The Tripod

The College hosted a common hour event called "Connecticut's Citizen Election Program: Amplifying the Voice of the People or Silencing Free Speech".

The program consisted of a debate on the topic, featuring expert panelists State Representative Matthew Lesser, State Representative Gary A. Holder-Winfield, Policy Director for the Yankee Institute for Public Policy Heath Fahle, and Senior Organizer for the Common Cause of Connecticut Kim Hynes.

Professor of Political Science Diana Evans served as moderator for the event, held on Thursday, Oct. 29. Connecticut's television network, CT-N, came to cover the debate, which ultimately sought to educate Trinity students and the greater public about the unique way that local campaigns are, or could be, funded.

Connecticut's Citizen Election Program was passed in 2005, in the wake of several political corruption scandals. The program works toward eliminating the need for candidates to fund their campaigns with private interest money.

They accomplish this by first asking candidates to raise a certain amount of money, depending on the position they are vying for, of small, individual contributions ($5 to $100) from their constituents. If they meet this threshold, they qualify for public election grants.

Candidates pledge to raise no more money and only use the public grants for campaign expeditures, and if a participating candidate is outspent by a nonparticipating candidate, the program will award its participant with matching funds.

After an introduction by Hynes, a strong advocate for the program, Democratic Representative from New Haven Holder-Winfield spoke on the benefits of being a participant.

He appreciates that the program encourages candidates to interact with voters more than ever, and referred to this era in Connecticut in politics as "returning to the people." Holder said this was an important challenge for public officials to take on after Connecticut's political system had turned the state into "Corrupticut."

He also took on the argument that the program shouldn't be taking money away from the taxpayer. "People say that money belongs to the taxpayer, but so does the government," he said. By this logic, perhaps people should be willing to make a small contribution to ensure the fair elections of their representatives, as well as additional time for attention from the candidate.

Democractic Representative Lesser of Middletown echoed these praises.

He enjoyed being able to meet with every constituent, time that otherwise would have been spent having to raise $30,000 to fund his campaign. He can now prioritze listening to the people voting, and not necessarily just the people with money.

Lesser brought up the idea that candidates' need to raise money inherently corrupts politics, and called the program a "gem" that has brought Connecticut "a long way" since its "long, dirty, sordid history" in corruption.

Fahle, however, has a bone to pick with the program. While he agrees that the system needed reform, he and the Yankee Institute are concerned that "before asking the government to take a role, we must ask ourselves if [the program is] a a legitimate application of government power."

Based on the Institute's study of the program in the 2008 election, Fahle said that it had been largely ineffective.

He cited the standards of the U.S. Government Accountability Office that the Program failed to meet, including the promotion of competitive elections (where candidates are voted for by less than a 15 percent difference), and high turnover (a diminished retention rates of incumbents).

For example, with the program, the retention rate of the State Senate dropped only from 100 percent to 97 percent.

He also mentioned the recent ruling of District Court Judge Stefan R. Underhill, which struck down the program as unconstitutional, partially because it tends to leave our minor parties and petitioning candidates.

Hynes addressed a few of Fahle's points, saying that while the 2008 election may have not have substantially changed the legislature in the Senate, it did have a more significant impact in the House.

Lesser conceded that the program does somewhat discourage third party candidates, but only in the way that they must prove that they are serious candidates.

As the program currently stands, there are different rules for major party candidates than for minor party candidates, making it tougher for minor parties to compete. He said one way to improve the program might be to make the rules the same for both groups. 

Both sides of the debate presented riveting arguments on the pros and cons of the state's Citizen's Election Program.

Hynes concluded with a comment on a contemporary federal issue, asking the audience to consider that one of the reasons that health care reform is having problems being passed is because of the private money that the program wants to do away with.

Namely, private insurance companies have spent as much as $1.4 million per day to fight the legislation, severely influencing the outcome of its success. She believes that this kind of system should not prevail in Connecticut's state government.

For those seeking more infomration regarding the Citizen's Election Program, please visit www.CitizensElection.org.

Article Tools