Commentary—

Campaign Finance Reform

By John Nussbaum

Once again, serious discussion is taking place at the State Capitol about ethics in government and the wrong and potentially corrupt influences of money in political campaigns in Connecticut. Here are three ways that would help improve the way we finance political campaigns in our state.

Disclose the fundraisers: If nothing else, we need to empower the individual citizen’s ability to finance candidates. The caps on individual contributions should be raised, not lowered, to offset the influence of corporate and special interests. In the last two gubernatorial elections, between 5,000 and 10,000 people contributed to the major parties’ nominees. What influence is one of 5,000 or 10,000 citizen contributors going to have? Instead it is the influence of the few among the many who collect those checks. Tracking the contributions along with the solicitor of those contributions is true transparent disclosure. These people are given names like “pioneers” and assigned codes by candidates to track and receive credit for the amount of money they raise. These are the people we need to keep an eye on. To mitigate their influence, Connecticut citizens need to know who these people are. Therefore, contributors to campaigns should be asked to disclose and name, “who, other than the candidate directly, solicited you for your contribution?”

Provide free airtime: The enormous money a statewide candidate raises in Connecticut, anywhere from a million to five million dollars in the past, is principally paid to three television stations in Connecticut and the various local cable and radio stations. To avoid the pressures of fundraising that lead to trouble, laws should be passed to mandate that these media outlets provide a prescribed amount of free airtime to statewide candidates. New laws could provide uniform media access for the candidates and the expense or lost revenue to the media companies could be passed onto advertisers. This is the simplest, most direct, and equitable solution to taxpayers.

Public Financing: Short of a free media solution, the cost of statewide campaigns should come out of the state budget. Viewed over four years, the cost to finance statewide political campaigns would be a fractional percentage of state spending. Compare the cost of our state government financing statewide political campaigns every four years versus the expenditures at any similar-sized organization on, for example, head-hunting/search fees and recruiting expenses. In this light, public financing is extremely reasonable compared to the aggregate cost of hiring the officers that run organizations the size of Connecticut’s constitutional offices. More to the point, it would be inconceivable that any private organization would allow their vendors or service suppliers to pay this expense. It is in the taxpayers’ self-interest to foot this bill.

The era of candidates communicating in public squares, by word-of-mouth, rallies, handbills, or door-to-door solicitation has diminished to the point that the television and computer are our principal media. Banning lobbyists or government contractors is not enough. Creating a voluntary system to publicly finance campaigns is a government abdicating its responsibility to safeguard the public against the wrong, and often corrupt, influences of campaign contributions. Real campaign finance reform needs to include full disclosure, free media, and public financing to ensure that the interests of citizens come first.

(John Nussbaum, a self-employed businessman from New Haven, is a Democrat running for secretary of the state in Connecticut.)