Campaign Reform A Dilemma For Rowland, Democrats

By Matthew Daly

Associated Press

HARTFORD — He trumpeted bipartisan cooperation, but Gov John G. Rowland opened the 2001 session of the General Assembly by throwing a curve ball at Democratic leaders of the Legislature.

The Republican governor endorsed a plan – long favored by Democrats – to make it easier for political candidates to wage primaries.

But in the next breath, he vowed to veto any reform bill that depends on tax money to pay for political campaigns – a proposal Democrats have made a top priority.

The dual declarations caught Democrats off guard and set the stage for what is likely to be a months-long battle over an issue both parties consider crucial: reforming state election campaigns to increase participation and reduce the influence of special-interest money.

Gov Rowland’s proposals, which few at the Capitol expected, seemed aimed at creating a dilemma for Democrats who control the House and Senate: pass a reform bill that the governor will veto or compromise and approve a weaker bill whose terms are essentially dictated by Gov Rowland.

While conceding that Rowland had made a crafty move, Democrats said they were not intimidated by the veto threat.

Nor would they allow themselves to be distracted by Gov Rowland’s call for direct primaries, Democrats said.

Indeed, if anyone has a dilemma on campaign reform, it is Gov Rowland, Democrats said, since he already vetoed a comprehensive bill last year that would have used taxpayer money to pay for political campaigns and set limits on how much candidates can spend.

Rep Andrew Fleischmann, the chief sponsor of the 2000 reform bill, called Gov Rowland’s latest proposals “cynical” and “a little bit of a shell game.”

Rep Fleischmann, D-West Hartford, said Gov Rowland “is opposed to real reform he knows we can pass, and now he supports smaller reforms that face obstacles. It’s a stance that may play well with the public but reflects some cynical maneuvering I think.”

Rep Fleischmann and other Democrats called Gov Rowland’s proposal on direct primaries ironic, since his own party has blocked attempts at the idea in the past.

Direct primaries, long touted by left-leaning reformers, are intended to reduce the influence of party bosses by allowing challengers to petition their way onto the ballot, rather than secure support from delegates at a party convention. Gov Rowland and other supporters say the proposal will open up the electoral process and reverse a trend in which 71 of 187 legislative races were uncontested last year.

State GOP Chairman Chris DePino voted against direct primaries in 1996 – the last time the idea came up for a vote – as did all three of the top Republican leaders in the House.

Five years later, Mr DePino and other Republicans said they are willing to reconsider.

“I’m really, really excited about it,” Mr DePino said.

“I wouldn’t be ready to vote for it today,” said Rep Brian Flaherty of Watertown, a deputy GOP leader, “but [Gov Rowland] has successfully, I think, shifted the focus away from taxpayer financing.”

That lukewarm reaction, coupled with Democratic distrust of Gov Rowland, means prospects for direct primaries are uncertain at best.

But some sort of campaign reform is still possible and even likely, lawmakers from both parties said. Nearly two dozen bills on the subject have already been filed.