CHAIRMEN: Senator Slossberg

Representative Spallone

VICE CHAIRMEN: Senator Meyer

Representative Aresimowicz

MEMBERS PRESENT:

SENATORS: McLachlan

REPRESENTATIVES: Hetherington, Drew, Fleischmann, Floren, Grogins, Labriola, Lawlor, Miller, O'Brien, Reeves

SENATOR SLOSSBERG: Good morning. We'll just give everyone a chance to find a seat.

I'd like to welcome you all to the first public hearing of the Government Administration and Elections Committee. We are delighted to start our sessional hearings with this discussion about our campaign finance system and the landmark legislation and some of the challenges that we now find ourselves faced with.

I would just remind people that this is a public hearing and you'll have an opportunity -- if you haven't signed up already, you can certainly do so with our staff, with the clerk, and we do ask that you please sign up.

Speakers, with limited exceptions, will be limited to three minutes. Please try to make your remarks within those three minutes, and if -- especially if you have written testimony, we -- we can have the opportunity to read your written testimony as well, and then, certainly, you know, there's the opportunity for committee members to ask questions to the extent that there are items that not covered.

Our first speaker's going to be Elections Enforcement. We'll call them up in just a moment. You know, to give us an overview of where -- where we are and where Elections Enforcement stands on the particular bills in front of us.

We have two bills today however, there are still, I think, I believe a lot of ideas out there ready to be discussed. One of the bills proposed is from the Governor. The other is a bill that was raised from the Committee regarding the program. There are some similarities. There are some differences. I think it's very important for the record for people to know that this Legislature believes that the law that we currently have in place is constitutional, is enforceable, is a good law that accomplishes what it is supposed to accomplish in the way that it should accomplish it in the most narrowly tailored way possible.

However, we do know that because of the lower court's ruling and the fact that we are up on appeal now, it throws our system into question. And rather than fluttering in the wind to see whether we have a system at the end of the day, we want to be prepared to address any ruling that the Second Circuit may hand down.

So with that, that is the purpose of today's discussion and debate, and we're delighted to have all of the members of the public who are here to testify.

Mr. Chairman, do you have any additional comments.

REP. SPALLONE: Yes, thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair.

I am looking forward to another session of working with you and the rest of this diligent committee on the bills that are -- we have on our agenda today and on other matters that are important to the state.

And I would just add to your appropriate remarks about today's subject matter, that, I certainly don't and I -- I believe none of the committee members feel that these two bills are the final product; that there's a lot of work to do. There are a lot of good ideas being generated among advocates and legislators and members of the public to address this; that these are an excellent starting point.

I would also add that the eyes of election law practitioners policymakers around the country in Washington DC and in other states are watching what happens in Connecticut because we have the strongest, most comprehensive public financing law ever passed in this country. And it's very important that we respond appropriately to the challenge that we're facing. And I would finally add that I believe that this legislature and this governor are well up to the task of accomplishing this that despite comments of pessimism, I think that just as we did in 2005, where there's a will, there's a way. Whether this is done prior to a court decision or even after a court decision, this Legislature is -- is capable of addressing these problems and keeping this program going as it should. This was an appropriate reaction to a difficult period that our state went through.

So with that said, we are ready to listen, and we thank you all for your patience and for attending today.

SENATOR SLOSSBERG: I would just like to remind everyone first if you would please to turn off your cell phones or turn them on to a quiet mode.

Anyone who is speaking when you come up to the speaker, please turn the microphone on and off when you are done speaking. All speakers should identify themselves prior to the beginning of your remarks to ensure that you are correctly identified on the record and for the purposes of CTN on television.

With that, I'd like to just call up Al Lenge, who is the executive director of Elections Enforcement, and Beth Rothman who is the director of the Citizens' Election Program.

Good morning.

ALBERT LENGE: Good morning. Chairperson Slossberg, Chairperson Spallone, ranking members of the GAE Committee, and members of the GAE Committee.

My name is Al Lenge, and I am the executive director and general counsel of the State Elections Enforcement Commission. With me today is Beth Rotman, the director of Public Financing with the commission. A individual that I recruited to come the SEEC as a result of serving on the Council of Government Ethics and Elections Law Model Law Committee, and for two years, we consulted in -- on that body and I was impressed with her participation, and we brought her from New York City to Connecticut.

I'm delighted that the Committee is considering Raised Bills 5021 -- Beth is going to do the lion's share of the testimony today and answer your specifics. But I'm -- I'm delighted that the committee is considering Raised Bills 5021 and 5022. Both are responsible responses to the federal court's decision declaring parts of the Citizen Election Program unconstitutional.

Both bills improve dramatically the political opportunities of established minor parties, candidates, while at the same time holding them as they do major party candidates to in-district fundraising efforts that substantiate that they have communit -- significant community support before entitling them to a public grant. I'm also delighted that both bills repeal 9717 and leave in place the normal severability provision that are under which all of the statutes enacted by this body are measured.

I -- I believe the CE -- P Program has brought credit to the State of Connecticut. It is widely recognized throughout the country as a model law. I think you should know that you -- you got in the SEEC a responsive bureaucracy. It's stepped up to facilitate the very difficult task in two short years of implementing the Citizen Election Program.

In 2006, the SEEC was not a filing agency. At the -- in December of 2006 the Secretary of the State brought over hundreds and hundreds of bankers boxes of the -- of the hard copy filings that were filed with that agency. It filled this entire room easily with four banker boxes high in very narrow aisles, all of which had to be organized and sent to Iron Mountain.

In April of 2007, for the first time, we began a scanning effort in-house that -- and where state employees would scan -- index the documents that came in as hard copy files, scan them and they went up on the web within 24 hours, sometimes the same day, never more than 24 hours. Previously, that had done -- had been done by a third-party vendor.

The SEEC became a forms agency for the first time. There was a lot of dysfunctionality with having the Secretary of the State serve as the forms agency when it didn't understand or appreciate the rules of implementation. So you have forms created by an agency that didn't know the business rules of the statute, and it sometimes took us three to five years to change a box on the form to create fielded data.

ECRES went live, that was in April of 2007. We had to learn how to use Publisher and put together forms that made sense to people and looked a lot like 1040 forms and that -- that met minimum accounting rules. ECRES went live in 2008 and that was a difficult task. We brought on -- in seven technologists and they had to understand we had to blend three professions, information technology, accounting and auditing, and law, and that was not an easy task and have that make sense to IT application designers and do it on-time so that in this 2008 last election there could be an online web-based filing program that also gave the candidate and candidate treasurers the necessary feedback that they needed in terms of compliance issues and a hard copy of what they filed for the first time, that was not done under CEP'S, under ECRES you got a PDF of exactly what you filed, which elevated the campaign's confidence that the filing had been received.

We had three floors that had -- two floors had to be redesigned at 20 Trinity Street, and the third floor was a disaster. It was broken ceiling tiles, broken floor tiles, asbestos containing materials for office cubicles that were in -- inappropriately designed that needed to be redesigned. And we had to grow the staff and make it all make sense, the same thing for the fifth floor. And that had to be done in two very short years. I think it was a remarkable success, and I think the staff is to be thanked.

Candidates were treated equally. There was a lot of concern that there would be long time lags between an application that was approved and the receipt of a check, and we turn that down in a matter of days by using with the with the comptrollers -- State Comptroller's Office, the Core-CT process of electronic fund transfer. And so we could be confident -- it would have been a disaster for the bureaucracy to be -- have two candidates opposed to each other, one receiving their check to -- the same mail day and somebody getting a check. Just like when you mail a report -- a hard copy reports in, sometimes those are not received for two weeks. Imagine at the other end, if it took weeks through a third-party intermediary, like parcel post, or the United States Postal Service to mail the check, so we did it through an electronic fund transfer process and that was intricate. It was set up with a validating penny test that we're going to work through again this year that showed that the money -- with high confidence levels, 100 percent confident levels that it was going to go to the correct account. And you can imagine with grants that are in the 80 and hundreds of thousands of dollars, $3 million, it must go to the right account at the right time.

The audit process was developed and it's still being vetted, but we have 100 percent certainty as a result of the audit validation process that everyone that applied for a grant was qualified to receive a grant and that grants did not go out inappropriately to campaigns. And the same is true at the other end that the grant money was spent appropriately, and the 97 percent of the instances of the report cards that you are receiving are minor reporting errors where things are reported in one section rather than the other section, but not cases of misspent money. We only expect four or six such cases so that is being validated at the other end, as we speak, and I think this is all an example of the bureaucracy that stepped up to do a very difficult job. These were not five-day weeks, they were seven-day weeks for many, many people, and around the clock. It's just has been a process that hasn't let up, but we were delighted to do it for you.

At this point -- again, thanks once again for raising these two very serious bills. I know they're not the final bills and that you're going to put your good heads together to come up with an excellent response, but, at this point, I'm going to turn the mike over to Beth Rotman. Thank you very much for letting me speak.

BETH ROTMAN: I'm Beth Rotman, director of the Citizens' Election Program.

It's always a pleasure to appear before you, but I'm particularly thankful to be here today testifying about the needs to protect out Citizens' Election Program which you all know has really suffered a serious body blow from the adversed federal court opinion from Judge Underhill.

I'm testifying on behalf of the commission in support of both bills. And I want to emphasize that, on behalf of the commission, Al and I are both tremendously impressed with the leadership of the cochairs at this very critical time.

As you know, the first run of the program for the general assembly elections saw an unprecedented level of participation in our voluntary program and because of that unprecedented high level of participation, we virtually eliminated special interest money from the campaign funds raised by candidates seeking the general assembly offices. And now 78 percent of our sitting legislature participated in our first run.

Our inaugural run was called a really historic success and yet here we are in light of the Judge Underhill decision seeking to find ways to secure our existence so we can go on for 2010 and beyond. And I just note that although Citizen United is not the topic of the hearing today, of course, our State's effort to value citizen-based democracy are all the more crucial in our country's post Citizens' United landscape.

In his August opinion, Judge Underhill looked at the Citizens' Election Program as a whole and found several serious issues. He found that the extra qualifying criteria for minor party candidates were too burdensome. He found that the CEP operated to treat minor party candidates differently from what he termed "hopeless major party candidates." He found that grant amounts were windfall well beyond what most candidates could raise privately, and he found that trigger provisions for issuing supplemental funds based on excess and independent expenditures were unconstitutional.

In Judge Underhill's opinion, these aspects of the program worked together as a package to unconstitutionally burden the political opportunity of a minor party candidate. So given the Court's focus on multiple aspects of the program, a multifaceted approach is needed to respond. As Al shared, it's the Commission's position there is not just one way to deal with Judge Underhill's opinion. And the Commission will support any of the approaches that address the major issues addressed by the court. Today we've been presented with two very different legislative proposals that use different tactics but have both taken great strides to address the Court's major concern so, as I've mentioned, the Commission is supporting both bills.

At this point, I want to ask the cochairs if you'd like me to stop for questions, or would you prefer I go through the two bills and talk about how they've, you know, major highlights address the Court's concern.

SENATOR SLOSSBERG: We'd like you just to continue. I believe they'll be questions afterwards, but given that I think there are a lot people who'd like to hear the details, you know, that you have to offer today, I think that will be helpful for the members of the public as well as the Committee members?

BETH ROTMAN: Thank you.

Okay. So I'll go through each of the major pieces that I pointed out from the Underhill decision and give brief -- a brief explanation of how they're fixed in the two different bills, and then I'll save the rest of the good details for your questions, and I'm sure there'll be plenty.

So, first, the minor party qualifying criteria, well, House Bill 5022 lowers the minor party threshold, which in the current law, are 10, 15 and 20 percent, which meaning that a minor party candidate needs to have obtained 10, 15, or 20 percent in the prior election for that office to qualify for a one-third, two-third, or full grant respectively. Alternatively, under current law, a petitioning candidate can raise petition signatures at the 10 percent, 15 percent, or 20 percent level, and obtain a one-third, two-third, or full grant. So House Bill 5022 addresses the Court's concerns that these thresholds are too burdensome by lowering the minor party threshold.

The bill lowers the threshold to 3 percent, 4 percent, and 5 percent in order for a minor party candidate to obtain a one-third, two-third, or full grant. The bill also allows petitioning candidates to raise petition signatures up to those 3, 4, and 5 percent numbers to obtain the one-third, two-thirds, or full grant. So here we have one proposal that addresses the concerns head on by the Court by reducing the prior vote total or the petition signatures necessary to get partial or full public grant.

The other bill, House Bill 5021, also a bill originally introduced by the Governor, treats major party candidates and minor party candidates the same. Essentially, candidates for major or minor parties would need to raise the qualifying threshold for those offices that everybody don't need to do which is $5,000 dollars, for example, for House, and a 150 in-district residents; 15,000 for Senate, with 300 in-district residents. These are all small, 5 to 100 dollar contribution.

The thresholds are larger for statewide, for example, gubernatorial you still need to raise a quarter million dollars in 5 to 100 dollar increments, with 225,000 of that coming from in-state. But beyond the public fund threshold that I've outlined, there are no other qualifying criteria for a minor or major party candidate. So this certainly responds to the Court's concerns about the current requirements for minor party or petitioning candidate.

On the other concern from the Court about the windfall grant amounts, both bills address this head on, by reducing the grants awarded under the Citizens' Election Program. The Court did focus on the grants awarded to general assembly candidates. And focus on the General Assembly Grant when discussing windfall grant amount. Both bills lower grant amounts, although House Bill 5022 lowers grants amounts for the candidates for all offices, except for governor. The amounts appear to have been taken from what has been historically raised. And additionally, House Bill 5022 eliminates grants for unopposed candidates. The Governor's bill 5021 reduces grant amounts across the board. And, overall, all of these grant reductions should alleviate the Court's concern about windfall grants.

For ease of comparison, attached to the Commission's testimony, we have a chart for you that outlines the CEP's current grants as well as the proposed grant reduction from the House Bill 5021 and House Bill 5022.

The Court was also very concerned about trigger provisions. These are the provisions that allow candidates that have joined the program and agreed to abide by voluntary spending limits to have what the Commission believes is a necessary safety valve, if they're faced by a high-spending nonparticipating opponent or if they're targeted by negative independent expenditures. These trigger provisions are generally seen as necessary and even crucial to incentivizing participation in voluntary public financing programs where we cannot ask participating candidates to run for election with one hand tied behind their back, particularly, in the landscape that we're already seeing of millionaires committing to opt out of the voluntary program and saying that they are not going to abide by voluntary spending limits.

So both bills address the Court's concern in different ways. The Governor's bill puts in language that eliminates the triggers paid to suppl -- to participating candidates unless they're found constitutional. 5022 creates a stringing provision that leaves in the current provision unless the Court finds them unconstitutional. I do think that because of the importance of having an option for people -- for candidates targeted by high-spending nonparticipants or negative independent expenditures. The option of the stringing provision in 5022 is preferable, at least, if not in the legal sense, I think those are certainly legal fixes, but we need to incentivize participation in a voluntary program and give some replacement if we remove triggers.

Lastly, as Director Lenge mentioned, but it deserves emphasizing, the Commission is extremely pleased that both bills repealed section 9717, what has often be called, the anti-severability provision. This is absolutely the swiftest and surest way to secure the future of the Citizens' Election Program because as, of course, you all know, there is an injunction and that injunction is currently stayed, but there could be a Second Circuit opinion at any time and to have the program enjoined would certainly shut things down and send away the participating candidates that are already raising their qualifying contribution.

So by repealing the provision, the Legislature removes the most imminent threat to the program's survival, and certainly the most imminent threat to the reality that participating candidates will not want to be in this program if they don't believe that there'll be some protection for them if they are out raising only $100 contribution and waiting for their grant.

These proposals in today's hearings are an incredibly strong start and, of course, as the cochairs have said our work is not yet done. There is no one way to fix the issues of the Citizens' Election Program, but, again, I want to emphasize that on behalf of the Commission, I think the cochairs have shown tremendous leadership in these incredibly difficult and thorny issues, and I look forward to our continued spirit of cooperation on this very, very important set of bills. Thank you.

SENATOR SLOSSBERG: Thank you very much for your testimony today. I have just a number of questions I'd like to ask, and then I'm sure that there are members of the Committee that have questions as well.

Starting with the concept of significant community support, the laws, we currently have, it provides as you described a certain amount, a threshold dollar amount that candidates have to raise in addition to a certain amount of contributors within the community, but there's no threshold dollar amount for the amount of money that's raised in the community. So for a senate candidate, your threshold is 15,000, you have 300 contributors, but they could all be $5 donations, and everything else could come from somewhere else in the state and not necessarily really show significant community support.

Do you think that's something that's missing in the law that we currently have and a way for us to strengthen, to the extent that we are contemplating limiting the -- reducing the thresholds and whether it's becoming completely minor party neutral or going to a 3-4-5 system, or, however, that is, one of the compelling government interests is in protecting the public's fisc. Do you think that changing that particular calculation or that that requirement would be a strong way to show significant community support and protect the public fisc?

BETH ROTMAN: Yes, actually I think that it's a great idea. I think that it's actually in a way can be one of the strange things about how the program operates now, where if we take state rep, for example, and you need a 150 small-dollar contributions between 5 and 100 dollars and then you also need the $5,000 aggregate. It can actually be a sort of odd thing that you end up getting $5 contributions from a 150 people. And then actually the rest of your money, which turns out in this hypo to be most of your money, comes from outside of the district. So, while I think that there is still some in-district support, of course, because you've got those 150 5-dollar contributions, I think it's definitely strengthening the idea of support from your district if there is the additional requirement that most, or all, of those funds come from your district. So I think it's a great suggestion and -- and think that it's one the Commission definitely would support.

SENATOR SLOSSBERG: Thank you. There's a concern with regard to when the Legislature should act on whatever language this -- this Committee might come up with. There are many legislators who believe that we should not act until the Second Circuit has ruled. Do you agree and if you do not, I'd like to know why not?

BETH ROTMAN: It's the Commission's position that the most dangerous thing that this body can do is to sit and wait and do nothing until a decision comes from the Second Circuit.

The reality is that because of the recent special election, the section 9717 provision which brings an anti-severability flash reversion clause that could send us all back to pre-campaign finance reform in 2005 that provision is already in the room, so to speak. There's no more leeway based on when a court may or may not make a decision. So if there's a negative decision and an injunction which would inevitably come with a negative decision then this body has seven days to enact a change. And I have tremendous respect for the General Assembly, but I don't think that most of us believe that changing campaign finance reform under any circumstances ever takes seven days, and certainly not to respond to a -- here we had a 150-page decision from the District Court? I'm sure the Second Circuit decision will be equally long and complicated. It's just -- it's just not realistic.

So, given how close we are to the 2010 elections, the fact that participating candidates need certainty, absolutely, on the part of the Commission, we -- we urge you to continue what you're doing which is to move quickly to try and pass some legislation and let the Court decide what it will.

SENATOR SLOSSBERG: Okay. Thank you. There's lots of discussion about April 15th. And there are a lot of people in the public who seem to think that this is a significant date, outside of the fact that it is tax day, with regard to this particular piece of legislation. Is April 15th a significant date anymore?

BETH ROTMAN: Well, thank you for that question because it's a key issue. And the reality is that the April 15th date is now completely irrelevant from the purpose of the program, and, as you said, really only matters for people for taxes.

There -- in the anti-severability section 9717 provision that says if a court finds provision of the Citizens' Election Program unconstitutional and enjoins the program for longer than seven days, we all revert back to pre-campaign finance reform. That provision has a sort of introductory clause that talks about a couple of dates. One of the dates it talks about is April 15th. The other date it talks about is in a year where there's a special election that's been called. Well, a special election is -- has been called it'll be March 2nd. So, essentially, the severability provision has been triggered.

Now we're now operating and -- and we're not padlocked to the Commission because there is a stay pending appeal from the Second Circuit. But there is no more buffer of an April 15th decision date. That's gone. The reversion clause is in the room with us now, and if there is an injunction that lasts for more than seven days, then we will all be back in pre-campaign finance reform land.

SENATOR SLOSSBERG: Okay. Can you just tell me is it -- do you have any opinion as to the longer it takes for us to address this law, the cloud that's now hanging over this system, how does that affect people's participation? Do you feel like -- that it is chilling to the participant -- participation rate for the program?

BETH ROTMAN: I think that it's time to pass something as quickly as possible and that the fact of the decision itself has already sent some people away, and I, absolutely, think that if it takes any longer then we'll lose all the more people because, essentially, participating candidates are having to decide their actions right now based on the legal landscape now, and right now the program is enjoined and in a stay pending appeal.

So for a while we've had a lot of participating candidates willing to work with us and collect their small qualifying contributions and hope there'll either be a legislative fisc or a positive decision from the Second Circuit. But was we get closer, and we're awfully close now, particularly to the primaries, that becomes harder and harder to convince any participating candidate to do, and it becomes too unsafe an option for candidates to start calling their candidates and taking the smaller 100-dollar contributions in lieu of the larger contributions they could get without the correlating guarantee that the program will actually be there giving them the grant that they're trying to obtain.

SENATOR SLOSSBERG: Thank you.

Mr. Chairman, do you have any additional questions?

REP. SPALLONE: Yes, I do. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you for your testimony and for both of you and your staff for your hard work in implementing and carrying out this program.

A quick question on the reverter and the effect of special election, I think you explained it very well. The effect of if an injunction came down this afternoon through a Second Circuit opinion, the reverter would start ticking because we have a special election on March 2nd. We're within 45 days. What if we get to March 3rd, the special election has occurred, it's not April 15th yet, and the injunction comes into place. Would we have until April 15th before the reverter clock starts ticking again?

BETH ROTMAN: No, I don't believe that we do. I believe that because of the special election, we already have the reversion clause in play. It's already in the room and things wouldn't be reset until a future election year.

REP. SPALLONE: With respect to House Bill 5022, which implements a 3-4-5 standard for nonmajor parties to receive a partial or full grant through prior performance or signatures, do you believe that that would withstand constitutional scrutiny?

BETH ROTMAN: I think there are two strong arguments that 3-4-5 would withstand constitutional scrutiny. I think that, one, you have it in the opinion. Judge Underhill did look at 5 percent and say some positive things about that threshold so that is one indication that we would -- I mean, there's both whether -- I mean because to back up for a second, there's both whether we think we'll survive constitutional scrutiny and then whether Judge Underhill will also agree with that, so I think it would, but I also think that Judge Underhill has shed some light on that indicating that he thinks it would.

And I also think that if we look at the ballot access cases from the Supreme Court, we notice that 5 percent is often seen as an acceptable threshold for keeping people on or off of the ballot. So, while I think Connecticut has an appropriate and also constitutional more accessible threshold, I think that if we looked at a ballot access cases in the 5 percent threshold that can give us some comfort that the 3-4-5 standard would be constitutional.

REP. SPALLONE: And haven't the courts given closer scrutiny to ballot access as a political opportunity measure than to public financing grants. In other words, it's a constitutionally higher -- it's a more important right for political opportunity to actually get on the ballot than to receive public monies.

BETH ROTMAN: Yeah. I would agree with that characterization, and I -- though, I do think that you can draw some comfort from the ballot access 5 percent threshold and bringing that into a public financing con -- contest should bring some comfort to this body that we would survive scrutiny.

REP. SPALLONE: Now, one issue which Judge Underhill raised in his decision had to do with hopeless major parties on -- personally, I found that section of the decision somewhat troubling in that it has a bit of a cynical edge that no one will ever break through the other party's hold on a district. And I think it's actually proven inaccurate by some changes that occur up here, even though it might take a few election cycles, that people are elected in what were previously hopeless districts, that said, if we go to a 3-4-5 standard or a party neutral standard and reduce grant amounts, do you think that that would satisfy the Judge's concern about hopeless major party candidates?

