( - promoted by ctblogger)
As the battle for the Governor's Seat in Connecticut heats up, so does the battle about how the election will be funded. On Friday Republicans announced their latest deficit mitigation package which
For the fourth time since they've been offering alternative budget plans to their majority party colleagues, the Republicans proposed eliminating the funding for the Citizens' Election Program. Currently the fund has about $30 million in it, which would be used to help fund the 2010 elections.
Apparently, they would rather see a campaign for governor between two men from Greenwich that can self fund their campaigns.
Then, in the Hartford Courant today, Former Republican State Senator Kevin Rennie suggested that Election Finance Law Shackles Candidates. He suggested that "Raising that $250,000 from the thin ranks of Connecticut Republicans requires a taste for tedium." Given the lack of substance in most Republican discourse I've heard over the recent months, I can understand why some would view discussions with Republicans tedious, but I would hope that anyone running for office would not find talking with their possible constituents, especially constituents in their own party, tedious. |
Most candidates in the 2006 cycle reported that by participating in the Citizens' Election Program, they spent more time talking to their possible constituents about the issues that matter most. First, they had to spend time talking to a wide array of low dollar donors, and then, when they had completed this, they were free to spend all their time talking about the issues, and not having to waste more time dialing large donors for dollars.
Yet perhaps it is this fear of having to talk about positions that worries Mr. Rennie and his friends the most. Ken Dixon, in a recent blog post wrote, Tom Foley Wants To Be Governor, But Needs Time To Say Why. Several people commented on Mr. Dixon's post suggesting it was unfair for members of the media to want information about why a candidate is running for office.
Mr. Rennie seems to long for the days when donors could give up to $2,500 per person. He also goes on to say that "The campaign finance law championed by Rell, Fedele's 'partner in government,' bars many citizens from participating in politics." The 'many citizens' that Mr. Rennie is so concerned about are the 622 registered lobbyists and their family members who are barred from making financial contributions to campaigns and for Mr. Rennie, 'participating in politics' seems to be limited to writing large checks.
I should note that I am the spouse of one of those 622 registered lobbyists. My wife is a Senior Organizer for Common Cause here in Connecticut. She continues to fight hard for the Citizens Election Program. The law does bar me from making financial contributions to the Gubernatorial campaigns. However, I believe there are much more important ways of participating in politics than writing checks, including discussing the issues that matter to the people of Connecticut.
This leads me to a final thought, for right now, about Mr. Rennie's column. He ends off his column saying,
If there's an unexpected choice, someone who isn't rich but who advocates interesting ideas, he or she will have a hard time being heard. So many people are banned from participating that if you aren't rich, you're sentenced to months of scavenging for small contributions in the name of Jodi Rell's virtue.
I fail to comprehend this logic. If all the candidates, whether they have a rolodex of rich friends, or an email list of loyal supporters, are limited to spending the same amount of money, then everyone has the same chance of getting their message out. Of course, this will depend on members of the media, both old and new, to focus on the issues, the way Mr. Dixon and myself wish to do, instead of making sure that rich lobbyists can pay campaigns to hire expensive consultants and air expensive television advertisements, the way Mr. Rennie seems to think political coverage should be done. |
MLN is powered by