We’ve often noted that campaign finance “reforms” are typically proposed and passed in the wake of political scandals having little if anything to do with campaign finance. Too often, however, it seems like we’ve been alone in recognizing how so-called “reformers” seize on any political scandal to push campaign finance limits no matter how tenuous or nonexistent the question.
In today’s Fairfield County Weekly (actually, tomorrow’s – it’s dated December 10. Quick, someone call Gary Hobson!), Greg Hladky reports on Connecticut’s “Citizens’ Elections Program” and the debate over whether to continue to dump tens of millions of taxpayer dollars into politicians’ campaign coffers or to instead use that money to address the state’s massive budget deficit.
Part of the story recounts how the Nutmeg State got saddled with this welfare for politicians scheme in the first place, mainly in reaction to the corruption scandal of former governor John Rowland and his replacement’s desire to show that she was serious about tackling corruption. As Hladky reports:
Rell changed the political dynamic after Rowland resigned in 2004. As Rowland’s lieutenant governor, she was desperate to prove she wanted to clean up government. Campaign finance reform became part of her package.
The fascinating thing is Rowland was never charged with taking illegal political money. “There was nothing in the Rowland scandal you could say would be prevented by campaign finance reform,” said… state Rep. Michael Lawlor, D-East Haven. “It was basically him taking bribes.”
It’s probably worth noting at this point that Rep. Lawlor voted for the “Citizens’ Election Program” when it was voted on in 2005 and participated in it by taking taxpayer dollars for his 2008 re-election program. I wonder if he’s alone among advocates for this program in recognizing and admitting that it was sold under false pretenses?