BETH ROTMAN: Overall, I do think that it would. The combination of increased access for the minor party candidates, being I think the most important prong of this, together with the reduced grant because I think the thrust of Judge Underhill's concern for that in addition to finding that the thresholds were so burdensome that minor party candidates could not achieve them, he also thought that so many major party candidates would achieve these thresholds and, essentially, drown out the voices of the minor party candidate, diminishing their voices further and creating sort of a microphone effect for the major party candidate. So I do think the combination of allowing an easier threshold for minor party candidates, together with reduced grants for all candidates should alleviate the Court's concern overall.

REP. SPALLONE: Now one of the hardest things is, I think you can appreciate to work through, even more difficult than the minor party access which it seems that a constitutional fix can be made through either party neutral or reducing the thresholds is the -- is the trigger provision and trying to encourage participation even if you're facing a nonparticipating, high spending or self-funding opponent or independent expenditures. If -- if we eliminated the trigger provisions or suspended them, as Governor Rell suggests, but then did not lower the grant because of the fact that we would have no triggers, do you think the Court would still have concerns about windfall amounts if we have more access for nonmajor parties and no triggers? Do you follow the question?

BETH ROTMAN: Yes. So you're saying leave the grants -- if we were to leave the grants where they are now, increase minor party participation or access with lower minor party thresholds but, basically, say because we're -- their triggers are going away, these same grants may need to do more. I mean it's a difficult question to really predict the answer to but I -- I do think that the Court still may have concerns with the General Assembly grant. I think that that would be a safe thing to do for statewides and governor because Judge Underhill did not really focus on those grants.

I do think that it's still possible he will say that the grant amounts are too high because, as you know, he looked at average expenditures and found that they were too high and so I -- I do think that there would still be some vulnerability.

REP. SPALLONE: And just to clarify, it's your testimony that the grant amounts for General Assembly candidates in these two bills seem to better reflect historical averages than the existing law?

BETH ROTMAN: Yes. I think looking at these numbers and looking at average spending in the past in these General Assembly races, in particular, these really appear to map on well with what has historically been spent, on average, in the General Assembly races which I think will go a long way to, if waging the Court's concerns, about how the grant amounts map on to historical spending.

REP. SPALLONE: Now, if -- if -- I believe this is my last question for the time being. If -- if it were a year ago and the general election and the primaries were well over a year away instead of coming within the next few months, would, then, you think it more advisable to wait for a court decision in that circumstance, but that the real -- the pressure really comes from the fact that candidates are making decisions, really as we speak, about whether or not to participate?

BETH ROTMAN: Absolutely. I -- I would say that if the elections were a year or two away, then we could all take comfort in the fact that the Second Circuit will rule someday and tell us what the Court likes and doesn't like and then maybe we'll move on to the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court will like or not like different things if they take the case. I mean, absolutely, if we were not up against the deadline of the election so close to where we are now, then more information, you know, could be better. And we could look forward to the Second Circuit decision and maybe even a Supreme Court decision. But, of course, you know, we are where we are.

The District Court took the time that it needed to write this very long decision and, as we've been discussing, there's just not time to wait to see what the next -- the next appellate court or even the appellate court after that the Supreme Court has to say about this opinion.

REP. SPALLONE: Thank you for your answers.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

SENATOR SLOSSBERG: Thank you.

Representative Drew.

REP. DREW: Thank you, Madam Chairman.

Thank you very much and thank you for the work of the Commission. You've really done an extraordinary job pulling this whole thing together the last cycle and you continue.

I think changing topic a little bit away from the constitutional question and Judge Underhill's decision in the pending case before the appeals court a little bit, I wanted to ask about the statewide campaigns, and that whether the -- whether your office has an opinion about the qualifying threshold amounts with the statewide officeholder candidate or candidates I should say. And your office may or may not even have an opinion on that or may not even think it's appropriate to have an opinion on that I don't know, but I think many have the view that the qualifying standards for the statewide candidates, the practical reality is there really are too onerous to the point of kind of undermining the system when compared, let's say, to the state legislative qualifying threshold amounts. When -- again, comparing to the legislative qualifying amounts, they are seen as much more realistically doable by a lot of people as compared to the statewide office candidates. And I think -- and I think some others also think that we see that playing out a little bit right now with the various campaigns. I don't know if your office has an opinion about that.

BETH ROTMAN: Well, I do think that it is significantly different to raise a $100 contribution up to 5,000 or 15,000 dollar level if you're doing for the general assembly offices as compared to needing to do that at the much higher levels for the higher offices where you're raising only $100 contributions.

For the constitutional officers, you still need to get up to $75,000; for governor you need to get all the way up to a quarter million dollars. So I do think that the feedback the Commission has been hearing is that it's very difficult, and -- which could mean that it is -- that it's too difficult and we don't want -- of course, the goal of the threshold is always to find the right balance between showing public support and protecting the public fisc. We want to make sure that candidates really have significant public support so that they can get a generous grant from the public funds in lieu of using private money, but you also want to make sure that the thresholds are not so difficult and onerous that candidates that are -- that are serious candidates that are working hard, cannot achieve the goal -- and achieve the threshold rather -- excuse me.

So one of the -- and this is, I'll speak about some of the conversations that I've heard directly about whether it might be appropriate, for example to allow statewide candidates to get $200 or $250, or even $500 and while the Commission doesn't, per se, have an opinion on that, I can share that I don't think that it would be a legal problem, and ultimately, it's really a policy call from the General Assembly about what strikes the right balance between protecting the public fisc and ensuring significant support, and when you're talking about raising a quarter million dollars for gubernatorial office, for example, it is possible the $100 limit, it's just to onerous.

REP. DREW: Thank you very much. The -- I just want to share the thought with the public and the Committee to the extent we're looking at these kind of extremely urgent constitutional questions that, at least, we be open-minded to a little bit more of a comprehensive fix as well as long as we're at it.

I know the practical reality is whatever we come up with may indeed be very hard to sell, so to speak, to a lot of our colleagues and that's -- that's a real very, very difficult challenge and not to make it even more challenging but that at least we keep an open mind about a more comprehensive fix there, thank you.

SENATOR SLOSSBERG: Senator McLachlan.

SENATOR MCLACHLAN: Thank you, Madam Chair.

And thank you, Albert and Beth, for being here today, I know this has been a challenging time for the State Elections Enforcement Commission as it's been for this general assembly.

But I -- I have some questions in light of Judge Underhill's decision in the Supreme Court's Citizens' United decision. Frankly, I have grave concerns about proposals before us that some may claim further restrict free speech in political campaigns, and so I'd like to sort of zero in on the federal court decisions and how they relate to Connecticut.

Judge Underhill's decision was six months ago and I think that -- it's already been stated by the cochair or concern -- expressed concerns that the General Assembly's failure to act on the Citizen Election Program until now has clearly dissuaded candidates from -- from seeking elected office because they don't know what the rules are. I wonder if you could clarify for us the Arizona decision. Judge Silver came down with a decision on January 21st, and it seems to mirror, in some ways, the decision of Judge Underhill. And what is the opinion of the State Elections Enforcement Commission of these two decisions truly throwing a wrench in the wheel of the Citizen Election Program in Connecticut, and, frankly, how do you recover from that? Because these proposals that are before us today do not clearly and definitively address these federal court decisions that -- that seem to be zeroing in now on similar programs that we have in Connecticut.

BETH ROTMAN: Thank you, Senator, and I do think that it's unfortunate that the State of Arizona and its public financing program are facing very similar challenges, particularly to the trigger provisions, the high spenders and independent expenditures. And unfortunately, what we're seeing going on in Arizona and Connecticut are two parallel tracks where negative decisions in Connecticut are help -- are hurting as they're moving on in their court case in Arizona, and their negative decisions are hurting as we're moving along in our court cases here.

So the -- the claims are very similar, though, about the triggers being unconstitutional in light of Supreme Court case in Davis. And I do actually disagree with the assessment that these bills would be problematic, however, in light of Davis because I believe that, for example, in the Governor's bill, the triggers are taken out altogether, and unless they're found constitutional. Now I think that has different issues because there would not be any triggers, presumably, if we continue down this path of -- of negative findings.

By contrast, in the House Bill 5022, there's a very interesting combination of things that work where first you have I think a very nice sort of stringing provision that you get to use what we have now unless it's struck down, which is nice, because you don't have to give up what we have unless you absolutely have to, but you're allowed to continue doing small dollar fundraising with the opportunity to apply for matching funds. And the nice thing about that is there's no trigger based on an opponent in those races.

And I understand and see some similarities from a bill that was proposed I think originally by Congressman Larson for a program for the federal government that came about after Davis with the idea that some of the issues going on in Arizona and Connecticut shouldn't be imported to the federal level so they could pass campaign finance reform and then, you know, end up in a lot of litigation over passing identical triggers to what a lot of the states have.

So I do -- while there haven't been specific challenges on something like the federal court bill, I think the fact that this provision takes away the triggering effect based on an opponent should take care of the Court's Davis concern.

SENATOR MCLACHLAN: Thank you. I guess the other concern about triggers and, in general, on the Citizen Election Program is the Supreme Court decision of Citizen United, and so how does Citizen United affect the District Court's decisions about triggers, and -- and aren't they going to be related at some point, number one?

And number two, doesn't that call into question -- the Supreme Court decision on Citizen United, doesn't that call into question a number of points of Connecticut election law inclusive of the Citizen Election Program?

BETH ROTMAN: Well, what I should at the outset that the Commission is preparing a package for the General Assembly for another future hearing, which I know you'll have in light of Citizens' United. So not to preempt that discussion but I know that our Director Lenge who's been working very closely on that package and may want to share a few highlights, or may not, but I'll defer to him on -- on the specifics, but I will share that from that the program's perspective. I think that Citizens' United really draws the spotlight to the need to fix the program and the need to make sure there's some replacement for the triggers that the Court is finding an issue with -- both in Connecticut and Arizona, in light of the Davis decision because we see that there could be all the more independent expenditures out there now from the direct corporate treasury of corporation.

So I think you do see a threat of additional money out there, not only from the political committees, the corporations used before but from their actual treasury fund. It means that we have to have some sort of fix for triggers if we take them out or if we lose them in the court, but I don't think that it makes having a -- I think that the kinds of options that we're looking at here, like additional small dollar fundraising with a possible match, would not in any way be problematic in light of Citizens' United, for example, or Davis. And I think would actually be all the more essential.

SENATOR SLOSSBERG: If I may just for a moment, Senator.

Just for the public's knowledge and understanding sometimes I think we lapse into, you know, GAE speak. And so I'm just give Chairman Spallone just a moment just to clarify a couple of the very basic things that we're talking about so where everyone can follow.

REP. SPALLONE: Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate the opportunity and will try to speak non-GAE language here, at least not -- no short hand.

Attorney Rotman has been referring to the Davis case in her testimony. And the Davis case was a US Supreme Court case that held something similar to our trigger provisions unconstitutional. It's at the federal level. It had to do with congressional elections. And it essentially said that if you're opponent was spending over a certain amount, then you could go back to your donors and ask for more money beyond the limit for those donors.

So in a congressional race, I believe that's $2300. If your opponent was high spending and went beyond that amount, you could go back to your donors and raise more money. And the Court found that was unconstitutional because it chilled the speech of the -- of the high-spending opponent. And an example of how that worked was in Connecticut when Ned Lamont was spending his own money and Joe Lieberman was able to use that provision before it was struck down to go back to his donors and raise additional funds question whether or not, since we're talking about public financing, Davis applies to our situation, and that will probably be answered by the Second Circuit.

The Citizen United case mentioned by Senator McLachlan has to do with the independent expenditures made by corporations and unions, and, previously, if they were to do that, they would have to be made through political action committees in which money is raised from members of the public or shareholders or people who work, employees of the corporation, et cetera, to spend. Now the court has said that these expenditures, independent expenditures, for or against a candidate or on an issue can come directly from the treasuries of those corporations or unions, and that's a major change in the law. But it's distinguishable from both the trigger provisions in our law and the existence of public financing itself.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

SENATOR SLOSSBERG: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator McLachlan, would you have -- do you have a follow-up question?

SENATOR MCLACHLAN: Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to the cochair for simplifying some of the points of the court cases but that did shed light on the fact of what I believe are severe decisions that have come from two district courts and now the Supreme Court. And -- and I don't -- I don't quite understand how we can pull the Supreme Court decision out of the discussion of how to fix Citizen Election Program in Connecticut given the fact that a business or union organization now can play a much wider role in campaigns based upon the Supreme Court decision. And if you are trying to equalize the playing field, I don't see how you do that. So I think that I may be preempting your future presentation but I must ask, how do you equalize a playing field, which I'm philosophically have a problem with that discussion, but -- but how do you equalize it given light of the Citizen United Supreme Court decision?

BETH ROTMAN: I think that really the only real answer for the Citizens' Election Program or matching fund or for programs, in general, is to include a matching funds option that is not about the spending of your opponent but is actually about additional fundraising that you can accomplish with an additional match from the public. Because what the Court, essentially, said in Davis, even though it was not a public financing case, that the general rationale of leveling the playing field wasn't one that the Court, the Supreme Court, was will to sort of wholesale adopt.

But it's really important to pick up on what Cochair Spallone said, which is this not a public financing case in Davis. So while several lower courts have said, and I think were right to follow and make changes on public financing programs, we also have to keep in mind that they're other things and other public values in financing programs. So the public value that we're left with is that you're, essentially, joining a public financing program and giving up your right to spend limitless amounts of money, giving up your right to take larger contributions from private sources, giving up all kinds of sources -- entities, PACs, et cetera, that you could otherwise take money from, and that there's a different public good of wanting to incentivize participation in these programs. So which -- which has continued to be one of the public goods upheld by all the courts, including the district courts in these -- in these opinions and the Supreme Court.

So to incentivized participation, that's where you come in with, well, how do we handle the fact that they're people in the program that are bringing the spending limit and limitations that others don't have. You have to give them some kind of safety valve. So if you can't give them a safety valve that says, well, my opponent spent X so I get Y, then you need a different safety valve. And the only other safety valves that I think is really has been shown to be a really good one -- there might be others that people haven't thought of, but the really good one that comes from the federal legislation proposed by Larson and that there are models of in New York City and Los Angeles is allowing some additional small dollar fundraising from individuals, oftentimes up to larger numbers than $100 and then allowing additional public fund matches. And that's all keyed off of what I, as a participating candidate, can raise so it's not about, quote/unquote, matching what your opponent over there is doing. Because if the opt out, they have the right to do what they want and to spend millions and millions of dollars. But if I'm going to do the public good thing of joining this good government program, I still need some additional protection, something, to incentivize my doing this and giving up other rights I have and that would be continued small dollar fundraising with a match.

SENATOR SLOSSBERG: Senator McLachlan.

SENATOR MCLACHLAN: Thank you, Madam Chair.

What-if scenario, please, if I may. In light of the two District Court decisions and in light of the Supreme Court decision and I'll use a senate race as an example. I think this is more likely to play in a gubernatorial race, but -- but I'll use a senate race as an example because I understand the limits of that campaign. And let us say that -- that a combination of union organizations and businesses run a total of a million dollars -- let's say, $500,000 in an anti-candidate advertising.

How -- how do you equalize the playing field with publicly-funded taxpayer-funded grants to -- to equalize the playing field in a campaign of that nature? And that's -- I guess that's the point I'm trying to make is that that when free speech applies and it's regardless of who the free speech is -- is being executed by, but when free speech applies, how can we possibly step into equalizing free speech. I don't see us -- in light of the court decisions that are pending now, I don't see us getting there.

BETH ROTMAN: You know, I think it's -- it's a fair question. I think that the bottom line is that we're not really equalizing. We're making sure that candidates that join the program have enough additional resources so that it still makes sense for candidates that believe in the program and believe in taking small dollar contributions to join the program. But we're not necessarily equalizing because, for example, under current law, you're supplemental match is still it's 100 percent of your grant. Yet, again, if you're facing a high spending opponent, so if you have 100,000 as senate candidate that you've got just by qualifying, then you could get your additional 85,000 grant for facing a millionaire, and then if you're targeted by a million dollars, you get another 85,000 and that's because the Legislature looked at the balance of incentivizing participation and protecting the public fisc. And you just don't give out, here's a million, here's a million, here's a million. And there's really no program that does that.

I will say that -- to look at an example of another jurisdiction, I'll offer this. In New York City they've see this problem, even before Citizens' United, by having a mayor that has opted out of the program year after year and has increasingly spent more and more millions of his own fund, they -- his first year I think 70 million, then he came back and spent 100 million. And, essentially, what the New York City program did in response is essentially allow additional small dollar fundraising with a higher match that's based on the fundraising of that candidate.

They also have provisions, like Connecticut has, but their basis provisions are about raising additional small dollar contributions and allowing a match. And their -- the legislature looked at a balance of allowing additional fundraising, allowing some additional match, but absolutely always saying that, of course, no body and no state or even City of New York is going to try to give people running $100 million dollars. It's just -- it's just -- it's not something that any jurisdiction will afford or decide to do, but you are still -- but what has happened in New York City, even with Mayor Bloomberg spending all those funds, is you've still seen the majority of opponents to Bloomberg joining the program, accepting their additional contributions that they've received because of the match and having enough money out to get their message out -- excuse me -- enough money to get their message out so it's still a rational choice for them to join the program.

SENATOR SLOSSBERG: Okay. Thank you for your testimony.

In an effort -- I'm just going to remind the committee members that we do have a -- by the rules, a limit as to how long the public officials can speak at the beginning of a public hearing. So in an effort to give some other members a chance to ask a few questions before our clock runs out, I'm going to go to Representative O'Brien.

REP. O'BRIEN: Thank you. It looks like I'm coming in right under the buzzer I think.

And I -- I certainly believe that Citizens' United decision is one of the worst the Supreme Court has ever made in its history, gives more power to exactly the same big corporate special interests who drove our economy into the ground, and I think that our country needs to have a strong examination for how we are able to deal with this horrendous decision.

In our case, however, on the national scale, equivalents to the Citizen Election Program are being discussed as a real alternative to this very bad Supreme Court decision that has been leveled. And, in fact -- the system, in fact, the name Connecticut has come up. Is that not true?

BETH ROTMAN: Yeah. Thank you, Representative. And I'm really glad that you said that, because one of the very frequent responses that's coming up around the country is to look at Connecticut as a model and say that the real answer to Citizen United is to have a program like the Citizens' Election Program. Because the only way to really return the power of the electoral process to citizens is to have a program where candidates will voluntarily join and take citizen funds.

REP. O'BRIEN: Right. And specifically, how our own Citizen Election Program is viewed as -- as a model for what the country as a whole should be looking to. Correct?

BETH ROTMAN: Absolutely. And I think we can be very, very proud of that, absolutely. Connecticut is coming up over and over and over in national discussion of what the response should be to Citizens' United.

REP. O'BRIEN: And so this -- so this pro -- so this system we're talking about preserving today is -- is all the more relevant given the Citizens' United decision.

As we look to -- to some of the changes that we're trying to make in light of court action that's taking place, and there's a lot of discussion about the Davis decision and what the Supreme Court what ultimately may or may not do on this question of whether equalizing grants trigger -- trigger grants. Are they going to view it as constitutional, although when we made it, we made a very -- when we created the system, we made a very strong effort to comply with our -- with the understanding that was presently in place about what the constitutional standards would be.

As we look to what the -- what the replacement is the discussion has zeroed in on the idea that candidates can go out disconnected from any kind of a trigger related to a high-spending opponent or a -- or independent expenditures that they can go out and continue to raise private contributions in small amounts and get a certain match that would allow them to have sufficient money so that they can feel comfortable competing. And I wanted to as this -- this one question right here about the program because, as somebody who's -- was involved in creating the program, I know that one of the big concerns that we had is that a candidate might be afraid of a high-spending, privately-funded opponent or one that was backed or -- that they -- where they being detrimentally affected by a -- by independent expenditures. The candidate would look to the possibility of being out spent and not participate in the program for that one reason. And so the trigger provisions are there specifically to make it so that the program can exist. Correct?

BETH ROTMAN: Yes, absolutely. I mean, I think that you could have a program without triggers, but you won't have a program that people will use.

I mean, one of the things that makes these program constitutional, in particularly when they have spending limits, is that they're voluntary. And you could have the most interesting voluntary program that nobody uses and it's really not going to do much for the State of Connecticut's electoral process so I completely agree with you or --

REP. O'BRIEN: Or in particular nobody, nobody who has a -- has a chance of having a competitive race at all. You might have people participating who -- candidates participating who are in a practically uncontested election, but anybody who thinks that there's a shot that they have a real opponent is not going to want to take a chance on losing because they themselves have voluntarily limited themselves and their opponent has not. Correct?

BETH ROTMAN: Absolutely. And, of course, those are the races where more money is typically spent and precisely the races where you want the programs to be relevant.

REP. O'BRIEN: In our ever evolving effort to comply with the ever evolving court decisions, the solution, as I said that's being offered, is a system of matching grants where you collect more small contributions and their grant -- they're matched to the certain ratio. Is there any limit that you're aware of as to what that ratio can be, 1 to 1 is a ratio, 3 to 1, 5 to 1, is there any kind of limit you're aware of in the -- in jurisprudence that would affect our -- our ability to establish a ratio?

BETH ROTMAN: Well, I think that where you're really going to have to be careful with the body is partly on the ratio, but I think also -- also on the amount of public funds that you give out because it we end up going to the place where the match ends up just, sort of, going back to the windfall area that the Court was concerned about then we won't really end up better off than we were in the first round before the court in Judge Underhill's. So -- so I think certainly, you know, right now, we're at 1 to 1, and that does feel very safe. You might be able to raise that but you have to be careful that it doesn't get us back into windfall grant amounts that the Court will then say we've substituted one windfall for another.

REP. O'BRIEN: Well, I think we'll have to look at that because that's -- in -- I see what you're saying although I think the Court decision was basing on the idea that you meet a certain minimum qualifying threshold as a major party candidate and then get a giant lump sum -- as they said "giant." I think that we based it intelligently on the amount that it -- that -- not the average race cost but that a competitive race costs. So there's -- there isn't really -- we're going to -- this is an area where we're just going to have to try and figure it out and test our way through the waters. Right?

BETH ROTMAN: Absolutely. And I don't mean to suggest that this is the only way or that it has to be 1 to 1. It's just always that balance of -- of -- of how much -- how much public funds we'll -- we'll be able to give out without running afoul of the Judge Underhill concern about the windfalls but while always making sure that it's reasonable to make up for what the legislature would be essentially giving up by getting rid of triggers.

So I think it's -- it's going to be a hard -- it's a hard calculation, and I think it's going to be ongoing, and I think that there are different calculations out there in the different matching funds programs. I know that, for example, in New York City that calculation has changed over time based on different spending, based on different fundraising patterns and so there's a lot out there to look at and a lot more to talk about.

SENATOR SLOSSBERG: Attorney Rotman, Representative O'Brien, I'm going to -- I'm just going to stop you.

Our LCO attorney has reminded us that we are beyond our one-hour limit, in which case we are endangered of violating our own rules here. And I know that there are a number of members of the public waiting. I know there are a number of members of the Committee that still have questions so at this time if I could I would just -- we're going to move to the public testimony and ask if Attorney Rotman would be available perhaps later in the day as the testimony continues to come back and Committee members could then address those questions as -- after we've given the public a chance to -- to testify in support or against or, however, it goes with regard to the bills in front of us.

So I thank the Committee members for their indulgence. I realize it's sort of frustrating, but we do have rules that we try to operate by, and I thank Attorney Rotman, Executive Director Lenge for your testimony and hope that you will be available, you know, later on during the day to come back and answer some questions.

BETH ROTMAN: Thank you very much. And absolutely we'll stay as long as anybody needs and answer any questions that you still have.

SENATOR SLOSSBERG: Thank you very much.

Our next speaker is Andrew Schneider from the ACLU of Connecticut.

Okay then our next speaker will be Christine Horrigan from the League of Women Voters.

CHRISTINE HORRIGAN: Thank you.

