Jonathan Kantrowitz

What a day it has been – Rell puts forward a good proposal to save CEP – Blumenthal shoots Bysiewicz down, and now Blumenthal sides with Republicans against the Obama administration:

The following is a statement from Attorney General Richard Blumenthal, Democratic candidate for U.S.Senate, on the issue of whether Khalid Sheikh Mohammed should be tried in a civilian criminal court or in a military tribunal:

“As Attorney General and a former US Attorney for Connecticut, I have the utmost confidence in our civilian judicial system to try and convict suspected terrorists, as it has done successfully multiple times. But I also believe that military tribunals can serve an important role in prosecuting acts of terrorism, especially crimes committed by enemy combatants attacking our nation.

My belief is that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed should be tried in a military tribunal. He is an enemy combatant who attacked our nation – a foreign national with training and direction by foreign terrorist groups, supported by foreign governments. The most important goal in his and every prosecution is to effectively try, convict and punish terrorists and enemy combatants, presumably by execution. Other reasons for using a military tribunal in this case relate to admissibility of evidence and protection of secret and valuable intelligence. His horrific terrorist attack – arguably a war crime – is clearly one appropriate for a military tribunal.

As Attorney General of the State, as well as a former federal prosecutor, my view is that individual cases must be assessed on their particular specific facts as the law applies to them. Ultimately, our national interests and security are best served by making such decisions based on facts and law to achieve successful prosecution and the most severe punishment.”

Not good news for Susan Bysiewicz:

Attorney General, Richard Blumenthal

Febraury 2, 2010

The Honorable Susan Bysiewicz
Secretary of the State
State Capitol

210 Capitol Avenue

Hartford, CT 06106

Dear Secretary Bysiewicz:

This letter responds to your request for a formal legal opinion concerning the constitutionality and interpretation of Conn. Gen. Stat. § 3-124. Section 3-124 sets forth the qualifications for the Office of Attorney General and states, in pertinent part, that “[t]he Attorney General shall be an elector of this state and an attorney at law of at least ten years’ active practice at the bar of this state.” You raise several questions concerning this provision.

First, you question whether the statutory requirement that the Attorney General be an attorney at law of at least ten years’ active practice at the bar of this state is constitutional, given the fact that the Connecticut constitution contains no specific qualifications for the Office of Attorney General and Article Sixth, § 10, of the constitution states, in pertinent part, that “[e]very elector who has attained the age of eighteen years shall be eligible to any office in the state.”

Second, assuming § 3-124 is constitutional, you question whether there are additional requirements for the Office of Attorney General beyond being an attorney at law who has been a member of the bar for at least ten years in active status. If the phrase “active practice” requires something more, you ask what specifically is required.

Finally, you ask who makes the determination whether the requirement of “active practice” has been satisfied by a particular candidate and what is the process for making that determination.

You note in your letter that although these issues affect you personally as a candidate for the Office of Attorney General, you are seeking our guidance in your capacity as the Secretary of the State and the chief elections official for the State of Connecticut. You state that your office will be called upon to accept certificates of endorsement, issue notices of primary, and place candidates on the ballot for the 2010 election. Based upon the representations in your letter as to the need to resolve these general legal questions, our advice will be limited to addressing questions of law that are not fact-specific, and that relate to the performance of the official duties of the Office of the Secretary of the State as applied to all potential candidates for Attorney General.

For the reasons that follow, we conclude that a Connecticut court, if faced with the issue, would likely hold that Conn. Gen. Stat. § 3-124 is constitutional. We further conclude that the requirement of “active practice” at the bar of this state for ten years means more than merely being a member of the Connecticut bar in active status.

Complete opinion

Wow, I’m impressed:

With a Special Election set for March 2 in Stratford and a legal challenge to Connecticut’s campaign finance reform legislation still undecided, Governor M. Jodi Rell today announced that she is proposing legislation to strengthen and preserve Connecticut’s groundbreaking public campaign financing law she originally championed in 2005.

“This law made Connecticut a model for the rest of the nation, but it may expire if we do not act,” Governor Rell said. “I believe it is worth saving. We must provide certainty to all candidates in the 2010 election, especially those who are running in the Special Election that takes place in less than a month. Candidates need to know the rules.”

Created through the landmark campaign finance reform law, the Citizens’ Election Program (CEP) is a voluntary program which provides full public financing to qualified candidates for statewide offices and the General Assembly. To participate in the CEP, candidates must agree to abide by contribution and expenditure limits and disclosure requirements.

“There is a reversion provision in the current law that could end up killing it,” Governor Rell said. “I propose that we remove that clause. In addition, there are still too many hoops for candidates to jump through in order to run for office. I am proposing a fix to the language that sets a higher standard for third-party candidates to get funding.”

Governor Rell is proposing the following changes to the law:

Eliminate additional qualifying criteria for candidates of minor parties and petitioning candidates.
Provide grants in same amounts to all candidates – major party, minor party and petitioning.
Defer the increase in grant amounts based upon consumer price index until 2014.
Contributions from client lobbyists shall not be considered qualifying contributions for purposes of CEP. (Currently, only contributions from communicator lobbyists do not count.)
To the extent that provisions concerning excess and independent expenditures are found to be unconstitutional, temporarily suspend their operation until the issue is finally resolved.
Reduce amounts of grants in response to a judge’s labeling of grant amounts as “windfall.” The proposed reductions are as follows:

Governor’s primary from $1.25 million to 1 million
Governor’s general from $3 million to $2.5 million

Other statewide primary from $375,000 to $200,000
Other statewide general from $750,000 to $400,000

State Senate primary from $35,000 to $25,000
State Senate primary dominant district from $75,000 to $50,000
State Senate general from $85,000 to $70,000

State Rep. primary from $10,000 to $7500
State Rep. primary dominant district from $25,000 to $15,000
State Rep. general from $25,000 to $20,000

State Rep. or Senate Special Election from 75% of normal grant to 60%

If only opposition is minor party or petitioning candidate who has not raised qualifying contribution amount, from 60% of normal grant to 40%.

“These changes will result in a fairer, more efficient public financing system,” Governor Rell said. “They will encourage citizen participation in the political process while limiting the role of private money in elections. In 2005, we took special interest money out of elections and put the elections where they should be – in the hands of our citizens. By improving this law, we can save it.”