As a baby lawyer, 35 years ago, I entered the world of politics. Not on a grand scale, mind you. Armed with about $200.00 for some low end brochures and a handful of friends, I walked door to door in Bridgeport’s north end campaigning for a seat on the City Council. Fortunately for me there were no millionaires running against me with unlimited TV budgets and personal fortunes they were willing to stake in the battle. If there were I am not so sure any legal challenge I may have considered mounting would have made it past Small Claims Court, much less reached the highest courts of the state.
Fast forward to today and the battle to select candidates for the Governor’s seat, which is heading into the final weeks. Traditionally, the tail end of a campaign sparks a barrage of TV and print ads. This year it isn’t so much about what the candidates are saying as it is about who is paying the bill. Running for political office used to be about people and their qualifications. Now it’s about who has the largest war chest. It takes money, and a truckload of it, to finance a major election. The legislature here and in other states has tried to even the playing field with campaign finance reform. In the wake of scandals involving major Connecticut politicians (who can forget the appellation coined by the prosecutor in the trial of former Bridgeport Mayor Joe Ganim, renaming the state “Corrupticut”) legislation was passed to curtail efforts by lobbying interests to buy elections. The federal courts have stymied that effort in recent rulings. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals recently struck down the ban on contributions by lobbyists as unconstitutional.
The legislature also attempted to provide public funding for candidates vying with wealthy opponents who posses the wherewithal to fund campaigns with personal fortunes. The Second Circuit joined courts in Arizona and Florida in reviewing public campaign finance laws. The focus of these challenges surround what Florida calls the “Millionaires Tax.” Here it is called a “trigger provision.” In essence, underfunded candidates can qualify for additional public funding if they face an opponent whose spending exceeds certain prescribed thresholds. So far a Florida court has rejected the legal challenge, but the appeals courts there may agree with the approach taken by the Second Circuit.
In 2008 the United States Supreme Court ruled that the “Millionaire’s Amendment” to the McCain-Feingold campaign finance bill created an “unprecedented penalty” on a candidate’s exercise of First Amendment rights by restricting personal campaign spending. That was the cornerstone of the Second Circuit’s recent ruling. Apparently the right to free speech is not really “free.” Rather, it means you are “free” to throw your personal gazillions behind a campaign and bury your under-gunned opponent. 
On the one hand courts want politicians to be free from financial loyalties to special interests. Why else would there be prosecutions of pols who provide some “quid” in exchange for some fat cat’s “pro quo”? At least the Justice Department sees it that way. On the other hand, those same courts strike down as vague a law punishing mail fraud that results in the loss of a public official’s “honest services” and campaign reforms aimed at reining in wheeler-dealer lobbyists.
I won that first election, by the way. Four years later I was unseated by an opponent who out spent me, $400.00 to my $200.00. I should have appealed.
