I overlooked this in yesterday's post, but the Supreme Court's decision in McComish v. Bennett does more than just strike down the "trigger" mechanism in Arizona's public-financing law, which provides funds to participating candidates when they're outspent by opponents; it keeps Connecticut lawmakers from reintroducing an identical provision to their system of public financing, thus forcing them to devise another system for allocating funds. In a small bit of good news, however, the Court also rejected a challenge to Connecticut's law, which should provide hope for public-financing advocates.
As part of its 2005 campaign-finance reforms, Connecticut -- like Arizona -- introduced a trigger mechanism for distributing public campaign funds. Instead of a single grant, payments were given on the basis of expense (how much the race actually costs) and when opponents crossed particular thresholds for spending. The system saw wide use in last year's gubernatorial primary, where Democrat Daniel Malloy and Republican Michael Fedele received $2.5 million in public funds, allowing them to keep up with (and eventually beat) their self-funding opponents, Ned Lamont and Tom Foley.
In response, the Green Party of Connecticut filed suit against the program, and in a decision anticipating the Supreme Court's, the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals struck down the Connecticut trigger provision, arguing that it limits the speech of candidates who decline to participate. However, it wasn't a complete victory. The Second Circuit upheld all other provisions of the law, including its higher thresholds for third-party candidates who attempt to qualify for funds, and smaller grants for those who do. Moreover, state lawmakers responded with a measure to double the general election grants for participating candidates, from $3 million to $6 million.
In rejecting Arizona's trigger, the Supreme Court put a final lid on efforts to revive Connecticut's mechanism. But by upholding the Second Circuit decision, the Court also maintained the viability of public financing as well as other mechanisms for ensuring fair elections.
As lawmakers in Arizona and Connecticut begin to reconfigure their campaign-finance systems, they can and should look to New York City for inspiration. Instead of a single sum, grants are matched to small donations at a particular ratio, either 4-to-1 or 5-to-1. Not only does this allow candidates to keep up with high-spending opponents, but it encourages candidates to engage small donors, widens the pool of participation, and enhances the democratic process.
