Gov. Malloy Vetoes Campaign Finance Bill

Gov. Dannel P. Malloy on Friday vetoed a controversial campaign finance bill that drew opposition from civil liberties groups and business leaders.

House Bill 5556, which cleared both chambers of the General Assembly in the waning days of the session, would have instituted several sweeping changes to the rules governing the way elections in Connecticut are financed.

But Malloy concluded it would have gone too far and some portions of it could have been deemed unconstitutional. “House Bill 5556 would have a chilling effect on issue advocacy  and neutral debates about matters of public concern that should be the hallmark of our democracy,” the governor wrote in his three-page veto message.

Malloy noted he has long been an advocate of transparency in campaign finance but added, “I cannot support the bill before me given its many legal and practical problems.”

The Connecticut chapter of Common Cause, a leading proponent of the measure, released a statement expressing disappointment in the governor’s decision.

“Common Cause believes he has squandered an opportunity to pass the strongest disclosure bill in the country” said Cheri Quickmire, Executive director of the Connecticut branch.  “When Governor Rell and leaders in the House and Senate chose to reject the corruption of the past and pass into law the Citizens’ Election program in 2005, Connecticut became a leader in the nation for campaign finance reform.  That reform is at risk from secret special interest spending in our state elections.  HB 5556 would have strengthened our landmark program.

“Unfortunately, the citizens of Connecticut will now be left in the dark about who is funding the millions of dollars that will be spent in Connecticut state races this fall, which leaves our state open to the corrupting influence of independent expenditures,” Quickmire added.

The bill was opposed to an unlikely alliance of interests, including the pro-business Connecticut Business and Industry Association and the Connecticut chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union.

The ACLU said the measure would have likely violated the right to free association, as guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution, by requiring groups to identify individual donors.

Andrew Schneider, executive director of the ACLU of Connecticut, praised what it called Malloy’s “principled stand.”

“Gov. Malloy recognizes that meaningful reform of campaign finance is possible without compromising the right to freedom of speech guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution,” Schneider said. “The bill didn’t achieve that balance. The governor’s veto provides a chance to try again, and to get it right.”

Malloy agreed. “Whether an individual wishes to associate with an organization — whether it is the ACLU  or the NRA — the First Amendment protects the right to do so anonymously,” he wrote.

CBIA strongly objected to a portion of the bill that would have instituted broad new reporting requirements regarding campaign contributions. It would have required the boards of directors of any corporation or nonprofit to vote every time that entity spent more than $4,000 in a political expenditure.

Currently, large corporations only convene their boards for huge issues and never sign off on spending as low as $4,000. The board would not only need to convene, but the vote by the board would need to be published on the company’s website within 48 hours. The corporations said that board of directors are not involved in the day-to-day operations of the corporation and only set broad policies. A lower-level employee in the company would be approving expenses at the level of $4,000.

The state’s newspapers were also opposed to the proposal. Under the interpretation of the bill by the Connecticut Daily Newspapers Association, papers that sponsor a political debate would be required to calculate “the value of the debate — i.e., set-up, airtime, advertising, etc. — coupled with the broadcasting of such debate” as an “independent expenditure” that would need to be reported publicly under the recently approved campaign finance bill.

The bill also contains a provision that would permit members of the military serving overseas to return their absentee ballots by fax or email, provided they waive their right to a secret ballot.

Malloy said he found that, too, problematic. “I do not support any mechanism of voting that would require an individual to waive his or her constitutional rights in order to cast a timely, secret ballot, even if such waiver is voluntary,” he wrote.

Malloy also pointed out that the state’s chief elections official, Secretary of the State Denise Merrill, had concerns about the proposal, including the fact that permitting citizens to vote by fax or email has not been proven secure.