Full Text:

CARE TO BUY AN ELECTION?

Elections need,

An antidote;

When corporations,

Buy our vote.

Barring the appearance of comet Hale-Bopp at the General Assembly, it seems

that serious campaign finance reform has been gutted for yet another year.

Republicans on the Finance Committee voted unanimously to delete public

financing from the bill, and Democrats were divided.

You can't blame the Republicans, really. They're running an incumbent governor

who is a virtual printing press for campaign money. He supports every known

business special interest, and they in turn support him. In 1994 he raised

$3.9 million. In 1998, don't bet against $6 million. That's probably double

what any Democrat can raise. If you were a Republican, wouldn't you vote

against reform too?

Democratic leaders, well aware of this campaign calculus, naturally tend to

support reform, at least for governor. They know that big business has finally

got its act together in terms of buying elections, and they're buying

Republican. Thus, barring major reform, it seems unlikely that Democrats will

ever again be able to compete effectively in fund-raising for top offices. For

example, if a moderate Democratic president like Bill Clinton can be seriously

outspent by a Republican challenger, what chance will a Democratic

non-incumbent have? For Dems, it's the same dark scenario for governor.

Why, then, did so many Democrats oppose reform? Well, this bill doesn't cover

just the governor. It covers the General Assembly too. And legislative races

work a bit differently. Corporate spenders are less likely to get involved.

That means that entrenched Democratic incumbents still have a good chance of

outspending Republican challengers. And needless to say, only incumbents get

to vote on the bill. So even though "reform" may sound great, if you're a

lawmaker doing just fine under the present system, why rock the boat? Let the

candidates for governor look out for themselves.

Disappointed at what happened in the Finance Committee, Speaker of the House

Tom Ritter vows to reopen the issue when debate reaches the floor. Good luck!

The Republicans to a man, or woman, remain joined at the hip with the special

interests. It would be amazing if a single one voted for reform. And plenty of

Democrats feel safely entrenched. Therefore it sounds as though the speaker

may be blowing smoke when he talks about an amendment to restore public

financing. Where are the votes?

The best chance may be an amendment which only covers the governor and the

other four statewide offices. Forget the General Assembly for now. The money

spent on its races is appalling to be sure, but it's the governor who awards

the juicy contracts and protects the fat cats from pesky lawmakers. His is the

race where it's most important to level the playing field.

A narrower amendment like that might fly in the House, where the Democrats

enjoy a big margin, but the Senate is different. The Dems there only rule

19-17, and their leader, Kevin Sullivan, opposes public financing. A single

defection would be curtains, and Governor Rowland has wisely been buttering up

some of the Democratic senators. Still, it's worth a shot.

No, it wouldn't be pleasant to give up trying to reform legislative campaigns.

They're awful. Democrat Tom Ganim spent over $225,000 running for the Senate

last year. You don't even want to know where his money came from. Besides, he

lost. A couple winners spent $175,000. By contrast, this bill would set the

Senate cap at $75,000. Sure, that cap is voluntary, but in Nebraska, where

it's already in effect, not one candidate exceeded it last year. Now that's

reform.

But for now, there are no limits at all in Connecticut. Feel free to buy an

election, if you like. There are plenty of loopholes to make it possible. It's

getting expensive though, so I wouldn't advise trying it unless the

legislature can help you make a real bundle.

( Bill Collins, a former mayor of Norwalk, is a syndicated columnist. )