAC Changes to the Public Financing Act and Other Election Laws. As a result of the out-of-town absence of our Campaign Finance
Specialist Christine Horrigan, I offer the following preliminary comments on RB 5528 on behalf the League. We hope that the committee will consider any further comments provided by Ms. Horrigan in the future.
The League of Women Voters of Connecticut has strongly supported campaign finance efforts with the following goals in mind: ensuring the public’s right to know, combating corruption and undue influence, encouraging candidates to run for public
office and re-connecting with citizens. We actively worked for passage of the historic 2005 Campaign Finance Reform law and the subsequent “fixes” in response to court rulings. We also were strong proponents of the 2010 law “AAC Independent
Expenditures” that included “stand by your ad” provisions and expanded language on what constitutes “coordination.”
In an age where the cost of running for office has exploded, the courts have recognized that making a contribution is a form of protected speech, and the subsequent emergence of well-funded groups about which little is known who seek to influence elections, more can be done in the public interest.
We support the proposed expanded disclosure rovisions. This bill requires corporate or organizational entities to disclose all sources of the contributions for campaign-related activities. If any funds are transferred from another entity for the purpose of a campaign
related expenditure that would also have to be specifically disclosed. Particularly noteworthy is the provision to require corporations incorporated or registered to do business in the state that wish to engage in election related spending to propose
annually a political activities budget and to present such budget to shareholders for adoption (Sec. 29); in other words, this provision gives the shareholders the knowledge
and the power to authorize or vote down spending relating to Connecticut’s elections.
The League also supports: mandatory electronic filing by lobbyists of any election-related expenditure (Sec10); expansion of the “stand by your ad” provision to require identification of a website link which will provide the names and addresses of donors (Sec20); and a requirement for television broadcasters to provide a searchable database of elections-related ads with key information such as the contact info for the
purchaser of the ad, the date and amount of expenditure and whether it was made in support or opposition to a targeted candidate or ballot measure (Sec 20).
Taken together, the League believes that these provisions will increase the public’s knowledge of who is spending how much to influence the outcome of our state’s elections and help instill confidence in our electoral system.
In contrast to our support for the disclosure provision, the League is concerned about the across-the-board doubling or near doubling of contribution limits to the Citizens’ Election Program (Sec 13-17) that appears to be in a response to the court’s ruling eliminating “trigger funds”. Another provision which also appears to be in response to the court ruling is to enable participating candidates to raise unlimited amounts
in response to a nonparticipating opponent whose spending approaches the limit or exceeds the eligible grant amount. We fear that these provisions will once again create an opportunity for undue influence.
As proposed, some of the changes to individual limits are:
Individual contributions
To State Central
Committee
To Gubernatorial
Candidates
To Statewide Offices
Per Election
Changes to the limits on contributions by political committees organized by businesses
or organizations include...
CLICK BELOW TO READ THE FULL TESTIMONY
| LWVCT Testimony on RB 5528 |
RSS Feed