My name is Christine Horrigan. I am the government director for the League of Women Voters of Connecticut. And on behalf of the League, I would like to thank you for giving us the opportunity to comment upon the bills that are before you today.

Connecticut voters overwhelmingly support public financing of campaigns according to a recent poll commissioned by Common Cause. League leaders are here today to show their support, and they are sitting to my left in the front row. League members across the state are also voicing for their support for the Citizens' Election Program, as you'll see in our supplemental submission entitled League Members Speak Up for the Citizens' Election Program, and you should have it in your packet, it's a 12-page document.

The League applauds the Governor and the GAE Committee's commitment to fixing the Citizens' Election Program so that it passes constitutional muster. We support both bills that are before the Committee today. More specifically, the League supports immediate repeal of section 9717, the so-called reversion clause which hangs like the proverbial sword of Damocles over the program. The League believes that repeal of this clause, contained in both bills, is crucial.

We also support reducing the grant amounts available to candidates, provided the reductions are reasonable and the grants remain adequate to allow participating candidates to run competitive races. We further support addressing the treatment of minor party candidates under the Program, either by making the enabling legislation party neutral, as proposed in the Governor's bill, or reducing the percentages, as proposed in the GAE Committee's bill.

Finding a solution to the problem of triggers for matching funds under the excess and independent expenditure provisions is perhaps the thorniest problem facing the Legislature. Candidates are right to be concerned about the ability of millionaire candidates to outspend participating candidates and the ability of outside organizations to run attack ads. The Governor's bill eliminates the supplemental grants during the pendency of any appeal of the District Court's ruling, and we do not believe that this is a practical solution. We support revamping these provisions as proposed by the GAE Committee.

We are heartened that the Legislature is finally beginning to move on this issue and that a fix for the Citizens' Election Program is being treated with the priority that it deserves, and we look forward to working with you to ensure a successful passage of a fix for this critical program. Thank you.

SENATOR SLOSSBERG: Thank you for your testimony and thank you to the League for your support of this program.

Are there any questions from the committee members?

Seeing none, thank you very much.

CHRISTINE HORRIGAN: Thank you.

SENATOR SLOSSBERG: Is Andrew Schneider back in the room? No.

All right. You'll let us know when he comes back.

Next would be Heath Fahle.

Good morning.

HEATH FAHLE: Good morning.

SENATOR SLOSSBERG: Please turn your microphone on.

HEATH FAHLE: Madam Chair and Mr. Chairman, my name is Heath Fahle of Manchester, and I appear before you today to testify in opposition to House Bill 5021 and House Bill 5022.

As a background, I've been involved in political campaigns in this state and elsewhere for nearly ten years, most recently as the executive director of the Connecticut Republican Party from 2007 to 2009. And in my current post as the policy director of the Yankee Institute for Public Policy, I authored a paper last fall, which examined the effects of the Citizens' Election Program on state Senate races in 2008. In the paper, I concluded that the Citizens' Election Program was flawed for much of the same reasons that were raised by Judge Underhill's decision, including the burdensome treatment of minor party and petitioning candidates, the windfall sums of grants, and I also noted the lack of electoral competiveness, the improvement in electoral competitiveness and shortcomings in terms of transparency and disclosure.

I oppose the adoption of House Bill 5021 because while I agree with the Governor that there are that the current rules are far too burdensome for minor party candidates and petitioning candidates, it's also my view that the Legislature was correct in implementing some viability tests for minor party and petitioning for candidates in order to qualify for public funds. By eliminating such requirements, this bill would likely increase the overall cost to the Citizens' Election Program and open the door to candidates that cannot demonstrate electoral viability.

With this in consideration, the 3, 4, and 5 percent formula described in House Bill 5022 seems to be well justified by the evidence, as demonstrated in Green Party versus Garfield. However, the adoption of this test, in 5022, doesn't appropriately compensate for the evidence presented by Judge Underhill that the use of a statewide proxy for major party candidates -- it overstates the significance of major party candidates in some districts. For this reason I support the concept of the formula of 3-4-5 percent but only when applied equally to all political parties regardless of major or minor party status.

Though not addressed by either bill, I also recommend that the Committee take under consideration measures to improve the transparency and disclosure aspects of the campaign finance laws, such as requiring electronic filing for political candidates, and also more frequent reporting standards.

While I remain doubtful about the effectiveness of the program and philosophically am concerned about the spending of politic -- of state funds for political campaigns, I recognize that -- that it is difficult for candidates and that many well-qualified citizens choose not to run for public office because of the financing challenges that are before them so, hopefully, by our actions here today we can improve the legal landscape for political candidates and improve our representative democracy in the state.

Thank you.

SENATOR SLOSSBERG: Thank you very much for your testimony and for ending on time. That's ver -- that's a real challenge to do. Do you have written testimony? We don't seem to have any filed with the Clerk.

HEATH FAHLE: I do but I've neglected to -- to make the appropriate copies so I will -- I will do that and turn that in.

SENATOR SLOSSBERG: Okay. Thank you very much, and I will note just -- just so you realize there is another bill pending before this Committee that require electronic filing for all campaigns.

HEATH FAHLE: Yes, ma'am.

SENATOR SLOSSBERG: We've been trying to do that for a number of years. We appreciate your support.

Are there any questions for this speaker?

Yes, Representative Hetherington.

REP. HETHERINGTON: Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you for your testimony. You referenced that you had done a research project which focused on state senate campaigns.

HEATH FAHLE: Yes, sir.

REP. HETHERINGTON: And -- and you mentioned one of the things you studied was competitiveness.

HEATH FAHLE: Yes, sir.

REP. HETHERINGTON: Did you come to any conclusions about competitiveness?

HEATH FAHLE: Only that the number of competitive elections as defined by the federal Government Accountability Office were exactly the same in 2008 as in -- as in previous years.

REP. HETHERINGTON: I see. Thank you very much.

HEATH FAHLE: Yes, sir.

REP. HETHERINGTON: Thank you, Madam Chair.

SENATOR SLOSSBERG: Are there any other questions?

Seeing none, thank you for your testimony.

HEATH FAHLE: Thank you.

SENATOR SLOSSBERG: Our next speaker is Christopher Healy.

Good morning. Sir, if -- if you wouldn't mind just please turn on the microphone.

CHRISTOPHER HEALY: Okay. For the record, I'm Christopher Healy. I live in Wethersfield. And I'm the chairman of the Connecticut Republican Party, and as I've said before it's an historic day because it's a day that Senator Edith Prague and I agree on something so I want to start that off in the spirit of bipartisanship.

In August of 2009, the United States District Court of Connecticut found the current law, Citizens' Election fund, unconstitutional and that is why we are here today.

As it now stands, Connecticut's campaign finance law denies free speech, limits electoral competition and puts the burden of funding political campaigns on the citizens of this state at a time when revenues are down and deficits are rising.

The proposed changes in Raised Bill 5022 being discussed today do nothing to address any of the issues I have outlined. The proposed legislation, while taking less from the pockets of taxpayers, misses the fundamental shortcoming of the Citizens' Election Program and the underlying premise for its inception.

As the committee is aware, this problematic law was conceived behind closed doors, without a public hearing, little to no substantive input from Republican lawmakers and passed both chambers on a mostly partisan vote before being signed by Governor Rell.

The current law and these proposed changes constrict political debate and violate the First Amendment of the Constitution through arbitrary restrictions of freedom of speech for some, while allowing others an almost unfettered ability to impact an election without transparent disclosure.

The law provides incumbents with even more protection since it punishes any candidate who decides not to participate in the CEP by providing his or her CEP opponent with equal funding up to 100 percent of the grant paid for by the taxpayer.

If this bill becomes law, any candidates who choose to challenge an incumbent will only receive supplemental grants for additional funds being spent by one -- or for their opponents, if the incumbents have won by 10 percent or less in two of the last three elections thus further exacerbating the advantage of taxpayer-subsidized incumbents over challengers from either party.

By continuing this taxpayer-subsidized fraud, the proponents of public financing hope to glean some points from good government associations while using tax dollars to promote their personal agendas and prevent challengers from daring to run against them.

Incumbents, whether they're from the legislative or executive branch, Republican or Democrat, enjoy a tremendous advantage over any challengers that they do not pay for out of their own pocket or from their campaign coffers. For example, taxpayers subsidize staff, con -- constituent mail, telecommunications services, websites, emails and other personal messaging systems, add up to a huge qualitative advantage before a challenger fills out his or her paperwork.

For these reasons, incumbents generally start their re-election bid from at least the 50-yard line. Under the current campaign finance law, that advantage puts incumbents in the red zone. The changes being proposed in this legislation put incumbents nearly at the goal line.

On January 21st, District Court Judge Roslyn Silver found that the Arizona Clean Elections Law was unconstitutional for a similar provision saying the portion of the clean energy -- excuse me -- clean election system -- that's another problem -- that gives participating candidates extra public funds to match funds raised by their competitors violates the First Amendment because it causes other candidates to limit their own campaigning, fundraising, and the spending of their own money. I have attached a news article related to this decision to my testimony.

While the challenger candidates and taxpayers have suffered, it has been the damage to the political parties that has been the most. The strength of our republic is derived in the ability of our political parties to thrive. Both the Democrat and Republican parties in Connecticut are in the keepers of the brand. It is the job of both parties to promote its principles, to recruit candidates, offer training and support, and to promote these candidates for various offices.

The Democratic Legislature through the CEP has decided to create their own party, the incumbency party, by setting the rules to deny people their free speech rights, to freely associate with either party and show their support.

The truth is these restrictions of the CEP do nothing to limit political corruption and no amount of playing around the edges will make an unfair, unconstitutional system legal and effective.

With a half billion dollar shortfall and a $3 billion deficit awaiting the next legislature and governor, how can any reasonable person ask taxpayers to fork over between 30 and 60 million dollars to pay for political welfare?

And that's sort of a brief summation. I'll be happy to answer any questions.

SENATOR SLOSSBERG: Mr. Healy.

CHRISTOPHER HEALY: Yes.

SENATOR SLOSSBERG: Thank you for your testimony. Would it just be -- I have one question for you. Would it be fair to say that you do not support the Citizens' Election Program at all?

CHRISTOPHER HEALY: Yes.

SENATOR SLOSSBERG: Okay. That's my question.

Chairman Spallone.

REP. SPALLONE: Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you for your testimony, for coming here this morning.

My first question is I believe you touch on it in your testimony, both written and spoken, that the Republican Party of Connecticut is a plaintiff in the lawsuit pending at the Second Circuit.

CHRISTOPHER HEALY: Friend of the Court, we filed a Friend of the Court amicus brief on the case that's now before the Second Circuit.

REP. SPALLONE: And on what issues did -- did your attorneys -- what issues did your attorneys address in their amicus brief?

CHRISTOPHER HEALY: Pretty much a couple -- well, the issue of the prohibition against lobbyists and/or family members, members of -- people that may or not be vendors. We talked about the issues of the -- they outline in the Arizona court about the matching funds, being -- denying of free speech. Those are the two main areas that we focused on in concert with -- I hate to admit it -- the ACLU, and a few other plaintiffs as well.

REP. SPALLONE: Excuse me. Is it the position of the Connecticut Republican Party that lobbyists and contractors should be permitted to make contributions to political campaigns as they did prior to the enactment of the current law?

CHRISTOPHER HEALY: Absolutely.

REP. SPALLONE: You also state in your testimony that the law provides incumbents with more protection since it punishes any candidate who decides not to participate in the CEP for -- by providing his or her CEP opponent with equal funding paid for by the taxpayer.

First of all, I just wanted clarify since it wasn't mentioned in any prior testimony, do you know the source of the dollars for the Citizens' Election Program is?

CHRISTOPHER HEALY: The unclaimed property, yeah.

REP. SPALLONE: It's unclaimed property, sir. You said?

CHRISTOPHER HEALY: Yes, I believe that's what it is.

REP. SPALLONE: Okay. So it's actually --

CHRISTOPHER HEALY: I would also point out that when the government grabs the tax dollar under any circumstances or -- excuse me -- has possession of money, you also use that money to secure ties against other spending proposals that you've done; is that not correct?

REP. SPALLONE: I don't quite understand your -- your statement.

CHRISTOPHER HEALY: Well, you're -- you're -- well, you're saying it comes from the unclaimed property of the treasury. Is that where it comes from?

REP. SPALLONE: Yes.

CHRISTOPHER HEALY: And you're saying that's not a tax dollars, is that where you're going with it? I'm just curious.

REP. SPALLONE: I haven't asked the question.

CHRISTOPHER HEALY: Well, I'm just anticipating. Go ahead.

REP. SPALLONE: At the beginning of your testimony you also state that the law was conceived behind closed doors without a public hearing, with little to no substantive input from Republican lawmakers and passed both chambers on mostly a partisan vote. Are you aware that there were public hearings on public financing bills during the 2005 regular session of the General Assembly?

CHRISTOPHER HEALY: Most certainly. But -- as I recall, the bill, itself, what actually came out was not something that was, how should I say it, a bipartisan product for something as important as that.

REP. SPALLONE: Would you agree that it was substantially similar to the bills that passed both chambers with Republican votes prior to the adjournment of the 2005 regular session?

CHRISTOPHER HEALY: What actually passed?

REP. SPALLONE: Yes.

CHRISTOPHER HEALY: No. That's not my assessment of it.

REP. SPALLONE: And --

CHRISTOPHER HEALY: Because the final bill received no votes from the House and three in the Senate as I recall.

REP. SPALLONE: And isn't it a fact that on the votes prior to the adjournment of the regular session of the General Assembly, in 2005, there were more than a handful of Republican votes for the bill during the regular session in the House and in the Senate?

CHRISTOPHER HEALY: I only focused on what becomes law not what becomes -- votes that don't lead to the final bill. I just focus on what becomes law so I just want reiterate what became law had no votes in the House and three in the Senate, as I recall.

REP. SPALLONE: Now are you aware of how many members of the -- how many legislative candidates from the Republican Party utilized public financing in the 2008 election?

CHRISTOPHER HEALY: I'm assuming most of them did since that was the law, and they were constricted to follow that or be, again, punished by the law that was not then called unconstitutional by at least one court.

REP. SPALLONE: And so would you -- would you say that those members of your Party were continuing a taxpayer-subsidized fraud?

CHRISTOPHER HEALY: I would argue that they played by the rules that they were given. And if it was fraud, I believe it's still a fraud. That's why I hope that we will move on to more important things then trying to fix something that's unfixable.

REP. SPALLONE: And for what reason do you think this is unfixable.

CHRISTOPHER HEALY: Well, I think the -- I think it gets to a basis premise, should the election the free election of people be determined by people who are already elected; should the rules be -- should the confines of an election be arbitrarily decided by legislators who are already in power; and should tax dollars, and they are tax dollars -- we can parse it to any way we want -- those funds could be used for other purposes for the good of the people and have been as have other unclaimed and other -- other securitized funding streams for the betterment of this state rather than to parse out through a bureaucracy to limit speech. And I think both the Supreme Court of the United States and the Second Circuit have ruled so.

You're certainly free to pass whatever you want, but I'm just here to say that by the unanimous vote of my committee, we feel that this is -- the current law constricts speech and punishes those who go out and make a perfectly decent argument for their campaigns by subsidizing those in the fund to 100 percent of the funding source.

I -- I, you know, it's just -- it's a matter of principle as much as anything. The fact that our Republicans had to play and swim in that water was just a reality of the time, but I think most Republicans I know believe that this kind of subsidy is misplaced.

REP. SPALLONE: And isn't it a fact that special interest, whether they be lobbyists, political action committees, unions, corporate political action committees, tend to give contributions more to the incumbent or majority party in a legislative body than they do to challengers?

CHRISTOPHER HEALY: They're free to give the money to whoever they want. Whether they give it to the incumbents or they give it to challengers, it's up to the challenger to make their case to whatever party it is, and that's what free speech is about. And that's the point of the testimony is that there shouldn't be an arbitrary decision by people on who can give and who can't. I think the issue should be transparency.

And under the old system, the dirty little joke was that there wasn't transparency because we didn't file reports, those final reports until after the election. And many people here of good cheer received donations late in the game before anyone could see them. So I think that's the issue we should be focusing on with this Internet world that we can make donations transparent for -- who they're from and let the public decide who's being influenced by whom, whether it's a union or a corporation or a package store or a circus.

REP. SPALLONE: And finally, are you aware of the recent poll regarding the Citizen Election Program that was conducted in -- in the state that showed a strong support for the program among Democrats, Independents and even Republicans? And does that go into the thinking of your strong -- and your committee's strong opposition to the program?

CHRISTOPHER HEALY: Well, I -- I cannot recall who did that poll, but this is an issue that can be I think -- well, I'll put it this way. We all live and die by polls, I understand that, but this is an issue that if I think you explained it to what it really is about, I don't think most elected -- most rank and file Democrats, Republicans or unaffiliated would like to know that their tax dollars are being spent on political campaigns. I would venture that.

I know the poll the way it was crated makes it sound as if we're creating a better world order here, but I think if you talked to people, real people, who are striving to make ends meet and you told them that their tax dollars are going for bumper stickers and lawn signs, they'd be a little bit upset by that, but I may be wrong.

REP. SPALLONE: Well, if the poll methodology, and I believe it was conducted by Rasmussen, that included information that it's public money that's being used to pay for the campaigns, and a majority of voters in the state supported that, does that go into the thinking of the State Central Committee about whether to take such a strong line? Maybe people feel this is actually a good idea whether they be Republicans or Democrats or unaffiliated or Green or Libertarian?

CHRISTOPHER HEALY: Well, I think it'd be one issue that the voters would have to decide based on what the candidate proposed as their support for. If they felt that it was important and their constituents thought that was great then good for them. But one of our guiding principles in our party is about freedom and opportunity and free speech among all else. And law does not promote free speech. It constricts it through caps and guidelines, and as your first speaker said, boxes and boxes of paper and little things to fill out.

I think most of you know that finding a treasurer now for state representative campaign is harder than finding Judge Crater -- I'm dating myself on that one -- but the truth is that we have created this -- this blood bath of paperwork out there that most people don't want to play -- participate in, and this is still a voluntary, supposedly, part-time legislature, and we have created a bureaucracy that for all those good people that work there, I think, is shown that it is unwielding. It is slow, and it's arbitrary. And I think the more that we allow that this election process to be open and free with accountability, transparency, and timely reporting, then the voters are smart enough to figure out who's representing whose interests.

REP. SPALLONE: And finally, my last question is Governor Rell came before the Legislature on February 3rd and she urged us to make the repairs we're considering today. And she justly, in my opinion at least, took pride in the Citizen Election Program as part of her legacy as governor. Do you part ways and does your committee part ways with your -- with your Governor over this issue?

CHRISTOPHER HEALY: Well, I think the Governor's point was trying to remove special interest money from the process, given the -- with our recent history, and I respect her position on that. I don't think most of -- and I only can speak for myself and the committee. We believe that this law, which she did sign, does not do that. I think there are better ways to create accountability in government, and I think it's through reporting and letting people know what -- where exactly the dollars are going, and then let the chips fall where they may.

So I respect what my Governor is doing, I don't agree with her -- her program or her position on it, but it doesn't mean that her heart's not in the right place and her ideas are not sound in principle.

REP. SPALLONE: Thank you for your testimony.

Thank you.

CHRISTOPHER HEALY: Thank you for the opportunity.

SENATOR SLOSSBERG: Representative O'Brien.

REP. O'BRIEN: Thank you.

And I won't disagree with you that there's a need to reduce the amount of paperwork in the program, and, hopefully, in a bipartisan way we can work to achieve that.

However, there's a lot of discussion right now, and I think that there's a lot of folks that hide behind the -- the phrase "freedom of speech" to -- to argue for returning to the old system of funding campaigns, which was really not very good. It was -- it was part and parcel to the corrupt era of the -- to the corrupt time of the Rowland era. And the reality is if we remove the citizen election system, the alternative we would be shifting to is one where big corporate special interest money in -- people who have entities, corporations, special interests, who have something that they want out of state government, will be fund -- doing most of the funding of the political campaigns for the people who sit around these tables. That's really what you would like to return to?

CHRISTOPHER HEALY: Well, if the corporations were having their way with this legislature, I think we'd have a much different looking legislature then we have today so I reject that premise. You didn't mention the union influence which is, of course, unfettered and have been allowed to do whatever they wish without accountability. But putting that aside, the issues with -- with the Rowland administration had nothing to do with campaign contributions. It had to do with theft, which we have laws for.

John Rowland wasn't prosecuted under the campaign finance law. He was prosecuted under RICO so that's another matter of record that needs to be straightened.

You know, and no one's -- the idea of hiding behind free speech. Free speech is what this is all about. This is what it's all about. And this law restricts free speech because it punishes those who are going out on their own time, on their own dime, whether it's their own money or there's someone else's money, that they've freely transparently raised from good people, some corporation, sure, as long as it's --

REP. O'BRIEN: By "good people" you mean -- you mean corporations that want something from state government?

CHRISTOPHER HEALY: Corporations --

REP. O'BRIEN: Is that what you mean by "good people."

CHRISTOPHER HEALY: Well, yeah. I happen to believe that, unlike you, I happen to believe that corporations are the reason we're sitting in this room today or we wouldn't have the tax revenue to play around with our budget. Corporations are comprised of people that go to work every day. Corporations are comprised of people --

REP. O'BRIEN: So you want the corporation --

CHRISTOPHER HEALY: Absolutely.

REP. O'BRIEN: -- that wants something out of state government --

CHRISTOPHER HEALY: Well, no. I want --

REP. O'BRIEN: -- to do the funding of the political campaigns --

CHRISTOPHER HEALY: -- corporations to be able to exercise their free speech. If the corporation makes a donation to a campaign, which they've made to all the -- both sides of the aisles I recall, both PACs, from both sides of the aisle. Many of them that are here today have given to both sides of the aisle. I would gather to say they might be pretty disappointed all the years they were giving money because I don't think they got a lot of what they were looking for. So I think all of that is a matter for the public to decide whether someone's being, quote, influenced. So I don't see any harm in that. I mean, I -- I think we're all kidding ourselves to think that we create this colossus of a -- a new program and somehow we're getting better government. We're a half of billion dollars in debt. We've got $3 billion waiting for us next year. We all know that. And we've taken the, quote, special interest money out of it. So how much better are we as a soci -- as a state?

REP. O'BRIEN: I don't think we could disagree more, but I do appreciate you coming here to express your opinion.

CHRISTOPHER HEALY: Sure. I appreciate the opportunity. I really do.

SENATOR SLOSSBERG: Representative Lawlor, followed by Representative Labriola.

REP. LAWLOR: Thanks, Madam Chair.

Hey, Chris, I just had a question again. I'm trying to understand the -- what's the downside of opting out? I mean, I understand people philosophically may not buy into the whole public financing thing, but what's the downside for your people just opting out of it and raising money in the traditional way? I know they can't get it from lobbyists, but apart from that, what's the downside?

CHRISTOPHER HEALY: There is none. In fact, I have encouraged, in my limited capacity to influence, anyone who is running this year to opt out, take the -- take the route of raising as much as you can up to the prohibitive limit and run a campaign based on that.

In fact, we've had a couple of our legislators last -- I believe at least one or two did that. One was successful; one was not. And tell people why you're doing it. I think it's a perfectly legitimate deal. I'm not saying you can't, but I do think there's something inherently unequal and unfair that if someone goes out and is crazy enough to want to spent $40,000 in a House race that the fund matches the CEP candidate on the other side $10,000 for doing nothing other than just being in the race.

It seems to me that if someone goes out and raises dollars in those incremental amounts of only 250 or 500 or whatever those limits were, that's certainly not going to buy a vote, in my opinion, and it shows real support, real grassroots support so I've encouraged people to that. I don't see any downside into doing it at all.

REP. LAWLOR: Because you spoke in terms sort of like people were forced into this public financing system, but I don't think they really are.

