The CEP Fix Bill
The proposed bill is online, and it’s got a lot of interesting bits:
- The grants for Gubernatorial primary/general candidates are not changed — $1.25M and $3M, respectively.
- The grants for other statewide offices have been reduced from $375k to $250k for the primaries, and from $750k to $375k for the general. The primary grant would just about cover a single mailing to the Democratic primary electorate. Those wondering why Susan Bysiewicz decided to run as a privately financed candidate now have their answer.
- The bill introduces quadrennial increases in the statewide grant amounts, linking the grant totals to increases in the consumer price index. State Rep/Senate grants will be adjusted biennially.
- State Senate grants have been dropped to $25k/$54k for primaries (party dominant / non-dominant districts), and $61k for the general.
- State Rep grants have been dropped to $7k/$18k for primaries, and $18k for the general.
- Unopposed candidates are no longer eligible for matching grants.
- The signature thresholds for minor party grant qualification remain unchanged (10/15/20%) unless the Second Circuit upholds Underhill’s decision. In that case, the thresholds drop to 3%/4%/5%.
- There’s also a trigger to change the formulas for supplemental grants if the Second Circuit bans the excess/independent expenditure grants. The change would make the maximum supplemental grant much smaller — previously, if a candidate was massively outspent either by opposing candidates or independent expenditures, the supplemental grant could be up to 100% of the original. The trigger provision would make it so the supplemental would only go up to 50% of the original grant ($625k for the Governor’s primary, $1.5M for a Governor’s general election).
- The section causing the entire program to collapse on the decision of a court (Sec. 9-717 of the statutes) is repealed.
It’s a hodgepodge, and the fact that the Second Circuit has heard arguments and is busy deciding Green Party v. Garfield at the same time that this bill is being considered makes figuring out the impact of the potential changes much more confusing. Can the Second Circuit strike down parts of the new/amended statute, which wasn’t in effect when the Green Party filed their case? What happens if the Second Circuit makes their ruling before this bill passes? I don’t know.
Does the bill provide “countervailing” disadvantages to candidates participating in the program? If you think of a participating candidate running against a self- or privately-financed candidate, it doesn’t seem like a privately-financed candidate would have too hard a time re-establishing an advantage in terms of available cash — especially since the privately-financed candidate has the benefit of knowing if and when they plan to cross the threshold, leaving their opponent unable to plan around receiving the supplemental grant.
Indexing the grants to inflation is a good idea, but will make it difficult for the legislature to fix the new grant amounts if they turn out to be too low for challengers to mount a competitive race. (Is $18,000 really enough for a newcomer to turn out an incumbent? I’m skeptical.) I personally think that the point of public financing is less about getting new people elected than it is about reducing the influence of wealthy interests, but increased competitiveness is the main purpose so far as most of the public (including Judge Underhill) is concerned. Between the reduced regular and supplemental grants, I think that this bill serves to weaken the glue that holds the program together. We’ll see what happens after the committee hearings (originally supposed to be today, but rescheduled for sometime in the near future.)