Litigation

Appeals Court Voids Part of CT Public-Finance Law

By Peter Hardin

An important part of Connecticut’s public financing law for campaigns, which has been seen as a potential national model, was thrown out by the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Tuesday.

The 2nd Circuit struck down the so-called “trigger provisions” of the law. Under these provisions, a candidate running against a wealthy, privately funded opponent gets extra public funding, according to an Associated Press article. Alternatively, a participating candidate who is opposed with large independent spending can get extra public funding. The court said this kind of  a requirement infringes on the free speech rights of a wealthy candidate.

Last year, a district judge ruled that a part of the law was unconstitutional because it discriminated against minor party candidates (see Gavel Grab). The 2nd Circuit overturned that decision on Tuesday.

The appeals court’s decisions resulted in a “mixed finding” for the Citizens Election Program in Connecticut, the AP reported.

An expert on this area of law, Richard Hasen, wrote in his Election Law Blog that the ruling on Connecticut’s “trigger provisions” represented a “major campaign finance decision with important national implications.”

The 2nd Circuit ruling is in conflict with a recent 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decision, Hasen wrote, and the difference in the rulings “makes it even more likely” that the Supreme Court will decide to hear an appeal of the latter. In that case, the 9th Circuit upheld a provision of Arizona?s public financing system for statewide and legislative offices.

Beth Rotman, executive director of the Citizens’ Election Program, said Connecticut’s Elections Enforcement Commission will need to return to the lower court to see whether the portion of the law involving supplemental grants to candidates can be severed from the rest of the statue, thereby permitting the rest of the program to continue.

The 2nd Circuit’s opinion on “trigger provisions” and on minor party candidates is available here. The court also threw out a ban on campaign donations by lobbyists and their families, while upholding a ban on campaign contributions by state contractors; that opinion is available here.

Full post as published by The Gavel on July 13, 2010 (boomark / email).