CHRISTOPHER HEALY: Well, I think they -- well, they are forced in the sense that for them to make it ma -- in other words, if I'm going to go and raise money, I have to go raise $30,000. For a lot of people, that's a lot in a House race, although I don't think it's undoable. Some of the -- some of the districts don't have kind of wealth potential.

So if my CEP opponent is going to have 30 grand and I'm going go out and try and grovel around for 15 to 20, that's an unfair advantage that's given to him by bur -- bureaucratic fiat by a law that's unfair. So that is why some of them chose to participate in it. Personally, I didn't I wouldn't do that but that's the choice they made and I'm not going to question their -- their integrity over it. Those are the rules of the game at the time.

REP. LAWLOR: And has your committee taken a position that what individual candidates should do?

CHRISTOPHER HEALY: No. What our committee does -- like many state central committees is we try not to get involve in individual issues. On this one we voted unanimously last fall to join the lawsuit with the other plaintiffs, the ACLU and the Green Party and others, because we felt it was very important that, as a party, that we stand for free speech issues. And I got kind of sidetracked on the issue as it affects the state parties.

You know, Chairman DiNardo and I share a concern that, you know, the parties are there to -- to carry principles forward and encourage and to help train. We can't do that because of the prohibition on donations from various people, like lobbyists and -- and contractors, all good people who like to give to their party because they're active or Republicans or Democrats. And there's also a provision and it limits us how much we can spend directly on a campaign, and that's what parties are for, believe it or not. And the fact that we're limited from spending -- I think it's 3,000 for a House member and 5 -- or something for a State Senate is ridiculous. I mean, that's what we're here to do is to promote our principles. Again, if those donations are clearly delineated and reported, it will be up to people to decide of whose buying influence. And I don't think, you know, information is harmful to people. Voters are smart. They figure that out.

REP. LAWLOR: Thanks.

CHRISTOPHER HEALY: Thanks, Mike.

SENATOR SLOSSBERG: Okay. Representative Labriola followed by Representative Hetherington.

REP. LABRIOLA: Thank you.

Chairman Healy, as you know, I share your strong opposition to the use of taxpayer money for political campaigns. I appreciate your phrase "political welfare."

You're in the back. You're behind the scenes as to the different statewide candidates who are emerging -- and there are a lot. Some are in the room right now -- for Governor and the other statewide offices, and we've never tried this system in -- when there were statewide elections. Last time in 2008, there were no statewide election. There was only for the legislative races.

As you may know, under this proposal, the grant for governor is not reduced. So a qualifying candidate for governor could get $1.25 million for the primary and then $3 million for the general election. We're talking massive amount of money, taxpayer money. Can you tell us how many candidates are we talking about? How much money is this going to cost the people of Connecticut?

CHRISTOPHER HEALY: Well, I think it's also the -- thank you for your question. The -- the issue also is the -- the amount. I mean, if I were to assume that this was valid law, I don't think any candidate on either party for any statewide offices remotely -- is not -- is even close to the $250,000. And I think that's unfortunate, for them, given the constructs of this -- of -- of the law which I don't support anyway. I think it shown to be problematic for anyone running statewide that you can do that on $100 donation. I mean, anyone here knows chasing $100 check is impossible. It's that old -- I compare it to going to the carnival as a kid, you know, and the carnie would put his thread on a dollar bill, you know, and you go for it, and he'd pull it. I mean, that's what it's like for many of these candidates. It doesn't mean they have -- they don't have support. So they're locked into this. I think that's why Susan Bysiewicz decided that she was going to opt out of the attorney general issue even though she qualifies right now under -- under the provision of the law.

So the amount of money in a time like this when we have a huge deficit is, I think, counterproductive. I think it's insulting but, you know -- and it's not going to promote, quote, a clean campaign, anymore than, you know, the last go around. You know, if people are going to conduct themselves improperly, there are laws in the books now that deal with it. This law is not going to keep anyone from trying to game the system. It just creates a lot of paperwork, and, ultimately, it's going to have -- it creates a lot of frustration out there in the electorate. It doesn't -- it doesn't inspire competition or free speech.

REP. LABRIOLA: Thank you. I appreciate the way you characterized the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision, Citizens' United decision, that not only protects the right of a corporate -- a corporation to spend money on behalf of -- or against a particular candidate but also union money that could be spent on behalf of or against a particular political opponent and that the -- that, as we know, the backbone of our economy is the small businesses, which is the vast majority of corporate -- corporations in general, are the people who have small businesses and work every day to pay tax -- pay taxes. It's not that they're trying to get something out of the government. It's more that -- as we know as legislators, their message to us is always, Would you please get of our backs, would you stop taxing us so much. So now if the Supreme Court has said that they have this right to spend money in campaigns, then why are we even having this system, at all, if all this money is being spent anyway, doesn't it defeat the entire purpose of this so-called clean election system?

CHRISTOPHER HEALY: Why I think we all get a little caught up in our own importance. I -- I'm most guilty of that as anyone, but I think the Supreme Court ruling that you refer to was important because it -- it finally sets free this notion that somehow people that work for a living, whether they're a corporation or a union, shouldn't be allowed unfettered access to demonstrate their free speech rights.

I could care less if a union spends every nickel and dime for anyone in this room, but I want the corporations or a businessman to have that same opportunity whether they're doing it in in-kind services with the phone bank or someone's law firm being used for telephones, as long as it's all reported. As long as we all know what's going on, that's all that really matters and then people can decide. I think what we're doing now is we're constricting speech, and that's really where we are, and we're not promoting the kind of open competition that we need.

REP. LABRIOLA: Finally, I just had one last question if I might. Are you familiar with -- we haven't really talked about this today, but are you familiar that under the current law and this proposal, neither of these proposals changes this, but there are these so-called leadership PACs where the Speaker of the House and Majority Leader, the President Pro Tem or the Majority Leader in the Senate or the two Minority Leaders, they have this right to collect hundreds of thousands of dollars and still spend that money on legislative races. So within this so-called clean election system you're still -- you have these leadership PACs that are able to still spend money in these legislative races. Don't you think that just defeats the whole idea of this system?

CHRISTOPHER HEALY: Yeah. I mean, I -- again, it's just another special exception for everybody except for those who are special, and that's just another part of the law that was, again, contrived of -- ultimately -- the ultimate bill, with very little input from the Republican side of the aisle, whether we would have supported it or not overwhelmingly is -- is a matter of conjecture.

But I think people are tired of political class, of which I am part of, acting as if we can run a cam -- elections from our perch. It's about people running elections. It's about people contributing to elections and putting their money and their time and their effort, whatever that is, for who they believe in. And, again, I come back to this issue of as long as the public knows who's with who, who's doing what on whose behalf, then they can look at it online and in the real time and make a judgment that this candidate is in the tank for -- for this special interest and this candidate is in the tank for this interest and what are you saying you're going to do as a legislature and then I'm going to decide so what are we all afraid of here, is my point.

SENATOR SLOSSBERG: Representative Hetherington.

REP. HETHERINGTON: Thank you, Madam Chair.

The matter of leadership PACs, and such PACs are lawful under this legislation, would be lawful and lawful today. The leadership PACs, as I understand it, can accept contributions from other PACs; is that correct?

CHRISTOPHER HEALY: It's my understanding, yes.

REP. HETHERINGTON: I wanted to -- my second question, my only other question, relates to your point about taxpayers financing this program.

The abandoned property is part of the State's revenue stream. Is it your conclusion that that money were it not devoted to this program or some other program, could be used for the general fund or to relieve the deficit that we now face?

CHRISTOPHER HEALY: Well, I'm not a member of the OFA staff, but I will tell you of my experience in 20-plus years here is that there's a revenue stream to be had by the Legislature to securitize for purposes they deem to be in the public good, they will move accordingly, as witnessed by the Clean Energy Fund and these other funds that were set up for other purposes.

So I think we're all kidding ourselves here if we don't think this is a legitimate public revenue stream that we're accessing for political speech -- or restricted political speech.

REP. HETHERINGTON: Actually, it's my understanding that the abandoned property repository was not set up for the purpose of financing the Citizens' Election Campaign. Did you understand otherwise?

CHRISTOPHER HEALY: That's my understanding which will make Dick Blumenthal happy because I hear he's got a $90 check over there waiting for him.

REP. HETHERINGTON: Okay, thank you.

Thank you, Madam.

SENATOR SLOSSBERG: Are there any other question from the Committee members?

Seeing none, thank you for your testimony.

CHRISTOPHER HEALY: Thank you all for your time.

SENATOR SLOSSBERG: Our next speaker is Andrew Schneider.

REP. SPALLONE: Okay. Good afternoon, sir. Make sure you turn on your microphone. Identify yourself for the record.

ANDREW SCHNEIDER: Good afternoon, Senator Slossberg -- well, actually, she left -- and Representative Spallone and members of the Government Administration and Elections Committee.

My name is Andrew Schneider. I am executive director of the ACLU of Connecticut, and I'm here to express our view that Raised Bills 5021 and 5022 makes significant strides towards correcting the constitutional flaws in the Campaign Finance Reform Act but do not go far enough.

Our position has been that the State should adopt a party neutral system along the lines of the Maine and Arizona public financing laws, meaning that any ballot qualified candidate who raises the qui -- a required -- the required amount of money in qualifying contributions, should be entitled to participate in the public financing program on equal terms. The qualifying contribution requirement will filter out candidates that cannot demonstrate some broad based support. There is no need to overlay additional qualification requirements on minor party candidates.

Any fix of the state campaign finance law ought to include eliminating the trigger provisions. We oppose these provisions on the grounds that they burden the speech of nonparticipating candidates and independent speakers by creating a disincentive for nonparticipating candidates and independent groups to spend money in political races because the money they spend will merely trigger more public resources for the major party candidates.

And the courts have -- courts have held that these types of trigger provisions violate the First Amendment.

Finally, while the public financing portion of this law has the noble goal of increasing the ability of more people to participate in the democratic process, the provisions which restrict the political activism of lobbyists, state contractors and their spouses and dependent children does just the opposite and should be removed from the statute. These restrictions infringe on basic speech and association rights by making it a felony, punishable by fine and imprisonment, for a lobbyist or state contractor who makes an expressed or implied request for a contribution; requests or suggests that someone attend a fundraising event; distributes or forwards fundraising announcements; attends any fundraising events themselves; serves in certain capacities within any of the covered candidate, party and political committees; or provides those committees with any fundraising advice. The result is that the -- is that particular speakers are singled out and their ability to participate in the debate over the qualification of candidates is limited. When the government limits the flow of information by banning certain speakers from participating in the debate, our democratic process is stifled.

We believe the recent United States Supreme Court ruling in Citizens United which invalidated restrictions on corporate expenditures, increases the likelihood that the Second Circuit will strike down this statute.

Campaign finance reform does not have to be at odds with the First Amendment. If all these changes are made to the existing law, the people of Connecticut will benefit by a having a more fair and effective reform of the political system without sacrificing First Amendment rights.

Thank you.

REP. SPALLONE: Thank you, sir, for your testimony.

First on the PAC and lobby -- on the lobbyists and contractor ban, haven't courts previously found that while they haven't addressed an absolute ban that restrictions on those contributions can be constitutional?

ANDREW SCHNEIDER: Well, the -- the restrictions on contri -- there is actually a recent case in North Carolina -- I don't have it in front of me, but there was a recent case that dealt with bundling donations and that sort of -- that particular was upheld. So there are -- are ways to regulate those kinds of donations without falling on the wrong side of the First Amendment.

REP. SPALLONE: And under the current law which is on -- which is being reviewed by the Second Circuit, a lobbyist or contractor or their immediate family members are permitted, are they not, to speak on behalf of a candidate, participate in any part of the campaign that doesn't involve solicitation of money, put up a lawn sign, write a letter to the editor, phone bank, go door to door to canvas, and -- and gauge support, and all the other activities that involve political speech other than making a contribution or soliciting one?

ANDREW SCHNEIDER: The problem is, is that any -- if any of those activities is implied, as encouraging someone to contribute to a candidate, they -- they can be, you know, held accountable by the law, and they can be punished for it. And so it really has this chilling effect on political participation by a huge number of people in Connecticut.

It was estimated, and this is probable a conservative estimate, that are 10,000 state contractors who would be affected by this law in Connecticut, alone, that doesn't even include the lobbyists. And that was a conservative one, I think.

REP. SPALLONE: Okay.

Thank you for you testimony.

ANDREW SCHNEIDER: Thank you.

REP. SPALLONE: First member, who would like to speak, is Senator McLachlan.

SENATOR MCLACHLAN: Thank you, Mr. Schneider, for your testimony.

I wonder, as a First Amendment rights advocate in the American Civil Liberties Union, what is your perception of the Supreme Court ruling in Citizen United and how it affects campaign law in Connecticut, specifically the Citizens' Election Program? Do you feel that that's calling into question the program, in general, or do you believe it can be overcome?

ANDREW SCHNEIDER: Well, I think it -- it has bearing on our -- our challenge to the -- the ban on lobbyists and -- and state contractor contributions and -- and their families. I think it strengthens our -- our case significantly, in that respect.

SENATOR MCLACHLAN: So are you suggesting then that the decision in Citizen United by the Supreme Court would still eliminate contractors and lobbyists from exercising their First Amendment free speech rights by running ads? Could a state contractor, under this decision of the Supreme Court, even though they can't make a direct contribution to a -- a candidate campaign, couldn't they run their own TV ads in favor of or against a candidate?

ANDREW SCHNEIDER: A -- a contractor?

SENATOR MCLACHLAN: Well, we currently ban state contractors and lobbyists --

ANDREW SCHNEIDER: -- Right.

SENATOR MCLACHLAN: -- from direct contributions to candidate campaigns in Connecticut.

ANDREW SCHNEIDER: Right, right.

SENATOR MCLACHLAN: Wouldn't the U.S. Supreme Court decision, now allow contractors and lobbyists to participate in the campaign process by running advertising or something of that nature that is not coordinated with the campaign?

ANDREW SCHNEIDER: I -- I think it -- it -- as I said, it gives our case greater weight. And I think it's -- it's a harbinger of the decision -- a decision by the Second Circuit. We -- we feel, you know, confident that this law will be overturned in the Second Circuit, especially, with the recent decision in the U.S. Supreme Court.

SENATOR MCLACHLAN: Thank you.

REP. SPALLONE: Anyone else?

Representative Drew.

REP. DREW: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thanks for being here. Thank you for your advocacy.

I want to ask, just for clarification to the extent you're familiar with it, about a couple issues. Particularly regarding, what I'll call, the neutrality regarding a party neutral qualifying question, as I understand it. And I have not read the Governor's proposal, yet, 64-page bill, haven't looked at that, yet. I understood that that was, at least, party neutral and that the amount of the grants were the same. Does that sound right?

ANDREW SCHNEIDER: Yes, that is correct.

REP. DREW: And are you advocating something different than that?

ANDREW SCHNEIDER: No. That -- that part of that -- of that raised bill is actually -- actually deals with the party neutral concerns of ours. Fine, perfectly fine.

REP. DREW: And is there a difference between the Governor's bill in this -- in this part, anyway, with this criteria, this question, and the Maine and Arizona programs, in that regard, anyway?

ANDREW SCHNEIDER: Well, the difference is the Maine and Arizona programs, basically, have a limit of $5 qualifying contributions as opposed to the 100 dol -- up to $100 qualifying contribution in the Connecticut system.

REP. DREW: Thank you.

ANDREW SCHNEIDER: You're welcome.

REP. SPALLONE: Representative O'Brien. You have questions?

REP. O'BRIEN: I'm still working on my muffin.

So, just to clarify from Senator McLachlan's question, when you answered that the Citizens United decisions would have -- would impact the ultimate decision making on the campaign finance law, you were referring to the lobbyists and contractor bans, not the Citizens' Election Program, per se. Right?

ANDREW SCHNEIDER: Yes.

REP. O'BRIEN: Now, you're say -- that the -- the things that could change in the -- in the law to satisfy the ACLU's position in the lawsuit would be eliminating the differentia -- different treatments for minor and petitioning candidates, the trigger provisions, per se, as they are presently constructed, and, well, the lobbyists and contractor bans is -- is -- would also be in there as well, but that's not specifically -- not specifically a part of this discussion, right here.

Were there any other provisions that was --

ANDREW SCHNEIDER: That -- that basically is -- is all the concerns that we have. That if -- if those issues were dealt with in the fix of this law, we would be very happy with the -- the outcome.

REP. O'BRIEN: So, if the min -- major, min -- major, minor and petitioning candidates could qualify under the same criteria.

ANDREW SCHNEIDER: Yes.

REP. O'BRIEN: And the -- the trigger provisions, as they are presently constructed are removed, the ACLU will have no more case against the Citizens' Election Program, per se?

ANDREW SCHNEIDER: -- and the lobbyists' piece.

REP. O'BRIEN: Well, against the Citizens' Election Program?

ANDREW SCHNEIDER: Right, right, right.

REP. O'BRIEN: Right, okay.

Thank you.

REP. SPALLONE: Thank you, Representative.

Representative Floren.

REP. FLOREN: Thank you.

And thank you for your testimony.

ANDREW SCHNEIDER: Sure.

REP. FLOREN: I have so trouble by this whole issue of the trigger from day one. Because, I think one of the main goals for this whole program was the quality of discourse to have anyone who felt qualified to be able to have access to the ballot and to keep the quality of campaigns on a level that based around issues. And now, we've gone down, it seems to me, about three rungs down.

What is negativity? Who judges it? It's all qualitative so I happen to agree with you. I -- I think the most troubling aspect then -- and I don't think we're addressing it -- is the trigger. What is the trigger? Who measures the trigger? And why is it even a part of the discussion? So I don't know whether you want to speak to that or not? But it's -- it's been weighing on my mind since day one.

Thank you.

ANDREW SCHNEIDER: Thank you.

Thank you for sharing our concern with that.

REP. SPALLONE: Anyone else?

Just a last question on House Bill 5022, which replaces the triggers with available supplemental grants in statewide races and historically closely contested races and open seats in the legislature. Do you -- do you take a position on that?

ANDREW SCHNEIDER: We would find that far less objectionable.

REP. SPALLONE: Thank you. Appreciate that.

Anything further?

If not, thank you for your testimony.

The next person --

ANDREW SCHNEIDER: Thank you.

REP. SPALLONE: -- that signed up to speak is Alejandro Pedreira, Pedreira.

Good afternoon, sir. Please identify yourself. Thank you for coming.

ALEJANDRO PEDREIRA: Good afternoon.

My name is Alejandro Pedreira. Good afternoon, members of the Government, Administration and Election Committee. Thank you for allowing me to testify, today, before you.

My name is Alejandro Pedreira, and I'm a graduate student at the University of Connecticut, School of Social Work, majoring in Policy Practice and interning with the Nancy A. Humphreys Institute for Political Social Work.

I'm here today in opposition of Raised Bill Number 5022, AN ACT CONCERNING THE CITIZENS' ELECTION PROGRAM.

Please oppose the changes presented to this bill, which will decrease the amount of grant money given to candidates using the Citizens' Election Program. The Citizens' Election Program is making dramatic differences in opening up the election process and changing the way government operates in Connecticut.

In the 2009 Connecticut General Assembly, 71 percent of state representatives and 89 percent of state senators have elect -- been elected after participating in the CEP program. In both the House and Senate races, many successful candidates took the advantage of the CEP.

In 2008, 102 women ran for General Assembly seats. The largest number of female candidates in 10 years, and a few percent of them ran under the CEP, and we are looking forward to a full roll out of the new program in this new upcoming 10 -- 2010 election cycle.

The new system has already demonstrated that it is possible for people of more modest means to run when influences of special interest money shrinks. For years, environmentalists, in Connecticut, have tried to expand the Bottle Bill Recycling Program to include requiring five cent deposits on plastic water bottles, but the powerful beverage industry and their paid lobbyists were able to stop every effort to reform because it gave thousands of dollars in campaign contributions to legislators in the General Assembly.

Early in the legislative session this year, the General Assembly, with nearly 80 percent of its members having participated in the CEP, voted to expand the Bottle Bill for the first time since 1978. The General Assembly voted to reclaim unclaimed bottle deposits from the beverage industry and place those funds in the General Fund.

As a Connecticut citizen with aspirations of running for elected office in the future, the Citizens' Election Program will be beneficial to me by providing an equal method of fundraising for all parties.

The program will not only benefit me but also will benefit other citizens who also want to be elected officials and represent people's needs. This is a system that is worth preserving and expanding. This is a system that is worth protecting.

Please oppose the changes to proposed Raised Bill 5022 and give equal opportunity Conneti -- under the CEP program.

Thank you for this opportunity letting me testify. Is there any questions?

SENATOR SLOSSBERG: Thank you very much for your testimony this morning.

I did just want to clarify. You do support the program, itself, and is that correct?

ALEJANDRO PEDREIRA: I do support the program, itself. It's just, essentially, the lowering of money in grants, giving them out to people who are within the program that I'm opposed to.

SENATOR SLOSSBERG: And -- and you understand that the reason that that bill has been proposed is that because the Court has told the Legislature that we -- that's one piece of it that needs to be addressed?

ANDREW SCHNEIDER: Yes, I'm well aware. Thank you.

SENATOR SLOSSBERG: Okay.

Thank you.

Just wanted to make sure that we clarify that you are in support of the program overall.

Thank you for your testimony.

Are there any questions from the Committee members?

Thank you very much --

ANDREW SCHNEIDER: Thank you very much.

SENATOR SLOSSBERG: -- for being here today.

Our next speaker -- if you'll, the Committee will indulge me -- is -- we're going to be going out of order for just a moment and calling Tessa Marquis.

Good afternoon.

TESSA MARQUIS: Thank you.

My name is Tessa Marquis. I'm a member of the Milford Democratic Town Committee which is why I got booked.

The legislators know what this entails, but I want to outline my responsibility as a member of the Democratic Town Committee so that it's clear for everyone. As a member of that organization, I'm tasked with assisting candidates running for political office. And including in that -- included in that is raising the necessary finances to run a political campaign. This is the most difficult and time consuming activity we need to do for our candidates.

And this task was made, of course, much easier by the Citizens' Election Program. And I wanted to point out that there is a Special Election being held next week in Stratford for the state rep seat, for the 120th. Candidates from both the Republican and Democratic parties have qualified for the Citizens' Election Program and that gave them more time to meet the voters and address the issues of the -- of the race that they're in.

A special election, you only have a little bit more than a month to campaign. And it's important that you not be spending your time getting money. It's important to meet the voters. And it's -- I think it's important to note that both Republican and Democratic candidates have qualified for the Citizens' Election Program.

I know that many politicians on the state level are more comfortable with the older methods of raising funds. This is high-priced parties with corporation executives and well-heeled well-wishers, but this means that we're not able to build new people into the pipeline. And this is true for all parties.

I remember Richard Nixon -- because I'm older than many of you -- and he had something called the scorched earth policy where nothing can exist in the land you live -- leave behind. And this is what I worry about in our political system where legislators and constitutional officers and gubernatorial candidates go forward with their careers, which we do want them to do, but it leaves constituents with nobody to represent them, and that's not a good exit plan. I have a -- a management consulting business and you know about that.

So we don't want the legislators put in the position of burning down their own houses. If we can keep the Citizens' Election Program, without allowing any government raiding of the fund, continuing to fund it at no cost to the taxpayers -- I've heard that a lot about how taxpayers are paying for it. It's not my understanding. My understanding is that if people had the money to pay their taxes then they wouldn't have these abandoned properties which would lead to the funding, but I could be wrong.

But I'd like -- and I've said this before -- I'd like to grow the program to encompass the municipal level campaigns, as well as the state campaigns. This will allow people who are not connected to run for office, people with good ideas, good intentions and no indebtedness to outside interests. And I feel this is the kind of good people that you all strive to be.

And I thank you for you time, and I apologize for running over.

SENATOR SLOSSBERG: Thank you for your testimony. You didn't run over.

I would just note that you were the next person on the list.

