Governor M. Jodi Rell and Republican and Democratic legislative leaders agreed Monday to come up with a response to a ruling last August by a US District Court judge that Connecticut’s Citizens’ Election Program (CEP) is unconstitutional. The CEP public financing system for candidates running for state office was created in 2005; it was the result of negotiations between the Republican governor and the Democratic Legislature over how best to combat and protect against the kind of corruption that led to the resignation and incarceration of former governor John Rowland. The CEP also banned contributions to those who opted into the program from lobbyists, state contractors, and their spouses.

Last summer, however, a US District Court Judge ruled that the program favored major parties over minor parties, creating unconstitutional advantages for some candidates and not others. Unless the Second Circuit Court Appeals overturns the ruling, Connecticut’s 2010 statewide elections could reinstate special interest groups representing corporate and union groups as the primary underwriters of the state’s political process — and primary beneficiaries of that privileged position of influence.

The popularity and success of the CEP was amply demonstrated in 2008 when roughly 75 percent of the candidates running for legislative offices used the public finance system. This year will be the first time candidates for the state’s top elective offices would be eligible for public financing. The presumed availability of funding that would make every candidate competitive has attracted a record number of potential candidates from both the Republican and Democratic parties. Unless the Legislature can fix the CEP to the court’s satisfaction or the existing system is upheld on appeal, that field — and voters’ choices — will be narrowed significantly, and the state will likely be presented with a gubernatorial race featuring one Republican multimillionaire and one Democratic multimillionaire.

In an era of state budget deficits of a half-billion dollars or more, this may not seem like the best time to spend millions more on financing campaigns. But in a time when the same-old political same-old seems to be exacerbating our problems rather than solving them, perhaps this relatively modest investment in unearthing new ideas and new approaches outside the ruts worn deep by rushing rivers of special interest money still makes good sense.

We urge the governor and the Legislature to quickly address the federal court’s constitutional concerns over the fairness of the existing law so Connecticut’s 2010 state elections can proceed with a full complement of candidates and a full menu of options for the future.