TESSA MARQUIS: I didn't get bumped much.

SENATOR SLOSSBERG: -- who is -- who is a person here speaking on their own behalf, instead of a group and recognizing that you're a small

business owner, I know that you came all the way up here and wanted -- needed to get back to the district, whereas everyone else on the list is -- well, I could just say that they're here -- here in the building a little bit more. They're the regulars. So we appreciate you being here to testify and support of the program.

TESSA MARQUIS: I'm lucky that I have my own business and can actually leave my work for half a day to come up here.

SENATOR SLOSSBERG: Well, we're delighted -- we're delighted that you're here.

Are there any questions?

Yes.

Representative Hetherington.

REP. HETHERINGTON: Thank you.

TESSA MARQUIS: Be gentle with me. I'm a citizen.

REP. HETHERINGTON: As I am also.

TESSA MARQUIS: Okay.

REP. HETHERINGTON: Your reference to people moving on with their careers and leaving a void behind, or whatever it was, what -- what was the substance of that? What were you thinking about?

TESSA MARQUIS: Well, I think that -- that on the street -- okay, I'll tell you what they're saying on the street. On the street, they're saying that you, legislators, don't want the Citizens' Election Program to succeed because it's easier for you to get big money and move on with your careers and not feed into the pipeline of someone who might come up in your seat and possibly run for primary.

That's -- don't kill the messenger. Sorry.

So that's -- that is a concern that, on the street level, people have.

REP. HETHERINGTON: I -- I -- I'm not sure I understand that, but let's --

TESSA MARQUIS: Okay. Well, ask me different way, and I'll respond --

REP. HETHERINGTON: No need to belabor that.

TESSA MARQUIS: Okay.

REP. HETHERINGTON: You -- you do understand that -- that the money that is taken by the State --

TESSA MARQUIS: Uh-huh.

REP. HETHERINGTON: -- realized by the State from unclaimed property.

TESSA MARQUIS: Uh-huh.

REP. HETHERINGTON: -- were it not to be devoted to other purposes, could be devoted to the needs of the General Funds. Is that -- do you disagree?

TESSA MARQUIS: All -- I -- my impression is that there is all kinds of money that could be used in all kinds of different ways but that this was not to be viewed as a slush fund to just move money around.

I mean, I see that in -- on our municipal level. But I thought it was a self-funding, annually renewing fund. That was how it was explained to me that would not hurt anyone if it were put to this use. It's not taxpayer money. It's money that the State has.

REP. HETHERINGTON: The -- this fund has already undergone a sweep at least one point; isn't that right?

TESSA MARQUIS: Undergone a --

REP. HETHERINGTON: Sweep. Sorry. That's, you know, that's --

TESSA MARQUIS: A raid?

REP. HETHERINGTON: That's this inside ball boy. Yeah, yeah right, right.

TESSA MARQUIS: I thought it was a raid.

REP. HETHERINGTON: Yeah.

TESSA MARQUIS: I imagined pirates. Okay.

Yes. It shouldn't have been. It should be increased in any way possible so that we can get candidates coming from the -- the concerned citizens who want to run for office.

I'm perfectly aware that you're not paid any kind of fortune to be here. But the cost of running for election is -- it's cost prohibitive for a simple person on the streets who wants to serve the public.

REP. HETHERINGTON: Do you think that the grants under the existing law are excessive?

TESSA MARQUIS: I know that in some cases they need leveling. I heard that there were some reps who had more money than they actually knew what to do with, and I understand that that is part of what you're examining.

And, possibly, by leveling some of it out, then maybe we could, as I say, fund the municipals, or when other parties are brought in besides the Republicans and Democrats -- not that I'm looking forward to that -- they could also be involved in the program.

REP. HETHERINGTON: Okay.

TESSA MARQUIS: It's not a lot of money. You don't have a lot of money to throw around.

REP. HETHERINGTON: I'm sorry?

TESSA MARQUIS: The fund, itself, is not inexhaustible.

REP. HETHERINGTON: Well, it's --

TESSA MARQUIS: It's not huge. You don't have a lot of money. Right? It's not a lot.

REP. HETHERINGTON: Me, personally? Or is it --

TESSA MARQUIS: No.

REP. HETHERINGTON: Oh, oh, okay.

TESSA MARQUIS: The fund that you --

REP. HETHERINGTON: Okay

TESSA MARQUIS: -- that is used for these elections is not a lot of money.

REP. HETHERINGTON: Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

SENATOR SLOSSBERG: Thank you very much for your testimony.

Our next speaker is Paul Filson.

Good afternoon.

PAUL FILSON: Here we go.

Good afternoon cochairs, Senator Slossberg, Representative Spallone, distinguished members of the GAE Committee. I appreciate the opportunity to be here before you, today.

My name is Paul Filson. I am the director of the Service Employees International Union's Connecticut State Council. State Council represents over 55,000 active members in Connecticut, and SEIU is Connecticut's largest union.

And we support, wholeheartedly, the public funding of elections and recommend that the General Assembly enact HB5022, which is designed to preserve Connecticut's landmark Clean Election's legislation.

I've submit in -- submitted written testimony which briefly covers the main reasons why my union supports Clean Elections.

Since my time is limited, I thought that I'd briefly talk about something that has always perplexed me.

Why do certain lobbyist seem to have a huge, and to my mind, undue influence, here at the Capitol? Certainly, under the old system, legislators could raise lots of money, simply by having a fundraiser. Even worse, a call to a well-connected contract lobbyist could raise nearly every dime you might need to run your campaign.

I used to attend fundraisers at restaurants where seven or eight people would attend, but, magically, dozens of checks would appear on the table along with a thick ad book filled with ads from lobbyists and lobbyists' clients. That kind of money may have been able to buy more consideration that is proper.

By doing a tiny amount of research, one can see even more clearly how it works. For instance, the lobbying firm of Gaffney Bennett has over 90 clients, including: The Bank of America, ExxonMobil, Manafort, Purdue Pharmaceutical. A letter or call from that lobbying firm to its clients could, in theory, generate over $40,000 to a state's senate race if each client kicked in only $500 which was the maximum.

Sullivan & LeShane has over 50 clients, including: Coca-Cola Bottling, Connecticut Beer Wholesalers, Verizon.

Robinson Cole has 40 clients including: CIGNA, Comcast, Foxwoods, Connecticut Hospital Association.

When it comes to raising political money, these lobbying firms representing really rich and powerful corporations can steamroll small organizations. Even large organizations, like SEIU, cannot come close to competing when it comes to raising money.

And that is why I contend every year, decent sensible legislation seems to die here while other legislation designed to protect to special interests seems to pass.

For instance, why is it so hard to pass corporate transparency legislation? Doesn't the public have the right to know how much a corporation pays in taxes? At the same time, why does Webster Bank pay virtually no Connecticut business income taxes every year?

Clean Elections ends this crazy system and puts the priorities and focus back where they should be, on the people and with democracy. Let's not allow the Citizens' Election Program to die even before it's run through an entire election cycle.

Quick action is crucial. Campaigning has already begun. It's imperative that elections are publically funded with enough money to be effective.

And I urge you to vote in favor.

And for the record, SEIU does not enjoy spending its money on independent expenditures. We could use our money much more effectively, for our members, directly for our members. We don't -- and so -- and we can't -- and we know we can't compete against the huge corporations.

So that's my testimony.

Thank you very much.

SENATOR SLOSSBERG: Thank you for your testimony.

Are there questions?

Yes, Senator McLachlan.

SENATOR MCLACHLAN: Thank you, Madam Chair.

And thank you, Mr. Filson, for your testimony and for your interest in this important issue.

I wonder, speaking just directly about your organization, you indicated that SEIU does not have the luxury to participate financially in campaigns. How much did you spend in 2008 on political campaigns in Connecticut?

PAUL FILSON: In Connecticut, we spent -- well, it depends on how you -- SEIU is a -- is a large organization. In Connecticut, we have 55,000 dues-paying members. And we, generally, spend our money educating our members on political issues which we can do an unlimited amount of just for our own members.

In terms of doing independent expenditures, we did, I believe, one independent expenditure in support, not against anybody, but in support of a state representative race. And I believe it was a few thousand dollars that we spent on a mailing in -- in a state representative race, and that was it.

In terms of the total amount of money that we spent educating our members -- that I don't have -- I don't have an answer to that. But I do know that it's -- it's a considerable amount of money in terms of -- we sent mailings to our members about our endorsed candidates. And we did phone -- phone banks and door knocks in -- in support of candidates that we endorsed using volunteers -- members who would volunteer to do that.

So I can't give you an exact number about how much we spent doing politics. I can tell you, that in terms of money that we spent on campaigns, it was nothing because our PAC gave no money to any candidates.

We support the Clean Elections fund.

SENATOR SLOSSBERG: Senator McLachlan.

SENATOR MCLACHLAN: Thank you, Madam Chair.

So no direct contributions or -- or a -- to individual campaigns, but significant political activities related to the political process and to impart opinion of your members on the right person to vote for --

PAUL FILSON: Correct.

SENATOR MCLACHLAN: -- on election day.

Okay.

PAUL FILSON: Correct.

SENATOR MCLACHLAN: So I submit to you that that's probably part of the political process, too, and so that's not a reportable event, those activities are not reportable in -- under Connecticut campaign finance law?

PAUL FILSON: Or nationally. That's correct.

I mean, SEIU spent -- I can give you the number, nationally, in 2008, on the presidential and senate and all the federal races, in excess of $60 million. But it -- almost of it was in communication with our 2 million members that we have around the country.

SENATOR MCLACHLAN: So in the -- in the equalizing the field discussion about resources that your organization uses in favor of a particular candidate, does SEIU feel that that should be monetized and equal resources offered to the opponent in the political process?

PAUL FILSON: No. This is just communication with our own members. I mean, any organization -- any organization, the Catholic Church or any particular organization, can communicate with their own members about any issue that they so desire constitutionally. And so there -- there should be no restrictions about how you communicate with your own members.

SENATOR MCLACHLAN: And may I ask, did the SEIU endorse any Republicans for the General Assembly in 2008?

PAUL FILSON: Yes.

SENATOR MCLACHLAN: Of all the endorsements that occurred, how many?

PAUL FILSON: I believe one.

SENATOR MCLACHLAN: Thank you.

SENATOR SLOSSBERG: Are there any further questions?

Representative Hetherington.

REP. HETHERINGTON: Thank you, Madam Chair.

Do you contribute to leadership PACs?

PAUL FILSON: Yes, we do.

REP. HETHERINGTON: You do contribute to leadership PACs. Would you share the magnitude of that?

PAUL FILSON: I believe we give -- in the -- last year, I think we gave $2000 to the house major -- House Leadership, Democratic Leadership PAC, and I think we gave $2000 to the House Majority PAC, also.

REP. HETHERINGTON: Thank you.

PAUL FILSON: -- and we -- we give to the Senate Democrat Leadership PACs, also.

REP. HETHERINGTON: When you -- when you communicate with your members, do you also suggests that they let the members of the General Assembly know how they feel about particular things?

PAUL FILSON: Yes.

REP. HETHERINGTON: You do.

PAUL FILSON: And, by the way, we have an endorsement process where we invite candidates from both -- both parties to come and talk to our members about issues and then our endorsements are based on interviews with our own members. It's not -- not my decision or the members or the leadership of the union, the actual members decide themselves. But, yes, we -- we encourage our members to volunteer to come here on their own time to -- to raise issues of importance to themselves, to their -- to our members.

SENATOR MCLACHLAN: Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

SENATOR SLOSSBERG: Are there any further questions?

Yes, Representative O'Brien.

REP. O'BRIEN: Thank you.

The discussion about the communication with your members, I'm going to read a section from the statutes. It is -- it is a section that is the exception to the word "expenditure" which is what triggers the campaign financing law. And the exception to what counts as a campaign expenditure is, Communication made by any corporation, organization or association to its members, owners, stockholders, executive or administrative personnel or their families that is the provision of state law that allows you to make the communications that you'd mentioned with your members?

PAUL FILSON: I believe so. And I know, as a stockholder of several -- you know I've made some investments. I've received communications from corporations asking me to vote on certain issues. Verizon has sent me letters. Other corporations have, as well as, you know, my own union has sent me some.

REP. O'BRIEN: So if we were to consider removing that exception from campaign finance law for unions, then it would apply also to those similar kind of communications that corporations make with their employees, for example.

PAUL FILSON: Well, we already have the right to communicate with our members. Right?

REP. O'BRIEN: Under this law, yeah.

PAUL FILSON: Yes. So we're in favor of that.

REP. O'BRIEN: So -- and that, so fair is fair. If there's a balance to that discussion, then that whole rule will have to include all of that. And, as of yet, that whole subject hasn't been brought up as a -- as something that -- that the Legislature is seriously considering doing.

PAUL FILSON: Well, I know, and federally, you know, a lot of the campaign finance legislation has been modeled on some of the federal finance rules. And federally, it was decided that membership organizations should be able to communicate with their own members.

REP. O'BRIEN: I don't know the legislative history behind this, but this sounds like a provision that may or may not exist in order to steer clear of constitutional --

PAUL FILSON: I would think that.

REP. O'BRIEN: -- problems with a campaign finance law. Once again, that provision says it's communication made by any corporation, organization or association to its members, owners, stockholders, executive or administrative personnel or their families. That's the -- that's the substance of the exception, exemption. That's --

PAUL FILSON: And all I know is that, you know, we do communicate with our members. We cannot compete, at all, in terms of financial resources with any -- with the corporations, with the large corporations. We don't have the money. We don't -- our members dues -- can't -- we can't raise enough members dues to compete with corporations on expenditure, on independent expenditures.

The Citizens United decision is a disaster in my view, opening up billions and billions of dollars to campaign by corporations. The unions can't even come close to that. They get spent -- outspent by huge margins every federal election. And we don't -- we don't support that either.

REP. O'BRIEN: You don't see yourselves being in a position to go toe to toe with the major corporations of the world?

PAUL FILSON: We've nev -- the only thing that we can do is, is we can communicate with our members and urge them to be active on the grassroots level. And we have, I think, an advantage of doing that because we, you know -- I think we communicate with our members well and we do a good job representing them. And they enjoy coming out to fight for their own interests. It's not the same thing.

So we can put feet on the street. We can get volunteers out, but we cannot compete in terms of paid advertising, mailing, radio, any of that kind of expense, the huge expenses that corporations can spend.

REP. O'BRIEN: Thank you.

REP. SPALLONE: Any further questions for Mr. Filson?

Any further questions? If not, thank you, sir, for you testimony.

PAUL FILSON: Thank you.

REP. SPALLONE: The next speaker is Karen Hobart Flynn.

Good afternoon.

KAREN HOBERT FLYNN: Hi.

My name is Karen Hobart Flynn, and I am the vice president of State Operations for Common Cause.

I am very grateful that the GAE Committee, and Senator Slossberg and Representative Spallone and other members of the Committee are having this important hearing. We think it comes at a critical time, and it's an important step in moving to protect and serve the Citizens' Election Program, regardless of how the Second Circuit Court rules.

We've heard lots of discussion today about a number of issues. I'm going to -- I've submitted written testimony, and I'm just going to skip through and highlight a few -- a few points.

I think that Beth Rotman stated the urgency quite well in terms of we have a Special Election which now means that the reversion clause is active when the Second Circuit Court rules and so we need to be ready to move quickly.

We applaud the Governor and the GAE Committee for the two bills that they have raised today. Common Cause supports both of them. And we want to thank the Governor, in particular, for her leadership in calling attention to this issue and highlighting the need to enact and amend the program so it's around for 2010 and beyond.

I think already the delay in fixing the CEP has, without a doubt, harmed the Citizens' Election Program in that are candidates that have chosen not to participate in this program and so we believe there's a real sense of urgency in fixing it.

We think that the Governor's bill does a number of important things: repeals 9-717, sets up equal access for minor parties to the program.

I think the one area that needs to be addressed in the Governor's bill is that there is no alternative suggested for the trigger provisions. I think that trigger provisions or replacing those if the Second Circuit rules against them is particularly important in light of Citizens United.

Citizens United is a decision that looks at unlimited corporate and labor union expenditures in campaigns, not contributions so I don't think that this affects the bans that we have in place. It -- it does mean that there will be unlimited -- the ability of corporations and labor unions to spend unlimited amounts. This has an impact on the 24 states that currently have bans in place and Connecticut is one of those.

My expectation is that we will see a lawsuit at some time challenging our -- our ban on unlimited direct corporate expenditures and labor union expenditures in campaigns and that will eventually fall and so I think that we will see a time where there could be significant independent expenditures.

Raised Bill 20 -- 5022 creates a constitutionally permissible way to deal with that by allowing candidates to raise contributions and that they could be matched. I would suggest, though, that we should look at more than a one-to-one match because I think that -- I think, you know, over time, candidates will get better at raising small dollar contributions the way we see it the federal level and what Obama did. But I think that it will be difficult, initially, to move into that and so looking at the Larson plan where you see a four-to-one match is a better route.

REP. SPALLONE: Thank you.

Did you -- did you have any summary?

KAREN HOBART FLYNN: You know, I -- I did, but I'm happy to answer any other questions.

There's one other point that I would make that the Larson bill in Congress does, which is the Fair Elections Now Act, which has 134 co-sponsors to do public financing for congressional races. It would also allow candidates to raise -- to go back to the original qualifying contributors to raise money and allowing them -- so if they raise $100 to qualify, they could go back and raise another 100 or raise 200 initially and use 100 towards a match so that they could raise extra resources to combat, you know, if they're victims of independent expenditures or wealthy candidates that are not participating.

I think that with Citizens United, we're never going to be able to see candidates match dollar for dollar. A public financing system can't do that. But I do think that the best alternative out there is to give candidates an ability to get their voice out. They're not going to match it dollar for dollar, but it's the best response that -- that we can come up with, given this new Supreme Court ruling.

REP. SPALLONE: Thank you very much for your testimony.

And my first question is the Larson plan in Congress.

KAREN HOBART FLYNN: Uh-huh.

REP. SPALLONE: That -- the way that that addresses independent expenditures in high-spending opponents does not run afoul of the Davis case; is that correct?

KAREN HOBART FLYNN: No, that's right.

In fact, it was after the Davis case that a number of campaign finance scholars and academics and advocates came together to work on a proposal that would replace triggers as -- as an avenue and also take -- take advantage of the Obama small-donor phenomenon that they saw during the 2008 Presidential Election. So they came up with this to magnify the voice -- the voice of small donors and provide some matching funds for that up to a ceiling, and, then, it would also allow candidates to continue to raise money if they need to.

REP. SPALLONE: Just wanted to ask you a question because of your familiarity with the current system to clarify some colloquy between a member and a witness earlier on.

KAREN HOBART FLYNN: Uh-huh.

REP. SPALLONE: Under our current system, there are these so-called Leadership PACs. And they can make expenditures on behalf of candidates for General Assembly. Are those expenditures -- do they have a limit on them?

KAREN HOBART FLYNN: Yes, they do. There's -- there's a limit per committee and it differs from House and Senate. And I believe in the Senate, it's 10,000; and in the House, it's 3500.

REP. SPALLONE: And are these expenditures on behalf or direct contributions to campaigns of the candidates?

KAREN HOBART FLYNN: There expenditures on behalf. They're not direct contributions.

REP. SPALLONE: Okay.

I don't have anything further now.

Any questions?

Representative Labriola.

REP. LABRIOLA: Mr. Chairman.

Just to follow up on that last, the last question. For these Leadership PACs, they can give $10,000 to a senate candidate -- on behalf of a Senate candidate, and $3500 on behalf -- or to advocate on behalf of a house candidate. And each PAC can do that for 151 state rep candidates or, presumably, 302 state rep candidates of both parties, as well as up to 72 state senate candidates. We're talking hundreds of thousands of dollars that can be spent; is that correct?

KAREN HOBART FLYNN: Right.

REP. LABRIOLA: Thank you.

KAREN HOBART FLYNN: -- although I -- we haven't seen that level of spending. And we also have to remember it's part of the reform that we significantly ratcheted down the kinds of money that those committees can raise.

REP. LABRIOLA: Okay. So but under this so-called reform, hundreds of thousands of dollars can be raised by these Leadership PACs in total; isn't that correct?

KAREN HOBART FLYNN: That's correct. It could happen. And I think it needs reform but yes.

REP. LABRIOLA: Okay.

And then another thing, perhaps, Mr. Chairman, you could clear this up. Or -- or your testimony, you refer to the fact that there was a special election. I know that you asked this earlier but -- we talked about how the April 15th deadline really is not anything we have to worry about other than for tax purposes. But the March 2 -- you indicated that the March -- now we're -- somehow it was triggered but it was my understanding that the special election does not trigger anything since we're in a stay.

KAREN HOBART FLYNN: That's right.

We have a stay. But the -- the trigger gate and the way 9-717 is written talks about the operative date for 9-717 to be triggered. If there's no longer a stay, is the 45th day before a special election so that was January 15th. So it just means that if we have a ruling from the Second Circuit, then we would have seven days.

REP. SPALLONE: Anything further?

Senator McLachlan followed by Representative O'Brien.

SENATOR MCLACHLAN: Thank you Mr. Chairman.

And thank you, Ms. Flynn, for your testimony. And I -- I -- you have some very good points here.

One, I'd like to continue along the questioning of my colleague, Representative Labriola, on the Leadership PACs. Is it your understanding that the Democratic Party has more Leadership PACs than the Republican Party in Connecticut?

KAREN HOBART FLYNN: -- Yeah. Truthfully, I don't know. I don't know the answer to that.

SENATOR MCLACHLAN: Okay.

And that -- that is my understanding that -- that the majority party has more PACs that qualify for these special expenditures so I guess I've answered my own question, but I wanted to know what your opinion was of that fact.

So if, in fact, I'm correct in assuming that one party has more qualified political action committees that fit into the system, that's Clean Elections, than another party, do you consider that to be appropriate?

KAREN HOBART FLYNN: We, you know, one, Common Cause was -- did not -- was not enthusiastic about the organizational expenditure part of this campaign plan. I do think that there are legitimate party-building activities that these committees could do. I would prefer to see them do it for slated candidates rather than for any individual, but -- and having said that, we also worked to put limits in place in 2006 because, initially, in 2005, it was unlimited.

Would we support an equal number? Yes, we would, if that's your question.

SENATOR MCLACHLAN: Thank you.

And back to Citizens United, you, you seem to zero in on the Citizens United decision that, quote, Citizens United does not yet directly impact the 24 states that also have direct bans on unlimited corporate expenditures in campaigns, of which Connecticut is one of those.

KAREN HOBART FLYNN: Uh-huh.

SENATOR MCLACHLAN: So the common thought process that I've been hearing now since Citizens United decision came down, was that it immediately impacts all of those states, including Connecticut. And so I -- I -- I guess you're saying --

KAREN HOBART FLYNN: Yeah.

SENATOR MCLACHLAN: -- well, it doesn't really until there's some point where there's a lawsuit.

KAREN HOBART FLYNN: Either a lawsuit or an AG, you know, could say that I believe that this corporate ban does not. You know, there are some states where there are some -- there are some -- AGs that are saying that this does -- that they believe that this -- this invalidates their corporate ban. It may be that -- and I think that many AGs would wait -- and if there's a lawsuit filed, then take it to court and try to defend their ban.

SENATOR MCLACHLAN: So at this point the Citizens United decision by the U.S. Supreme Court does not affect the State of Connecticut in the 2010 election cycle?

KAREN HOBART FLYNN: Technically speaking, I don't think it does, yet.

SENATOR MCLACHLAN: Okay.

I guess that -- that we'd have to agree to disagree on that. I can't imagine that the decision of the United States Supreme Court would be held in abeyance until we think if we like it or not.

I -- I understand your technical answer but --

KAREN HOBART FLYNN: Right.

SENATOR MCLACHLAN: -- I can't imagine that that doesn't have an immediate impact, and I'll look for a further guideline on that.

Thank you very much.

REP. SPALLONE: Thank you, Senator.

Representative O'Brien.

REP. O'BRIEN: Thank you.

I know that -- that your organization and you, personally, are doing work at the national level on the campaign finance reform effort there with the -- the legislation that's very much the same as the legislation that we're, well, similar enough that you can say that it is almost the same as we have here in the State of Connecticut. So it's appropriate that it's senator -- Representative Larson from Connecticut who's -- who's pushing so hard for it.

If, for whatever reason, our system were to -- to fall into in effect because the legislature didn't act and a court decision struck -- it kept -- that there was a court decision in the Second Circuit that struck it down and the injunction went into effect. How much would that hurt the ability, nationally, to pass campaign finance reform to deal with the much larger influence of corporate special interest on the -- on -- on the national government?

KAREN HOBART FLYNN: The -- I think it would have a significant impact.

You know, a week ago I was at a -- at a meeting of 50 campaign finance reform leaders that are taking a look at what kind of responses can there be to the Citizens United decision.

And there's -- there's a package of reforms that are moving at the federal level that Senator Schumer and Chris Van Hollen in the House are looking at that involve increasing disclosure of independent expenditures, looking at tightening coordination rules to ensure that independent expenditures are totally independent, taking a look at corporate shareholder rules, and also looking at a number of pay-to-play measures where, you know, organizations or corporations that get state con -- federal contracts that have lobbyists that are foreign corporations and others would be banned from corporate expenditures. So there's a whole list of pay-to-play measures they're looking at.

But this group that came together decided the best and strongest option for dealing with campaign finance reform in a post Citizens United world is to embrace the public financing program, and it has become the top priority of a number of organizations moving forward.

If -- and Congressman Larson's bill has picked up co-sponsors. And we're starting to see public financing efforts in states picking up, as well, in response to Citizens United.

But I think if it went down here, I think it would have a significant impact at those efforts, particularly the federal level.

REP. O'BRIEN: So there's a real national importance to us acting here.

KAREN HOBART FLYNN: That's right.

REP. O'BRIEN: Now, contrary to what a previous speaker said, there is a very, very open process by which our Citizens' Election Program was put together and you were very much personally a part of that. I can remember you and I and a good number of other people sitting, spending hours and hours in very public discussions talking about the various provisions of the bill as they stand today. And one of those was the -- what came to be known as, the trigger provisions, the equalizing grants for independent expenditures, to equalize independent expenditures and high-spending opponents.

And so this is -- at the time that this was put in it was, in fact, base upon the understanding that was expressed around the room about what the constitutional law would be and what would be necessary to comply. The words that I remember, is that it's constitutional -- the constitutional precept is that you can equal up but you can't equal down. --

KAREN HOBART FLYNN: Right, right.

REP. O'BRIEN: -- is that correct?

KAREN HOBART FLYNN: That's right.

And -- and the Davis decision, which was not a public financing decision, it was about -- it was about contribution limits and unequal -- asymmetrical treatment of two candidates around the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act that came about several years after we passed our law. And it has changed the landscape. And -- which is why there's this alternative that's been developed and that it's part of Raised Bill 5022.

REP O'BRIEN: (Inaudible.)

KAREN HOBART FLYNN: Uh-huh.

REP. O'BRIEN: (Inaudible.)

KAREN HOBART FLYNN: Right.

REP O'BRIEN: (Inaudible.)

KAREN HOBART FLYNN: Right.

REP. O'BRIEN: (Inaudible.)

KAREN HOBART FLYNN: Right.

In a public financing system, it's a completely different thing where a candidate voluntarily agrees to abide by a number of different limits in exchange for these resources. And so -- and the truth is your not giving candidates an unlimited amount of money to counter these, but you'll give them some resources so that they can, at least, get their -- get their voice out in a campaign. And I believe, and many other legal scholars agree, that a public financing system enhances speech and doesn't -- it doesn't inhibit other speech.

REP. O'BRIEN: In other words, going back to the equalizing-up precept which we've been operating under where if -- it does not disadvantage one person's speech that another person is able to speak, too.

KAREN HOBART FLYNN: That's right.

REP. O'BRIEN: However, in our efforts to try to comply with the court mandates, they -- we're considering having a -- having a system of matching grants as kind of a replacement for the trigger provisions to serve the same function to allow Citizens' Election candidates to feel comfortable that they can be in the program and still not be wildly out spent by a independent -- by independent expenditures and high-spending opponents.

KAREN HOBART FLYNN: Right.

REP. O'BRIEN: That's the function that --

KAREN HOBART FLYNN: Right. Right. That's right.

And it's -- it's, you know, it's not as precise. It can't be triggered by anybody else's activity so it's up to a candidate to decide that they want to raise these additional resources, either because they believe they're going to be in a competitive race or they fear that they're going to be targeted by independent expenditures so it's really up to the candidate to decide and any money they raise and they don't need, they can return to the fund. And many people may think that sounds naive, but -- but there was a million dollars returned to the Citizens' Election Program after the 2008 election.

And so I do think we saw a high level of responsibility. Candidates knew how much resources they needed, and they tended to return it if they didn't. And interestingly enough, more money, on average, was spent by challengers than incumbents. They ended up spending less.

REP. O'BRIEN: Now, as we put this together, does Common Cause have a -- and I'm not going to hold you to this as a permanent position, but an idea about -- you said that the one-to-one match idea is not strong enough. Do you have an idea about what would be a preferable ratio in the -- when we talk about the matching grants?

KAREN HOBART FLYNN: You know, in particular, when you look at -- when you look at statewide races and we already know for gubernatorial elections, one, we don't support cutting back on the grant for gubernatorial elections because, I think, 3 million is actually well under the average amount spent by candidates over the prior years.

So even when you're looking at 3 million where we have two millionaire candidates that are going to be running, I think, that you need to be able to raise considerable money and a one-to-one match of $250,000 gives you a half million which, I think, makes it very difficult.

We believe there should be, you know, a four-to-one match like the Larson bill. And, you know, one of the things about crafting a proposal is you can do different kinds of matches for different races so it doesn't have to be what you do for statewide does not have to be the same for a legislative race.

But I do think, given the kind of money, the small level of grants that currently exists and the realities of what's usually spent in a statewide race, I think, more resources are needed.

There are other choices, too. You can limit the public money but allow a candidate to continue to raise small donor contributions of $100 or less. So there's lots of different variations that could be crafted for each race that makes sense for that kind of race.

REP. O'BRIEN: Indeed. The -- the trigger provisions, per se, were about having a voluntary limit on spending. In essence, if we are choosing a replacement for that, we are choosing to not have a voluntary limit, per se.

KAREN HOBART FLYNN: Right.

If you were to allow continued fundraising, if you -- you could keep a cap in place, and that's up to the Legislature to decide.

REP. O'BRIEN: The -- and I know it's a little bit off the field but we're probably going to end up talking more about this, how the Citizens United decision impacts on our laws and we'll have to see how it all winds out.

Certainly, when we talk about the independent -- the independent expenditures could conceivably be made now. But as to how it applies to the rules that we have in our laws, right now, on coordination, does that impair our ability to -- to have -- to have restrictions on whether a -- whether a corporation can, in coordination with a candidate, spend a lot of money on their campaign?

KAREN HOBART FLYNN: Yeah -- no.

The Citizens United decision is about independent spending. And that is what the Court discussed that they did not believe that independent spending, that's truly independent, could be corrupting in any way.

I actually don't agree with that but -- but I don't think that that has anything to do with coordination or with contribution limits.

So I do think it changes. You know, I think it could change how Judge Underhill looks at windfall levels of grants.

And there was a question earlier that Representative Spallone asked about, you know, what if we allowed the same level of grants, given that there are -- there could potentially be high levels of corporate and labor union independent spending, I think it changes the equatial -- equation, and it could mean that more -- more resources, to be provided to candidates might be more permissible given it's new. You know, it's -- it's a game changer.

REP. O'BRIEN: Actually, I think that you corrected me, and I misspoke before about it does actually change the way things would function assuming that it rolls out and somebody presses -- tries to press their, you know, the powers given to them under the -- the Citizens United mandate that corporations would be able to put money in -- in ways that they can't now. We just need to figure out the ways in which -- I guess my point is that we're -- we're a little unclear about some of the ways that our laws actually would be unwound under this decision.

KAREN HOBART FLYNN: The -- I think first will be the corporate ban. So there'll be independent expenditures, and then, I think, I don't think it's going to impact contribution limits or disclosure. Disclosure was upheld under the Supreme Court ruling.

And I think that we need to look at our own laws on independent expenditures disclosure. I think that there should be 24-hour reporting. It should be online. There are a number of things that we could do. I think we need look at what constitutes coordination and look at those rules, as well.

But I think, you know, really, this puts a premium on trying to figure out the trigger provision replacement if the Second Circuit strike them down.

REP. O'BRIEN: In other words, there's a premium on making sure that candidates that want to run free of this, the influence of corporate special interest money, have a route to be able to do so.

KAREN HOBART FLYNN: That's right.

REP. O'BRIEN: Thank you.

REP. SPALLONE: Representative Hetherington.

REP. HETHERINGTON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

With respect to the supplemental contributions, under the proposal in 2022, it would be up to a candidate to continue whether or not to continue to raise money, as you pointed out?

KAREN HOBART FLYNN: Right.

REP. HETHERINGTON: Does that give you any concern that that is going to mean a continuing fundraising rather than -- rather than being consistent with -- one of the stated objectives of the program was to cut -- was to end fundraising and allow candidates to focus on the campaign?

KAREN HOBART FLYNN: I prefer -- because I do think it makes it easier for candidates -- the -- the law as it was passed. But I'm not sure if we will have that option. It depends on what we hear from the Second Circuit. And I do think that there is -- that -- that small donor contributions from individuals is the preferable thing than, for instance, our old system. So, you know, it -- while it isn't as good as what we had under the Citizens' Election Program, I still think it's a viable option.

REP. HETHERINGTON: Uh-huh. Do -- do --

Thank you.

The money that a candidate raises in additional or supplemental contributions, would you allow an excess to be returned to the contributors?

KAREN HOBART FLYNN: The -- you know, one, we could costs, if you put it in the Citizens' Election Program. And I actually think that small donor fundraising will also, potentially, reduce costs because there is -- they're raising private money, and it isn't all public dollars.

REP. HETHERINGTON: Uh-huh.

KAREN HOBART FLYNN: I think it would be useful to hear from Elections Enforcement about how viable it is to return that money because I do think that using this sort of trigger replacement is more work because we're talking about small donor contributions. And I think it will be -- you have to verify who those are and then provide matches for them. So I think it's additional work. So that, I think, it should be a question we should ask.

REP. HETHERINGTON: Don't you think it's a problem, though, to go to citizens and ask for a contribution and -- and then it appears that their contribution adds to a surplus, it actually goes to the State?

I mean, you're -- you're fundraising for the program, not just for the candidate.

KAREN HOBART FLYNN: Right.

REP. HETHERINGTON: And I think we might get some resistance from citizens to that. If they know they cannot get that money back if it doesn't go for the candidate of their choice.

KAREN HOBART FLYNN: Uh-huh.

REP. HETHERINGTON: You're concerned about the timing, aren't you? That we move without -- the -- and you're supporting both bills.

KAREN HOBART FLYNN: Uh-huh. With the caveat that the Governor's bill needs to come up with something for -- to replace triggers if that's struck down.

REP. HETHERINGTON: The -- the constitutional objections that were raised in Judge Underhill's opinion are fairly specific and really come down to four and, yet, here we have a 64-page bill under 2022, much of which has nothing to do with the constitutional objections. Wouldn't you rather see us proceed with a bill that direct -- since you're concerned with speed, that directly objects -- directly addresses the objections rather than going --- going on to a host of other things?

KAREN HOBART FLYNN: I actually think that 5022 does address concerns raised by Underhill by looking at -- by looking at the minor party provisions, by looking at reducing the size of the grants, by also looking at a replacement for the trigger provision so I do think it -- it does specifically address concerns raised by Judge Underhill.

REP. HETHERINGTON: Oh, of course, it does. But it goes on for pages and sections beyond that. My point is if you're concerned with speed, why not -- why not deal precisely with those things that were raised by the Court, instead of opening up the whole question of the Citizens' Election Program and creating a number of devices that were not in there originally?

KAREN HOBART FLYNN: I -- I think that -- that -- that speed is important. But I've also been saying that for months so --

REP. HETHERINGTON: Yeah.

KAREN HOBART FLYNN: -- who listens to me.

So I would agree that taking care of those things, specifically, are the most important things, but there may other questions that come up.

For instance, and it's not in this bill, but I do think given some of the things that we're talking about that electronic filing would be very important --

REP. HETHERINGTON: -- Uh-huh

KAREN HOBART FLYNN: -- to have that's -- that's mandatory that could help. So I think that there's, you know, some of the things that you look at there's an impact.

REP. HETHERINGTON: Well -- well, sure there always things you can improve but, you know, you can always do that separately. The point is, now as I understand it, there's an urgency in getting this done.

KAREN HOBART FLYNN: Uh-huh.

REP. HETHERINGTON: And so I -- I would think you would want to focus on the bill that -- or a bill that addresses those specifically and in -- and solely for the time being.

KAREN HOBART FLYNN: The -- you know, one of the first things we proposed was just to repeal 9-717 which would then allow general severability to apply should a court rule so that was the first thing that we proposed.

But I also recognize that we have to pass a bill through the House and Senate. So we are open to things that address the constitutional issues that are important that also may help move the bill along so that we can get it passed.

So it's how do you balance political realities with -- you know, reformers talk about what we want and it's up here, and we talk about it and it doesn't go anywhere so, you know --

REP. HETHERINGTON: -- but -- but --

KAREN HOBART FLYNN: -- there are trade-offs.

REP. HETHERINGTON: -- do you think the more things you put in it, the faster it's going to get through or the more easily --

KAREN HOBART FLYNN: I'm not saying that.

REP. HETHERINGTON: -- it'll get through?

KAREN HOBART FLYNN: I'm saying that -- that, you know talking about the really swift and precise pieces didn't go anywhere so I think, you know, this committee is -- it is exploring this with --

REP. HETHERINGTON: Uh-huh.

KAREN HOBART FLYNN: -- and taking a look at the court decisions and also trying to work to see what we can pass.

REP. HETHERINGTON: Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you.

KAREN HOBART FLYNN: Thank you.

REP. SPALLONE: Anything further for Karen Hobart Flynn?

If not, thank you for your testimony.

Next speaker is Hadid Simmons.

But I wanted to make a brief comment, quickly.

And that was in the last colloquy between one of the members and Ms. Hobart Flynn there was some discussion about the number of Leadership PACs. And I wanted to clarify, for the record, that are equal numbers of leadership PACs in each caucus. That the minority leaders get two and that the majority leader and speaker and majority leader and senate pro tem each get one so that there would be two each in each caucus. I just wanted to clarify that for the record.

Good afternoon, sir, thank you.

HADID SIMMONS: Good afternoon.

My name is Hadid Simmons. I'm currently a third-year political science and international relations student at the University of Hartford, and though I'm not representing them, I am the secretary of the Connecticut College of Democrats.

Senator Slossberg, Representative Spallone, and other distinguished Committee members, thanks for giving me this opportunity to address House Bill 5022 today.

The Citizens' Election Program is vital, not only to the goal of increasing fairness in state elections, but to the very interests of the citizens of Connecticut. We know that HB 5021, is per an August 2009 ruling by U.S. District Court Judge Underhill, was said to unconstitutionally discriminate toward minor parties by almost inevitably allowing major parties to out fundraise via the matching grants provision. If left unamended, the CEP may continue to be seen, by said Judge, as an impediment to the democratic process by the judiciary as said -- as per said opinion.

I'll preface -- I'll preface by saying that, of course, my experience regarding this issue compared to the members of this Committee, and, likely, many in this room, is limited. Yet, in my opinion -- in my opinion, the amendment to CEP embodied in HB 5022 eliminates, at least partially, the cause for such an opinion.

I believe that the Committee was wise to propose the bill to repeal section 9-705 of the General Statutes. Prior to amendment, its method of provision might have been seen to encroach on free speech in somewhat of a retaliatory context. The Committee's decision to make the matching grants -- grants optional with a -- at least 75 percent in-state fundraising qualification criteria in 5022 is laudable indeed. It gives candidates a choice as to whether they want to partake and benefits those that do and that have true support of their constituents.

In addition, the Citizens' Election Program's campaign grant limits are also useful in equal -- in equalizing Connecticut races. The grant ceiling it establishes virtually disables the potential for over-excessive fund -- fundraising and brings elections back further to the issues around which they're based.

I was watching a 2008 interview in which Representative Heinrich from the 101st District was speaking. And she said that she supported the program for its ability to cut fundraising time and to allow candidates to talk with voters more instead of forcing them to constantly focus on fundraising at the possible expense of voter communication.

Without -- and this is my belief and I -- I hope that others in the room share my opinion, without this program, the implications of the repeal of McCain-Feingold, earlier this month, may very well come full circle in Connecticut.

I certainly don't -- I certainly don't want to relive 2000 and 2004 on the state level. Quite honestly, one might even go so far as to be discouraged to even step into the voting booth.

I've talked to some of my fellow students at the University of Hartford about this and while they still say, you know, they're enthusiastic about voting for their candidates --

It seems I'm out of time, if I could just finish?

REP. SPALLONE: You can go a couple minutes.

HADID SIMMONS: Of course.

While my fellow students still say the want to vote, they've echoed, you know, much the same sentiment as I'm trying to bring across now. They admit that, like -- because despite their vote, they might feel disempowered because of increase corporate and special interest based influence in elections. They say that they feel their vote might not count as much, and I can definitely understand that.

I'm not an anti-corporate antagonist or any -- anything like that. I just feel that there should be an equal balance between citizen and noncitizen and to (inaudible) participation in government.

And I -- I feel that elections should be fair and about the issues and about the people not about money, you know, necessarily. And it's for that reason, quite obviously, I support Citizens' Election Program, but at the end it's not for me to decide.

So I look the Committee with the hope that it'll support and help pass House Bill 5022.

And I thank you for hearing me, and any questions, you know, you have, I'll be glad to take.

Please be lenient.

REP. SPALLONE: Thank you. Thank you.

Any questions for this speaker?

If not? Thank you very much for your testimony and your interest in the issues.

The next speaker is Phil Sherwood followed by Martin Mador.

A VOICE: It's always smart to end it that way. They kind of leave you alone when you say something like that.

REP. SPALLONE: Good afternoon.

PHIL SHERWOOD: Good afternoon.

My name is Phil Sherwood. I'm the deputy director of the Connecticut Citizen Action Group. And CCAG is a membership-based organization that is comprised of approximately 25,000 members statewide, and we've been around for about 40 years.

And this one of the major issues we've been active on, and we would like to thank members of the GAE Committee for having this hearing, and we come in support of both House Bill 5022 and 5021.

But to start off, I just wanted to refute some of the assertions floated earlier this afternoon. I'm not at all surprised to hear the revisionist assertions from the Republican Party leader that scandals we've seen had nothing to do with campaign financing. In fact, it had everything to do with campaign financing.

I'm often not surprised to hear from a form -- former tobacco lobbyist that lobbyist and state contractors have been shunned and advocate for an old system that clearly paved the way for a pay-to-play system that brought us John Rowland. Now that was the old system.

The system now has successfully opened the door to legitimate candidates and has done so while encouraging all candidates to spend their time courting small donors and voters in their district -- districts rather than private con -- contributors. This has, undoubtedly allowed candidates to spend more time commuting -- communicating with voters in their district.

I think it's also important to note that the transition here in the state to the Clean Election system went smoothly and was, arguably, more successful than any other state that had some form of public financing. Eighty percent of the candidates opted into this. I think that's a testament of the public will to see people run under the Clean Election system, but also the way the program was written.

We would also like to express regrettably, but it's sincere, would like to express our disappointment that action has not already been taken by the Legislature to address this. It's been some time that this has evolved. There's still a big unknown out there. But, clearly, by not addressing some of the basic components of concern that have been expressed today, it's really putting this system in jeopardy.

That being said, we're happy to hear that the repeal of 9-717 is present in both bills. That's the reversion clause. Obviously, not doing so could result in the clock being turned back to the pre-reform election laws of 2005.

We also like that Raised Bill 5022 provides a match for additional small donor funds for candidates that have been targeted neg -- negative independent expenditures. This has been spoken about a bit today. But we're happy to see that. And, in our view, establishing strong trigger mechanisms for matching funds is more important than ever given the radical constitutional interpretations recently handed down by the U.S. Supreme Court.

In our view, they gutted a century worth of well-settled election law and unraveled longstanding principles designed to protect democracy from immense aggregations of wealth.

We would, also, in closing, like to express concern for reducing the grants to candidates. One of the biggest threats to this program is reducing the grants in such a way where candidates are unable to wage competitive campaigns, and you make it unattractive for candidates to want to opt into the system. You also run the risk -- and this is where I would agree with Mr. Healy -- you run the risk of designing a program, intended or not, to be an incumbency protection program if you don't give sufficient enough grants for challengers to run a competitive campaign.

And we understand the budget crisis that the state is un -- is under. It's very real. But the General Assembly has already taken $39 million in the last 15 months from the Connecticut Clean Election program.

We believe this program pays for itself. It's an anti-corruption tool. When you look at the scandals, with Enron it does come back to financing. That was $220 million. When you look at $100 million of no-bid state contracts to one contractor and their subcontractors that had everything to do with campaign finance reform, it was much bigger that RICO. And I think we're being disingenuous by suggesting that that's what the scandals of John Rowland were all about so this program pays for itself.

And thank -- I'd like to thank this committee for this -- their sincere attempts to preserve it.

REP. SPALLONE: Thank you very much for your testimony.

Are there any questions?

Senator McLachlan.

SENATOR MCLACHLAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

And thank you, Mr. Sherwood, for your testimony, today. I applaud CCAG for all your hard work.

We agree on some things, and I guess disagree on others.

But one thing that -- that clearly, we agree on is your statement about incumbency protection and the danger of that in any change in campaign finance law. And -- and so of the two proposals before us today, 5021 and 5022, do you see any points of either of those proposals that, in fact, do have a problem with incumbency protection?

PHIL SHERWOOD: Well, I think the most important thing, in regards to the grant totals, is that specifically those running for statewide office don't see the grant totals reduced. That is of a major concern. Obviously, as it pertains to unchallenged candidates, in certain primaries, I think we can really take a look at some of the grant totals and adjust them accordingly.

But, you know, also at the top of my head, forgive me, I don't recall where exactly the numbers were for 5021 and 5022, but really CCAG, I think, is opposed to reducing the grant amounts to those running for statewide office across the board.

SENATOR MCLACHLAN: Okay. Well, thank you for that viewpoint.

But I'd like to zero in then, if I may, on your perception of incumbency protection as it relates to the proposal to have supplemental fundraising occur up to a certain threshold and that, in and of itself, will allow for supplemental expenditures from those funds. Is that incumbency protection?

PHIL SHERWOOD: I suppose one could make the argument that an incumbent is more likely to have the ability to fundraise excess money, but I would echo the comments of Karen Hobart Flynn from Common Cause that it's really -- it's not the ideal system, but it's one of the few tools that we have left to allow candidates to wage competitive campaigns and address potentially negative independent expenditures so we do applaud those efforts. But you're -- you're never going to completely level the playing field. But I think one thing that we've learned from the rulings from the U.S. Supreme Court -- and it's easy to be defeatist if you're a public financing advocate after hearing the breadth of their opinion -- but really I think it elevates public financing as being one of the most important tools we have to ensuring that candidates that have legitimate support are able to wage competitive campaigns. And a major component of that is allowing candidates to defend themselves, if you will, if targeted by independent expendi -- independent expenditures.

SENATOR MCLACHLAN: With all due respect, Mr. Sherwood, I think if your -- one of your major concerns is incumbency protection that this really is a very important issue in the proposal. In that these supplemental fundraising activities, clearly, favor incumbents. And -- and I'm -- I guess I'm surprised that you wouldn't be zeroing in on that as being a serious problem in the proposals.

PHIL SHERWOOD: Well, I think it's a much bigger threat that independent entities will be able to influence, radically, the outcome of elections and that we'd be trying -- that we'd be discouraging candidates from using public financing systems if they were tying their hands behind their backs and preventing them from defending themselves if a target of a negative independent expen -- independent expenditure.

But to your concern that we share about public financing, potentially, being designed in a way to be incumbency protection, I agree wholeheartedly. If enough money isn't given out in grants for candidates to wage a competitive campaign, it, I believe, will disproportionately benefit incumbents.

SENATOR MCLACHLAN: Thank you.

REP. SPALLONE: Thank you, Senator.

Representative Reeves.

REP. REEVES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

And thank you, Mr. Sherwood, for coming today.

One of the other provisions that is different between the Governor's bill and 5022 is that the Governor's bill would actually reduce the grant for gubernatorial candidates, whereas 5022 preserves it.

So I take from your comments that, in fact, that is something that would trouble you. And I guess I wanted to know whether you were also troubled by the fact that, my understanding is, that two gubernatorial candidates have already decided to opt out of the program and spend their own monies and how you'd feel that -- that all may be reflected with some of the changes in the grant money?

PHIL SHERWOOD: The answers to your questions are yes and yes.

We would like to see that component in the Governor's bill changed and brought back to the level that it is now.

Secondly, yes, we are very concerned that gubernatorial candidates have opted out and they've done so because of -- largely because of the concerns with not knowing what they would be getting and the type of campaign they'd be able to run. And I think that's the biggest threat to this program, frankly, is this General Assembly not acting in a timely fashion.

REP. REEVES: Thank you, Mr. Sherman.

REP. SPALLONE: Anything further?

If not, thank you for your testimony.

And the next speaker is Martin Mador followed by Brooks Campion and Anita Schepker.

But before we go there, I just wanted to make a comment to reiterate about the order of business that, generally, it's traditional over the last few years in the GAE committee that public officials do speak later in the day. And we did allow and call on Election Enforcement officials to speak first and out of that traditional order because we felt it was important to set a baseline for the discussion because they're the people -- the agency that implements this program so I wanted to emphasize that that's -- not all committees operate the same way, but we've been operating under that function for a while.

And I would call on Mr. Mador.

Thank you.

MARTIN MADOR: Afternoon, Members of the Committee.

I'm Martin Mador.

I'm the volunteer legislative chair for the Sierra Club Connecticut Chapter. I'm here speaking mainly today in that capacity, but you should also know that I'm the campaign treasurer for a candidate in this year's elections for state representative as I have been for the past five election cycles.

I'm here today, as an advocate, to urge you in the strongest possible language to preserve what we already have in place, an effective and appropriate public financing system. I believe that the Sierra legislative effort acts in the public interest. A number of legislators have told me directly that our success in the 2009 session on several bills was partially attributable to public financing, even though it had only recently completed its first election cycle.

There appears to be consensus that the most -- the two most important issues facing the legislature this session are the budget shortfall and jobs. No question about it. I'm going to suggest that the third priority for the legislature should be ensuring the retention of public cam -- campaign financing. It's that important to what we do here.

We thank the Governor for her initial support of the program and for her continuing efforts to try to retain it.

We ask you to fix both the defects enumerated in Green Party and to reduce the costs of the program to address the budget shortfall we are facing. I've confirmed that there are legislators who do endorse the principle of the program but oppose continuing it simply because they believe we cannot afford it at this -- at this time.

Sierra believes reducing the size of the grants overall and reducing the payments to unopposed candidates is warranted. And I should be clear I'm really talking primarily about races for the state legislature rather than the statewide races. As a campaign treasury -- treasurer, I wholeheartedly agree with some reduction in the amount of the payments. Our campaign last session -- last election returned 5000 of the 25,000 we received. However, I'm concerned that we need to keep the trigger in place for matching -- in a nonparticipating opponent's excessive spending must be preserved. If we don't, we fear that many candidates will not participate in the program.

The Sierra Club believes that public financing is one of the most effective means of assuring good, honest, effective, appropriate government, which acts in the best interests of the electorate rather that the interests of special interests.

You'll see, in my testimony, there's a statement from the National Sierra Board. It's actually 10 years old now and a statement in support of this from the Connecticut Sierra Club.

And I'll stop there.

REP. SPALLONE: Thank you for your testimony.

Are there any questions for Mr. Mador?

Okay.

Well, thank you, again, for coming in today. We appreciate it.

MARTIN MADOR: Thank you.

REP. SPALLONE: Next speaker were Brooks Campion and Anita Schepker followed by -- it's hard to read the writing, Karen Schuessler.

Okay.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, welcome.

BROOKS CAMPION: Good afternoon.

Chairman Spallone, members of the GAE committee.

My name is Brooks Campion, and I am here before you today as the newly elected president of the Association of Connecticut Lobbyists. I'm also a lobbyist with Robinson & Cole. I've been a lobbyist and proud to be a lobbyist. I've been a lobbyist for over 11 years.

And the comments that I'm making today are not made on behalf of my -- lobbying firm but more over on behalf of the over 170 members of the Association of Connecticut Lobbyists.

And the association, just for context for you of the association, range from solo practitioners to large firms, of outside communicators to in-house communicator lobbyists representing nonprofit organizations, businesses, unions and other professional associations, including faith -- and also faith-based organizations.

Our attorney, Bart Halloran, has submitted written testimony on our behalf so that will be our written testimony.

But we recognized that you have a very daunting task in trying to reconcile the two bills, 5021 and 5022. But we are gravely concerned about the silence of both bills on the bans on lobbyist contributions and contributions of their spouses and dependent children, as well as the silence on our ability to participate in the campaign finance system.

And also, with due respect, except at the hearing today, I have to say that the harmful rhetoric surrounding the practice of lobbying serves no one. We, on the Lobbying Committee, take our responsibilities on the State's ethics code very seriously and we make all required disclosures diligently. And beyond the disclosures we make, we deal in good faith on behalf of the clients we represent.

To echo Attorney Halloran's written comments, quote, the U.S. Supreme Court has held that political speech is political speech and cannot be limited by the identity of the speaker.

SEIU, Common Cause, Connecticut Citizens Action Group and Robinson & Cole are all lobbyists. They all employ lobbyists. And the rhetoric that makes distinctions based on the issues we lobby for serves no one, and it also has had the unintended chilling affect of -- of lobbyists' registration. I would also make mention of that.

We, in the lobbyists community, look forward to an opportunity to be a resource of the Committee should you continue to pursue amendments to the ban on lobbyist contributions.

And I am joined by Anita Schepker, past president of the ACL and chairwoman on the subcommittee on Legislative and Regulatory Affairs. She's been a tireless advocate on behalf of lobbyist's free speech rights.

So I'd like to turn it over to Anita.

ANITA SCHEPKER: Thank you, members of the Committee.

My name is Anita Schepker. And I am an attorney and a lobbyist, as most of you know, and I'm here today in my capacity as the legislative chair for the lobbyist association, and I'm really glad that Brooks is now the president of the lobbyists association.

But I'm here just quickly to tell you, as a person who's participated in the lawsuit from day one and as a person who was deposed under the lawsuit and then a person named under the lawsuit, that a key component that was brought before the Second Circuit Court of Appeals was the whole issue of how lobbyists are treated and contractors are treated under this law.

In fact so much so, that the Second Circuit Court of Appeals separated our issues -- you know, we were heard separately. There were two cases brought together to the Second Circuit. And we were afforded the exact amount of time that the public financing piece was brought.

I just want to quickly give you an example, if you can -- if it's okay with you.

I'm so sorry.

Some confusion under the law that was brought forth by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals and one of the questions that was asked is, Well, you can, as a lobbyist, say, There's a fundraiser next Thursday at 7:30.

But here's where it gets muddy. I can't email that information. I can't mail that information.

And one of the justices said, And if you say there's really nice pork chops at the fundraiser and a beer. Does that pass the law? Does that push you into a solicitation giving somebody the appearance, then, that you're asking somebody to attend that fundraiser?

I think the implied danger in this law, for those of us, is really quite severe.

I just want to say something else. That the free speech granted under our ability to participate in all levels of the political process can't be understated. And I also think that what you need to know, unlike other provisions of the statute, one of the questions that was asked by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals was, What are the criminal sanctions, if any, for lobbyists?

And the answer is there are criminal sanctions because of this law. Because -- although -- if we were subject to or fined under this law because we somehow violated it -- there was a perception that I said that -- I was overheard saying that there was a fundraiser next week for a certain person and that was implied that I was telling that person to go. That -- if I were then fined, there could be the potential that the Ethics Commission could then investigate me, and we would be subject to criminal penalties, as well, under this law.

I just want to also reiterate what Brooks said earlier. I think it doesn't help up to talk about the rhetoric of all of this.

I have to tell you -- and to end this conversation that when I was deposed, I was asked the following question under deposition, Do you tell your husband what kind of contributions to make and when?

And my -- my response was, No.

But now I have to because of the law that you just passed.

REP. SPALLONE: Thank you.

Are there any questions for these speakers?

Representative Lawlor.

REP. LAWLOR: Thanks, Mr. Chairman.

Good afternoon.

I'm just curious because, you know, you hear a lot of discussion about this, and I know my perception, as a legislator, how much things have changed.

But what's your perception, as lobbyists, in the way you're treated by legislators and the extent to which you are allowed to -- well, how is it different under the system than it was before? Not the campaign part, the -- the legislative part.

BROOKS CAMPION: In fairness, we've been -- I think I would -- we -- we would say that we were, in terms of lobbying, I think we were treated -- the reception is the same and -- and they may not like what issue we're trying to lobby them on. That has not changed.

In terms of how we're viewed outside of here, I think, unfortunately, I think a lot of people on your side of the table need to understand the law a little better than they do. I think that they make solicit -- you know, they make -- they put us in a position sometimes where we have to say, I'm sorry, we can't talk about this, in truth.

The burden is -- unfortunately, it seems more squarely on our shoulders than it does on your side of the table sometimes in that regard.

But in hearing, you know, testimony like this where we are talking about if you're a lobbyist, say for Legal Aid that you're held in one esteem versus if you're a lobbyist for a corporate interest, that's held in a different, a lower esteem. That frustrating --

ANITA SCHEPKER: (Inaudible.)

BROOKS CAMPION: -- and that's -- I think that that -- we would say that that's accelerated -- that's increased.

REP. LAWLOR: Because this white hat/black hat distinction has always been there. And -- and --

BROOKS CAMPION: Yes.

REP. LAWLOR: -- I mean it was always -- I mean I've been here before you.

BROOKS CAMPION: With the basketball team, we had a successful -- (inaudible) -- exactly. You know, the list at the basketball games, I think we have separate teams. But -- but I would say that that --

REP. LAWLOR: -- that's sort of a self-imposed distinction in a way. You have separate basketball teams. Right? So what -- what does that say about the distinction?

ANITA SCHEPKER: But before I think that was genuine and not -- there was a genuine and healthy respect. I mean, as Brooks said, our lobbyist --

BROOKS CAMPION: Yes.

ANITA SCHEPKER: -- association is combined with unions and non -- nonprofits alike. We don't really draw that distinction.

BROOKS CAMPION: No.

ANITA SCHEPKER: But I do think there is a level of rhetoric now that's changed a bit about, well, they're not really lobbyists, they're advocates, and somehow we're lobbyist.

BROOKS CAMPION: Right

ANITA SCHEPKER: When, you know -- when we're all lobbyists. We all do a good job. We all do the best we can.

BROOKS CAMPION: Right.

ANITA SCHEPKER: -- and that's what we're supposed to do.

We're advocating for clients.

And as one of the Second Circuit judges said, You are petitioning your government to redress grievances, whether you're a person that comes up here as a constituent and you're not paid or whether you're paid to do that, that's your First Amendment right.

You get to do it. That's what we do. We disclose what we do. The difference between someone who's not paid and someone who's paid is that we disclose the information to all of you for what we do, and we abide by the rules.

BROOKS CAMPION: Yeah.

ANITA SCHEPKER: I also would like to just make another comment.

I appreciate the fact that this bill was spurred, at least on the public financing side, based on the idea of corruption. But I'd like to say, for the record, there's not been a lobbyist who's ever been -- on any side of the aisle, who's been accused of or -- of somehow violating the election process in this state.

And I would hope that that would be the case forever because I think we do take our responsibilities very seriously, in my case, both as a lawyer and a lobbyist.

REP. LAWLOR: Well, you know, I could just say, you know, based on my own perception having been here a long time. And I know both you guys. You're great. And I have no issues with -- with your ethics or anything like that. But I could -- I absolutely feel very strongly that in the last couple of years that the influence that the lobbyists have had has changed a lot here in a very, very significant way.

I hear my colleagues talk about this all the time. That the -- the -- the intimidation. I think the perceived intimidation, maybe not the actual, because I agree with you. Lobbyists have always understood and abided by the letter of the law. But I think to be on the elected official side, I think it's very intimidating to think that folks who give a lot of money to your campaign may withhold that next time.

BROOKS CAMPION: Uh-huh.

REP. LAWLOR: -- and that seems to have disappeared.

And in the discussions I've had with different people about various bills -- I mean my colleagues -- the absence of that implicit threat has made a big difference. So I guess I was asking the initial question to you, do you sense that -- maybe this is an unfair question to ask you. I'm not sure but -- you don't sense that it's more complicated for you or more difficult to get a meeting with a legislator than it had been in the past? Because I get a lot of complaints, now, that like in the Judiciary Committee, which I happen to chair, that people are angry that they can't get meetings when in the past they felt they were entitled to it because they had made contributions to people. These are just perceptions. I'm just wondering. You don't pick that up at all?

BROOKS CAMPION: I -- I think that bases of support have consolidated under the law. I think that unions are as powerful as they were. I mean so when you're saying that your colleagues are feeling the influences of the lobbying community I think I -- you would agree that lobbying from all interests groups whether it's union lobbying, special interest, or, you know, issue-based lobbying, corporate lobbying.

But in terms of access to meet, well, I don't know that it's any harder or easier than it ever -- I -- I think it's just as difficult. I think that there are things that definitely -- bill timing, things like that, you know, that we're not allowed to do.

REP. LAWLOR: I'm talking about substantive things --

BROOKS CAMPION: -- (inaudible) is very palpable but --

REP. LAWLOR: I'm not talking about ceremony.

BROOKS CAMPION: No.

REP. LAWLOR: I'm talking about substantive things?

BROOKS CAMPION: Yeah, I think --

ANITA SCHEPKER: I think maybe your point is well taken. I think that may be the case, and I would hope that it wouldn't because we were -- I would hope that the legislature wasn't doing that because this law has been put into place.

I think what we're saying at the -- for the lobbyist piece of -- of the lawsuit, Mike, that we're saying that we have -- we have issues with our spouses and our children not being able to participate in the process that we have a problem not participating on our town committees, fully.

You can say that you can participate part of the way. We're -- we are now in the position where we are afraid to do something because despite what people are saying, the rules are not clear. And it was brought out by the Second Circuit that the rules were not clear. So best for all -- and at the advice of our -- on the advice of our attorney, to take a big step back and do nothing.

BROOKS CAMPION: Right.

ANITA SCHEPKER: And I think that that's a shame because we have something to offer and to bring to the table. And I would hope that from the legislative side that people aren't saying, Oh, well, now they can't participate in the campaign process so I don't have to have a meeting with them.

I don't get that sense. But I'm a -- basically, a solo practitioner attorney with clients, and I don't get that sense right now, and I would hope that that wouldn't be the case.

REP. LAWLOR: Okay.

Well, thank you.

REP. SPALLONE: Thank you.

My question -- first of all, I just want to clarify the record. You're familiar with the case that the lobbyist association brought suit against the lobbyist ban. And Judge Underhill, the same judge who struck down parts of the Citizens' Election Program, did uphold the lobbyist ban at the trial court level; is that true?

ANITA SCHEPKER: That's true. But in his -- if you look at the end of his decision he referenced sections of the statute which triggered -- if you look at the very end of his -- he upheld pieces of it that, frankly, I think he added confusion because some of the things that he said conflicted what -- with what the FEEC had said, making our position even that more untenable. But, at the end of the case, he referenced certain sections of the law which affected our section of the law because so that triggered our ability to appeal.

And the Second Circuit granted 15 minutes on the public financing side and 15 minutes on the lobbyist ban side. And, clearly, the Second Circuit was interested in this free speech aspect and asked, I would say, several questions about our participation in the process what we could do -- examples of what we could do and not do.

I mean, we have examples where we have registered lobbyists who were invited -- whose, let's say, father was being honored at a town committee meeting, and they couldn't go because -- to that town committee meeting because that was a fundraiser for the town committee.

We have a situation where we have one of our members who was being honored by his town committee last year, along with a legislator, for his participation in the past. He was long before he was ever a lobbyist, he was a member of this town committee. He couldn't go accept his plaque and have dinner, nor did he want his children or his spouse there.

I think those are problems with the law that we have. We should be able to tell our clients, you should be able to give money to this -- this legislator, I mean, or not.

And just simply, we're playing a shell game if we say Representative so-and-so voted this way on those issues. That's telling a person. I don't care how you cut it. That's telling a person whether or not they should -- whether or not they should think about making a donation or not. We're parsing words sometimes here, and it's making it very difficult for us to function in -- in a world where we should be able to function and that is to -- to be part of the political process.

REP. SPALLONE: Okay.

Thank you.

And I'm just going to ask a question slightly different way. You had to appeal Judge Underhill's decision to the Second Circuit because you lost at the trial court; is that correct?

ANITA SCHEPKER: We appealed because we were a part of Judge Underhill's sanction, but that's correct, essentially.

REP. SPALLONE: Okay.

Thank you.

Further, your counsel, Attorney Halloran, in what you said is your written testimony, in referring to the Citizens United case, said, The United States Supreme Court specifically noted that political speech is political speech. It cannot be limited by the identity of the speaker.

And that's -- that's kind of a broad brush. The same United States Supreme Court has said it at different times that while a legislative body cannot limit the amount that a candidate can spend. It can limit the amount I can donate. So, clearly, the Court has held in the past that limits can be placed donors because of the corrupting influence whether it's a citizen or a lobbyist. Do you agree with that statement?

ANITA SCHEPKER: I agree with that statement, and, in fact, we have limits in place that in -- under the old law where we could give only up to a certain amount just like everybody else.

We also would agree with the fact that it's there for states and what states have upheld is that there are -- they have bans -- lobbyists being able to give contributions during blackout periods which, again, Connecticut had in its statue before. We were not allowed to give during the legislative session.

I don't think we're saying we want to be different from anybody else. I'm say -- I think we're saying it is difficult -- it's difficult for us under -- under any free speech argument to say that we can't participate in the process at all.

REP. SPALLONE: Thank you for you testimony.

Madam Chair?

Senator McLachlan.

SENATOR MCLACHLAN: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

And thank you, both, for your testimony today and for your free speech advocacy. I appreciate that and I've heard from constituents who are -- are lobbyists and family members. It seems to me I hear more from family members who are concerned about not being able to go to a testimonial dinner than I hear from lobbyists.

But Representative Lawlor asked an intriguing question about your perception of the change here at the Capitol since this Citizen Election Program put into place. Being a freshman, this is the only way I've seen it. So it -- it -- I don't really have anything to go on from previous experience.

But lobbyists are not excluded from the political process of donations to campaigns. And, as I understand it, lobbyists are the ones who really fund most of the Leadership PACs, the political action committees.

ANITA SCHEPKER: No. We are not allowed to donate to the Leadership PACs or participate at all. A lobbyist cannot make a campaign contribution.

BROOKS CAMPION: Nor are lobbyists related or controlled by PACs so, no, that's not true.

SENATOR MCLACHLAN: Pardon me?

Okay. Well, I understood there was a ban, but I thought that was a loophole so there -- so there is -- there is no way for you to participate?

ANITA SCHEPKER: That's correct.

BROOKS CAMPION: No.

SENATOR MCLACHLAN: Okay.

Thank you.

SENATOR SLOSSBERG: Are there any further questions?

Okay. Seeing none, thank you very much for your testimony today.

Our next speaker is Karen --

KAREN SCHUESSLER: Schuessler

SENATOR SLOSSBERG: Schuessler. Thank you.

Good afternoon.

SENATOR SLOSSBERG: Good afternoon.

Yeah. As I said my name is Karen Schuessler, and I am the director of Citizens for Economic Opportunity. CEO is a coalition of community and labor groups that address healthcare reform and corporate responsibility.

And I strongly support both bills, you know, some variations of both. I think that the Clean Elections is very important to democracy and to giving everyone a chance to run for elected office. Given the spiraling costs of the campaigns, high-profile scandals and voter distrust of elected officials, clean elections are becoming increasingly important and should not be weakened.

The Citizens' Election Program is a program that works well and, thus, it must be maintained. In the 2009 Connecticut General Assembly, 71 percent of state representatives and 89 percent of state senators were elected after participating in the Citizens' Election Program.

And the goal of public financing is to reduce the power that wealthy donors exert in campaigns and elections and corporations are allowed to give millions of dollars to one candidate.

So one goal of Clean Elections is to ensure that politicians are serving their constituents rather than corporations and, in 2006, less than half of the contributions to our candidates came from individuals. And, in 2008, 97 percent of contributions came from individuals giving the qualifying contributions to candidates. This is such a positive step for democracy and a right step to move away from the influence of lobbyists and special interest giving.

And I personally know people who are thinking of running for elected office but do not have the money to run. They are waiting to see if the Clean Election program is viable before they make a decision.

And, in 2008, in Connecticut, there was a 50 percent increase in the number of contested primaries which is good for voter participation. And all -- in fact, all of the winners of the 2008 primaries were Clean Election participants.

In addition, a Zogby poll released in January 2010, found that 79 percent of Connecticut voters strongly support the Citizens' Election Program. And when they were asked if the Governor and State Legislature should act now to amend the program to comply with the District Court ruling, 58 percent said they wanted elected officials to act so the program could be available to candidates in 2010. And the poll gave clear indications that voters are sick and tired of special interest in politics. And, in fact, 86 percent of those polled said they think that lobbyists and political insiders have more influence than average voters regarding the way election campaigns are financed.

In the past 14 months, $38 million has been cut from the Citizens' Election Program. And I realize the State is facing a huge deficit, but I really suggest that elected officials look for ways to -- to raise revenue instead of eliminating or weakening such an important program.

And it is extremely important to return our government to the people. The voice of the citizens should always be more important than corporate interests and special interests. The Preamble to the Constitution begins with the line, "We the People," and that is something that should never be forgotten in politics.

SENATOR SLOSSBERG: Thank you very much for your testimony and for waiting this afternoon.

Are there questions?

Yes, Representative Hetherington.

REP. HETHERINGTON: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

You say corporations are allowed to give millions of dollars to one candidate.

KAREN SCHUESSLER: Well, that --

REP. HETHERINGTON: On what do you base this -- base that?

KAREN SCHUESSLER: Not just one corporation can give millions but a combination of different corporations can give money to -- to elected officials, to candidates.

REP. HETHERINGTON: Are you saying corporations can make direct contributions to candidates in Connecticut?

KAREN SCHUESSLER: Yeah, through PACs, uh-huh.

REP. HETHERINGTON: Oh, through PACs. Well, PACs are available to various kinds of organizations, aren't they?

KAREN SCHUESSLER: Yeah, but some people don't have as much money to give. I mean, like unions cannot give as much money as corporations can give.

REP. HETHERINGTON: So that's the basis of that comment. Give millions of dollars to corp -- to one candidate.

KAREN SCHUESSLER: Well, you know, I'm a real proponent of healthcare reform, and I'm really disturbed by how long it's taking federal government to achieve healthcare reform. So a few months ago, you know, I looked on the websites for, you know, how much the elected officials are getting from insurance companies and pharmaceutical companies. And both parties are getting a tremendous amount of money, you know, through insurance companies and pharmaceutical companies. And -- and you know I -- another argument made here today that this is costing taxpayers money but if we had healthcare reform -- you know, in this state health insurance premiums have risen 8 percent more than workers' earnings for the past seven years. And every time people go to the emergency room, here in Connecticut, when they don't have health insurance, we are spending $750 per person more in health insurance. So I think the program pays for itself in that way. That's the point that I was trying to make.

Corporations giving a lot of money to elected officials.

REP. HETHERINGTON: Well, you referenced the fact that Connecticut has some fiscal problems at the moment. And one of the other committees I'm on is Appropriations, and I've listened to these hearings in the evening, and people are losing their homes. They don't have the advocates that they once did. The private providers are stressed in caring for the most vulnerable population. If you believe that this should be fully funded, where would you make cuts?

KAREN SCHUESSLER: Well, I would start -- there's combined reporting in the states, which, you know, when a company has a -- a -- like a subsidiary company in a different state that doesn't have corporate taxes, they don't -- they don't have to pay the tax. And if you add them together -- if Connecticut had combined reporting, if you added them together, you could get revenue that way.

There's --

REP. HETHERINGTON: So --

KAREN SCHUESSLER: -- progressive income tax.

There's -- there's film tax credit that gave 400 -- $42 million to the insurance industry in 2007, to companies, like Bank of America and Comcast, so there's various ways to raise revenue through --

REP. HETHERINGTON: So you'd raise -- you'd solve it on the revenue side?

KAREN SCHUESSLER: Well, yeah. I would look a little harder.

REP. HETHERINGTON: Are you aware that -- that 80 percent of the Connecticut income tax is now paid by 20 percent of the taxpayers? They ought to pay it all, right? They ought to pay the whole thing.

KAREN SCHUESSLER: Who has to pay the whole thing?

REP. HETHERINGTON: Well, I'm saying -- I asked you if you were aware that 20 percent of the Connecticut taxpayers, income taxpayers --

KAREN SCHUESSLER: -- pay 80 percent.

REP. HETHERINGTON: -- pay 80 percent of the income tax.

KAREN SCHUESSLER: They pay a smaller amount of their total income than the people on the bottom end, though. We pay like 12 percent. But if --

REP. HETHERINGTON: So -- so you -- you think we should raise it to 12 percent.

KAREN SCHUESSLER: No. I'm just saying that it should just be more, you know, like more progressive.

REP. HETHERINGTON: Should be more progressive?

KAREN SCHUESSLER: Uh-huh.

SENATOR SLOSSBERG: Representative Hetherington?

REP. HETHERINGTON: What?

SENATOR SLOSSBERG: Are -- are -- are you done with your line of questioning?

REP. HETHERINGTON: Yes. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

SENATOR SLOSSBERG: Thank you, Representative.

Are there any other questions?

Thank you very much for your testimony.

Our next speaker is Peter Thor.

Good afternoon.

PETER THOR: Good afternoon.

Chairman Slossberg, members of the GAE, I am Peter Thor. I'm the director of Policy and Planning for Council 4 AFSCME. Council 4 has about 35,000 public, nonprofit, and private employees in the state of Connecticut. AFSCME, with all its affiliates, represents slightly over 55,000 citizens of Connecticut.

I'm here to speak in favor of passing the bill to amend and preserve Connecticut's campaign finance reform system. And many of the things that we will say here and put on record have been said already.

Thank you for holding this hearing to address these very important proposals that address the challenges from the District Court ruling and potential challenge from the Second Circuit Court. Both House Bills 5021 and 5 -- 5022 go a long way to addressing the court challenges and financial challenges facing the state.

The Rowland corruption scandal showed the disturbing relationship between a governor and his cronies receiving large campaign dona -- donations for gifts and then seeming to award state contracts and qua -- to -- and quasi pub -- public con -- contracts to those donors. Common Cause said it right when it said, The trail of corruption begins on the campaign trail.

State taxpayers lost through contract deals more that $200 million in the CRRA-Enron scandal; 57 million in the Connecticut Juvenile Training School debacle; and another 13 million in the MAXIMUS child care mess; 3 million in the electronic data systems failure; and more than 1 million in the CRRA-MDC truck giveaway to the Manafort Company that Attorney General Blumenthal recently reported on.

What does all this -- excuse me a minute -- what do all these scandals have in column -- common? The -- the private tier corporations involved gave big campaign dotion -- donations to the Rowland administration prior to receiving those contracts.

A recent Zogby poll showed -- it appears that my egg has boiled.

SENATOR SLOSSBERG: If you just summarize your --

PETER THOR: Very, very quickly, it's --

SENATOR SLOSSBERG: -- final statement then.

PETER THOR: A recent Zogby poll showed that 79 percent of Connecticut residents support the CEP. And when asked if the State can afford the CEP in the state deficit, only 21 percent agreed while 60 -- 68 percent wanted the CEP to prevent the special deals that the lobbyists and the state contractors used to receive prior to this.

Thank you.

SENATOR SLOSSBERG: Thank you very much for your testimony.

Are there any questions?

Seeing none, thank you.

PETER THOR: Thank you.

SENATOR SLOSSBERG: Our next speaker is William Jenkins.

And after that we'll be moving on to the elected officials list for those who are here, and then I believe we've got an additional list after that, and then we'll be having a conversation about our procedures going forward.

Good afternoon, sir.

WILLIAM JENKINS: Good afternoon, Chairman Slossberg and members of the GAE committee.

My name is Bill Jenkins. I'm here to talk about HB5022, AN ACT CONCERNING THE CITIZENS' ELECTION PROGRAM.

Presently, I am a treasurer for a political committee organized by two or more individuals, and I am the treasurer for State Representative Mike Albert's 2010 candidate committee. I have been serving as a treasurer for 14 years for quite a number of campaigns and political committees. I am a member of the State -- Connecticut Republican State Central Committee, and I serve as the secretary of that committee. I am also the Republican Registrar of Voters in Chaplin.

This bill appears to be an attempt to fix Chapter 157 of the Connecticut General Statues, otherwise known as the Citizens' Election Program, which was declared unconstitutional by Judge Stefan Underhill mostly because the present law unfairly discriminates against petitioning candidates and minor party candidates.

Simply put, current election law allows a petitioning candidate to gain access to the ballot by obtaining petition signatures from qualified electors to the lesser of 1 percent of the votes cast for the same office or offices at the last preceding election. However, Chapter 157 presently requires these same candidates to obtain signatures from 10 percent in order to qualify for a one-third grant, 15 percent for a two-thirds grant, and 20 percent for a full grant.

This bill lowers those petition thresholds from 10, 15 and 20 to 3, 4, 5, respectively, 3-4-5 thing that you've been talking about earlier.

Unfortunately, I'm of the opinion that Judge Underhill is still going to determine that once again that this law is continuing to discriminate against petitioning and minor party candidates if you were to pass the bill in its present form. I think this would be the death of the Citizens' Election Program and while I, personally, may like that I -- I'm not saying that I don't support the program, I don't agree with it, but I -- my main purpose for coming here is to try to give you some sort of insight and -- a proposed solution to help you keep this program.

And -- and so my question would be why does a candidate need to only collect 1 percent to get on the ballot, yet collect -- yet need to collect three times the signatures in order to qualify for a one-third grant, four times for -- to qualify for a two-thirds grant, and fives time that to qualify for a full grant?

I would suggest that we change the ballot access thresholds specified in 9-453(d) from 1 percent to 5 percent and give petitioning and minor party candidates the same level of grants you give major party candidates and forget about the incremental levels. If a candidate has access to the ballot, then they all deserve to be treated equally. I think that this is a message that the Judge is sending in this case.

SENATOR SLOSSBERG: Can you just summarize?

WILLIAM JENKINS: Yeah. That's -- I -- okay, one thing.

SENATOR SLOSSBERG: I think that was a pretty good summary.

WILLIAM JENKINS: Okay. One thing I do agree that the candidates and of the things that this bill does is that you don't give any grants to unopposed candidates, which I think is a good thing so --

SENATOR SLOSSBERG: Let's end on a good note then.

WILLIAM JENKINS: Yes.

SENATOR SLOSSBERG: Terrific.

Are there any question? Thank you so much for your testimony today --

WILLIAM JENKINS: Okay, thank you.

SENATOR SLOSSBERG: -- and for the work that you do and for being a regular at the GAE Committee.

WILLIAM JENKINS: All right.

SENATOR SLOSSBERG: Okay. Having said that, we're going to try to balance out the fact that we've got a list of public officials, and we still have some members of the public who have been waiting. So we're going to go one off each list. So I think our next speaker is Representative Corky Mazurek, and after that will be followed by Mike DeRosa.

REP. MAZUREK: Good afternoon, Senator Slossberg --

SENATOR SLOSSBERG: Good afternoon.

REP. MAZUREK: -- and members -- that are remaining of the GAE Committee.

I was prepared to testify this morning, but we did run out of time.

I would like to offer some testimony concerning the Citizens Election Fund and the State Elections Enforcement. While it's well known that I'm not in favor of publicly funded campaigns, I do offer these suggestions in the spirit of improving the current statute and program.

I believe that all candidates that qualify by delegate convention or petition signatures should be able to qualify for the same grant amounts. I think it would be a terrible misjustice -- injustice if we were to pass a new law and, again, have it ruled unconstitutional in some form, way, shape, whatever. I think when we go forward with this, we want to make very, very certain that whatever we pass will, in fact, pass constitutional muster should someone challenge the law in the future.

Number two, contributions raised to qualify for grants must be verifiable as district, town, residence. I had a primary a couple of years ago. During that primary, it came to our attention that almost 30 percent of the contributions that were made to my opposing candidate were, in fact, from people who didn't live in the district and were not verifiable as living in the district. In other words, Smith lived with Jones; White lived with -- with a different family. There were, in fact, no way to ascertain whether, in fact, they were qualifying contributions.

When we looked at the contribution list, we found a large number, in fact, a number large enough that would not qualify this candidate. We found a large number that you could not verify as being within the district; roads, which did not exist; names, which did not exist. They weren't on the voter list. They weren't on the motor vehicle list as paying property taxes. They weren't on the list -- the property tax list as having owned a house.

I'd like you to further define -- the Committee to further define what would be a coordinated expenditure. During that primary campaign, which was August 2008, we, in fact, made a couple of complaints to the State Elections Enforcement Committee that I felt was a coordinated expenditure between CCAG and my opponent.

To date, almost 17 months later, State Elections Enforcement has not rendered a decision on either one of those complaints that we filed with them.

I'd like you to issue strict guidelines to the SEEC to investigate election complaints, and, in fact, have some sort of system in place that you could appeal their decision or appeal, if, in fact, they don't make a decision. I think we shouldn't burden our already clogged court system with something where we'd have to go to court and say, We didn't get a decision out of the SEEC, would you please force them to rule.

And, last, I would like you to issue strict guidelines to the SEEC on performing election filing audits. During December of 2008, SEEC requested, from my campaign, all of our financial records, which were copied and sent to the SEEC. They acknowledge that in December of 2008. Fourteen months later, as a matter of fact, just a couple of weeks ago, SEEC sent a -- an email to my campaign treasurer requesting a copy of all the cancelled checks from our campaign.

Since the account has been closed with the bank, the bank has stated that each cancelled check will be $5 for them to resurrect those records. That would be a $400 expenditure to supply what, in fact, we believe was supplied 14 months ago.

I think that the audit should have been conducted 14 months ago when the information was submitted to the SEEC, and that we shouldn't be going through this now at this late date.

I'd be happy to answer any questions that the Committee might have for me.

SENATOR SLOSSBERG: Thank you for being here and for, you know, waiting the day, a big issue obviously. Lots of people interested in talking about and have lots of questions.

I'm just wondering, I realize you said that this is not your -- your favorite program in the first -- in the first place, but I appreciate the fact that you're here also with some ideas of how to make it better. And we're focusing today more on, you know, the specifics with regard to the opinion that the Judge has rendered and where we may be after the -- after the Second Circuit rules.

I'm wondering what you would think about having greater in-town contributions being part of the threshold. So, you know, you talked a little bit about contributions being verifiable, which suggests to me that that's something that you care about that this is actually something that comes from in town and in the district in terms of your contributions.

Do you have any feelings about whether, you know, if we were to continue to have the current dollar thresholds, and then you'd have your contributions from in the district but there also be a monetary amount so, for example, half the money that you raise in district as a state rep as a threshold would have to be from in your town in your district?

REP. MAZUREK: Senator, I didn't have a particular problem meeting either of the criteria. If you were to have said, Well, half of the 5,000 dollars needs to come from the towns that I represent. I probably wouldn't have a problem with that. The only thing I would suggest is that depending upon what district you represent it certainly does give someone an easier time raising that amount of money within the towns.

We have some state representatives who, in fact, represent four or five towns, couple of towns very, very large. We have other state representatives who -- who, in fact, represent a very small area or, in fact, a very poor area in -- in a particular city and they would have difficulties meeting that.

The only thing that I would ask is that when we do it, there's some form of verification that, in fact, that money came from town. I don't want see anyone be able to be put in a position where they can throw $500 in and make up a 100 names and put them down and say, Well, I've collected my qualifying contributions with no way to verify that, in fact, those people reside in town or pay taxes in town or they're voters in town.

SENATOR SLOSSBERG: All right. Thank you very much.

Are there other questions?

Representative Labriola.

REP. LABRIOLA: Thank you.

Representative Mazurek, how you doing?

REP. MAZUREK: I'm well. How are you?

REP. LABRIOLA: Good. So you had two complaints. One had to do with these nonqualifying names and addresses; is that right?

REP. MAZUREK: That's -- that's right. One had to do with the amount that was -- was claimed as a qualification. My opponent had collected something like $5,020 and, in fact, we had at least 80 or 100 dollars that we know for certain couldn't have existed because of the names or streets that didn't exist, et cetera. They couldn't have possibly come from within the district. So the -- the complaint was the opponent didn't meet the $5,000 threshold and, therefore, shouldn't have qualified for $10,000 from the State.

REP. LABRIOLA: Right. And then the second one had to do with your opponent's campaign manager who worked for the group that -- that made this -- this supposedly noncoordinated expenditure but you -- you said that it certainly appears as though it was a coordinated expenditure.

REP. MAZUREK: Well, I would say it was coordinated because her campaign manager, in fact, was working for this particular organization, and I would have at least liked SEEC to have ruled on whether that should be viewed as a coordinated expenditure or whether, in their opinion, that that was an allowable expenditure.

REP. LABRIOLA: Okay. So now you made that complaint -- or your treasurer made that complaint on your -- on your campaign's behalf in August of '08?

REP. MAZUREK: August of 08, yes, sir.

REP. LABRIOLA: And you still haven't received a response?

REP. MAZUREK: Have not heard anything from SEEC as to whether they have taken up the complaint and how they've ruled on either one of the facets.

REP. LABRIOLA: And, yet, that same opponent filed a somewhat similar complaint against your campaign and that was investigated quickly.

REP. MAZUREK: That was investigated within two or three days. It had to do with a realtors sending out a mailer on my behalf in the last week of the campaign. And when the coordinated expenditure was raised as a complaint by my opponent, that investigation was conducted within two or three days, my recollection is.

REP. LABRIOLA: Thank you.

SENATOR SLOSSBERG: Thank you.

Are there any other questions?

Thank you so much for your testimony today.

Oh, I'm sorry, Senator Mc Lachlan

SENATOR MCLACHLAN: I had a question, sorry.

Thank you for your testimony. I -- I wonder if you could elaborate a little bit more about the concern of coordinated expenditure and -- and it was ruled as not coordinating expenditure but you -- you felt that it was and if you could elaborate more on that please?

REP. MAZUREK: Yes, Senator, thank you, and thank you for the opportunity to clarify that.

It was not ruled as not being a coordinating or not coordinated expenditure. To my knowledge, it was not ruled on at all, and that's why I asked that we put some kind of time frame on these complaints to be taken up by State Elections Enforcement. If you file a complaint August '08, it should be taken up in a timely manner so that we can get some kind of ruling on it. In this particular case, a director of CCAG ran my opponents campaign which, I feel is a coordinated expenditure between CCAG and my opponent. And, in fact, State Elections didn't hear that complaint at all.

SENATOR MCLACHLAN: And so would you suggests that it -- it would require some type of supplemental grant as a result of this? I'm trying to get the end of what you anticipate should be done.

REP. MAZUREK: I don't know whether it should require a supplemental grant or simply -- I'm probably looking for better definition in our statute that says this is a coordinated expenditure, and it's simply not allowed.

SENATOR MCLACHLAN: And finally, you -- you filed a formal complaint in August of 2008 and was there an acknowledgment the complaint was received?

REP. MAZUREK: Yes, there was.

SENATOR MCLACHLAN: And did the acknowledgment indicate what the next steps would be?

REP. MAZUREK: The acknowledgment said, We have received your complaint, dated August 26, 2008, and we are investigating.

SENATOR MCLACHLAN: Thank you.

SENATOR SLOSSBERG: Okay. Are there any other questions?

Yes, Representative Drew.

REP. DREW: Thank you.

Representative Mazurek, how are you? Thank you for being here.

REP. MAZUREK: I'm fine, thank you.

REP. DREW: I want to understand better the issue about the campaign manager of your opponent.

Am I understanding it correct, though, that the objection that you have couldn't that also be said about any campaign manager with respect to that campaign manager's employer or any -- any other organization the campaign manager would be affiliated with -- couldn't the same charge be made?

REP. MAZUREK: I believe, Representative, it could. If, in fact, the employer was giving the employee time off, paying for their time, and knowing that they were running a particular campaign. Yeah, I would think it would be a coordinated expenditure.

REP. DREW: Thank you.

SENATOR SLOSSBERG: All right.

Any further questions? All right.

Thank you very much for your testimony

REP. MAZUREK: Thank you.

SENATOR SLOSSBERG: Appreciate it.

Our next speaker is Mike DeRosa, and after that we'll be going to Jeff Wright.

MIKE DEROSA: Hello. I want to thank the committee for having an opportunity to speak to you today.

I wanted to speak specifically about neutrality. I am the cochair of the Connecticut Green Party. I'm also a litigant in this lawsuit. We're very, shall we say, discouraged that you have continued to put into 5022, a petitioning requirement for minor parties. And we would like you to reconsider that. We would like this based on the evidence.

If you go to Arizona, if you go to Maine, there's no requirement for petitioning. There isn't any other campaign finance law in the United States that requires petitioning for minor parties or independent candidates. So it's a very novel approach and, of course, we've had a very novel lawsuit to respond to that novel approach. And we think that it's highly discriminatory, capricious, and, quite frankly, it's an attempt to suppress free speech. And we believe that the judge in our case, Judge Underhill, understands this and made it very clear that he's going to apply strict scrutiny to this case, and we'll take it from there.

I think there are lots of other things that we could talk about. For example, the use of the Governor as a litmus test for determining what a major party is. The Judge determined in the case that the use of the Governor, as a litmus test for that was, quote/unquote, illegal and unconstitutional so I don't know whether that's going to be addressed.

There's the other trigger provisions, which I've run into personally, because when I ran for state senate, I had the dubious situation of if I simply -- if my can -- if a major party candidate is running in the First District, Senatorial District and he's breathing, he gets $26,900. If I enter the race, merely say, I'm going to enter the race, he now gets $50,000. If I qualify for the first tier and get my $26,900, he now goes up to $90,000. Somehow, the Judge thought that was a bit unconstitutional so that needs to be addressed as well.

We're not allowed to have primaries or qualify for money in your -- under primaries because primaries for minor parties and independent candidates or specifically minor parties, it's not allowed under Connecticut law.

For the sake of clarity, the organizational expenditures that were mentioned earlier, I don't think people were completely transparent in their testimony because there are 366 town committees that can give unlimited funding in statewide elections, along with the eight committees that are legislative committees, which, by the way, are four Democrats and four Republicans, and we feel that this undermines the concept that there should be a -- a cap on the amount of money.

If we're going to be talking about campaign finance reform and not campaign finance deform, we need to talk about limiting the amount of money that's being spent. That's the keystone of the campaigns finance program, and this is end-run, the organizational expenditure, and end-run around this. And so, consequently, I don't understand why they're there. The fact that there not being used to any great extent is not proof that it will not be used, and it's not legal or constitutional.

And furthermore, I believe that -- what are we doing here? What is the reason for campaigns? Why do we have campaigns? Let's be a little mindful of what was going on here. My idea here in terms of -- and what the Green Party believes is that campaigns are about healthy choices for people, and their ability to understand the programs, the platforms of individual parties and individual candidates.

It seems to me we lost sight of what that is all about. It's the purest form of First Amendment expression. And, to me, it seems very straightforward and clear that this is not being dealt with -- with our present legislation with all these various organizational needs and reporting requirements, and so forth and so on.

So I know my time's up. If you have questions, I'd be happy to respond to you.

SENATOR SLOSSBERG: Okay. Thank you very much for your testimony. I appreciate it.

Can you just tell me for the -- the Green -- you're -- you're -- here representing the Green Party? Is there a state party that's the Green Party?

MIKE DEROSA: Yes, there is.

SENATOR SLOSSBERG: Okay, and are there town committees for the Green Party?

MIKE DEROSA: We have one town committee in New London.

SENATOR SLOSSBERG: Okay. Is there any law that we have that prevents the Green Party from developing town committees?

MIKE DEROSA: No, there is not.

SENATOR SLOSSBERG: Okay.

MIKE DEROSA: Of course, in our stage of development, we're attempting to enter the political process. We want to jump in the pool, and, quite frankly, I shouldn't have to prove to you that I can swim the English Channel twice in one day in order to jump in the political pool.

To put it another way, the Judge in his -- used the metaphor, he said what happens if you have five people in a park and you give a megaphone to two of them. Does that diminish the free speech rights of the other three? He also mentioned the fact that supposed we're in an auditorium and one person is given a PA system and the other person is not allowed to have that PA system, what happens to the tens rows in the back where people can't hear the message?

So I think, you know, we're killing the messenger here. Third parties have a significant and have always had a significant role to play in the political process in U.S. American history. We will never have universal healthcare in this country without a third party. We will never have peace without a third party. We will never have change in this society. We will have first level change. We will never have second level change because we will have simply the continuation of the process, which has put us right here in the midst of a depression, in economic disaster. And if you stymie new thought and new ideas you are not stymieing us. You are stymieing your future.

SENATOR SLOSSBERG: Okay.

Representative Spallone.

REP. SPALLONE: Yes.

Thank you, sir, for your testimony. Does -- does public financing in a -- in a bill that is more suitable to -- to you in your view, a party neutral bill. Does it provide the Green Party and similarly situated parties an unprecedented opportunity, if it's repaired to your liking, to challenge the status quo in the existing two-party structure?

MIKE DEROSA: If it's party neutral it is. We have an example in Maine. The requirements there are $40,000 to enter the gubernatorial race, 3500 donations of $5 each. There has not been a proliferation of candidates. There's no mischief candidates appearing. We haven't seen even a large number of gubernatorial candidates appear to attack the public fisc.

So all the evidence that -- all the bogeymen that are being raised here about what will happen if we open the system up to all political parties just doesn't hold any water.

The same is true of Arizona. The same is true of all the other campaign finance laws that exist across the country and the Judge delineates this in the case. There's about 22 of them.

So why is it, in Connecticut, that we need to have petitioning to -- to have -- and if indeed this is a true litmus test of who is legitimate party and which isn't, why don't you apply the same standards to Republicans and Democrats? Why don't you require them to go out and get petitioning for 5 percent? I would be happy for that or 10 percent or 20 percent.

What we're talking about in the gubernatorial elections that's coming up is we'd have to collect 55,000 valid signatures, which means that we