You are here
A Conflict Built into Municipal Campaign Finance Enforcement in Connecticut
Tuesday, July 19th, 2011
Robert Wechsler
Sometimes, conflicts are built right into ethics laws, partly because
it is in the political interest of those with conflicts, and partly
because they don't even view those laws as ethics laws.
A good example of this is the Connecticut law (CGS §9-623) that places enforcement of municipal campaign finance laws in the hands of city and town clerks. In Connecticut, clerks are often elected officials who usually run on a ticket with mayoral or first selectman candidates, and on a party ticket with other elected officials. In smaller towns, they are appointed by the board of selectmen.
Transparency and Due Process
Although state candidates file their campaign finance statements online with the State Elections Enforcement Commission (SEEC), municipal candidates file their statements with their town clerk. This means that citizens, and the press, can get access to municipal candidate campaign finance information only during business hours, limiting transparency, an important part of government ethics.
Because the SEEC can hardly visit the state's 169 municipalities to check on the campaign finance filings, enforcement is left in the hands of the clerks (and the Secretary of State, who does not appear to get involved). Yes, a member of the public could file a complaint with the clerk if a campaign finance statement is filed late or appears to be incomplete or inaccurate (although there does not appear to be a provision allowing this or setting out what is to be one with the complaint). But it is the clerk who decides whether there is a violation, and the clerk is not required to investigate, hold a hearing, or give reasons for his or her decision.
Undermining Trust
If a clerk fines an opponent or a colleague's opponent for, say, the late filing of a campaign finance report, but does not fine a colleague, or himself, for a similar late filing, this undermines the public's trust in the enforcement of the state's campaign finance laws. Since there is no formal process or explanation required, there is no way for the public to know whether the clerk acted, or failed to act, out of political interest (that is, to make a candidate look bad or to protect a candidate) or in the public interest (that is, because the situations were truly different).
When an Ethics Law Is Not Written As an Ethics Law
The language in §9-623 is very strange for an ethics law. Here are the relevant parts of the provision:
No one in his right mind would draft an ethics provision like this. It's my guess that whoever drafted this provision never thought for a moment that it was an ethics provision. It is likely that this provision was written for political purposes, to keep power over campaign finance in the hands of local officials. This means that, at the heart of this approach to the enforcement of individual ethics violations, is an example of institutional misconduct, of local elected officials (most likely through their associations) protecting their political interests by obtaining and maintaining control over a program despite the conflicts this creates and despite the undermining of the public's trust in the state's campaign finance program.
Preferential Ethics Treatment
For the most part, the abuse of this enforcement power takes the form of non-enforcement. But sometimes, as happened this week in New Haven, it takes the form of what appears to be preferential enforcement. The New Haven clerk decided to fine two mayoral candidates for late filings, despite the fact that he is currently a running mate of the mayoral candidates' opponent, and despite the fact that he had knowledge that the candidates filed late due to problems with the state online filing system that had for the first time been opened to mayoral candidates participating in the New Haven Democracy Fund, a public campaign financing program that I administer.
It is true that the law does not provide for the consideration of mitigating circumstances (a clerk does not have to consider anything at all but dates). Neither does the law penalize clerks for not fining a candidate when there are mitigating circumstances. Were a clerk to fail to fine a candidate under such circumstances, it would look like an act of uncommon fairness. Instead, it looks like a way of making his running mate's opponents look bad.
See a past blog post on clerk enforcement of campaign finance in Colorado, which considers issues involving clerks' staffing and priorities, in addition to clerks' political interests.
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics
203-859-1959
A good example of this is the Connecticut law (CGS §9-623) that places enforcement of municipal campaign finance laws in the hands of city and town clerks. In Connecticut, clerks are often elected officials who usually run on a ticket with mayoral or first selectman candidates, and on a party ticket with other elected officials. In smaller towns, they are appointed by the board of selectmen.
Transparency and Due Process
Although state candidates file their campaign finance statements online with the State Elections Enforcement Commission (SEEC), municipal candidates file their statements with their town clerk. This means that citizens, and the press, can get access to municipal candidate campaign finance information only during business hours, limiting transparency, an important part of government ethics.
Because the SEEC can hardly visit the state's 169 municipalities to check on the campaign finance filings, enforcement is left in the hands of the clerks (and the Secretary of State, who does not appear to get involved). Yes, a member of the public could file a complaint with the clerk if a campaign finance statement is filed late or appears to be incomplete or inaccurate (although there does not appear to be a provision allowing this or setting out what is to be one with the complaint). But it is the clerk who decides whether there is a violation, and the clerk is not required to investigate, hold a hearing, or give reasons for his or her decision.
Undermining Trust
If a clerk fines an opponent or a colleague's opponent for, say, the late filing of a campaign finance report, but does not fine a colleague, or himself, for a similar late filing, this undermines the public's trust in the enforcement of the state's campaign finance laws. Since there is no formal process or explanation required, there is no way for the public to know whether the clerk acted, or failed to act, out of political interest (that is, to make a candidate look bad or to protect a candidate) or in the public interest (that is, because the situations were truly different).
When an Ethics Law Is Not Written As an Ethics Law
The language in §9-623 is very strange for an ethics law. Here are the relevant parts of the provision:
-
Sec. 9-623. Penalties. (a) Any person who knowingly and wilfully violates
any provision of this chapter shall be fined not more than five
thousand dollars or imprisoned not more than five years, or both. The
Secretary of the State or the town clerk shall notify the State
Elections Enforcement Commission of any such violation of which said
secretary or such town clerk may have knowledge. Any such fine for a
violation of any provision of this chapter applying to the office of
the Treasurer shall be deposited on a pro rata basis in any trust
funds, as defined in section 3-13c, affected by such violation.
(b) (1) If any campaign treasurer fails to file any statement required by section 9-608, or if any candidate fails to file either (A) a statement for the formation of a candidate committee as required by section 9-604, or (B) a certification pursuant to section 9-603 that the candidate is exempt from forming a candidate committee as required by section 9-604, within the time required, the campaign treasurer or candidate, as the case may be, shall pay a late filing fee of one hundred dollars. ...
(3) In the case of any such statement or certification that is required to be filed with a town clerk, the town clerk shall forthwith after the filing deadline is, or should be, known to have passed, notify by certified mail, return receipt requested, the person required to file that, if such statement or certification is not filed not later than seven days after the town clerk mails such notice, the town clerk shall notify the State Elections Enforcement Commission that the person is in violation of section 9-603, 9-604 or 9-608.
(4) The penalty for any violation of section 9-603, 9-604 or 9-608 shall be a fine of not less than two hundred dollars or more than two thousand dollars or imprisonment for not more than one year, or both.
No one in his right mind would draft an ethics provision like this. It's my guess that whoever drafted this provision never thought for a moment that it was an ethics provision. It is likely that this provision was written for political purposes, to keep power over campaign finance in the hands of local officials. This means that, at the heart of this approach to the enforcement of individual ethics violations, is an example of institutional misconduct, of local elected officials (most likely through their associations) protecting their political interests by obtaining and maintaining control over a program despite the conflicts this creates and despite the undermining of the public's trust in the state's campaign finance program.
Preferential Ethics Treatment
For the most part, the abuse of this enforcement power takes the form of non-enforcement. But sometimes, as happened this week in New Haven, it takes the form of what appears to be preferential enforcement. The New Haven clerk decided to fine two mayoral candidates for late filings, despite the fact that he is currently a running mate of the mayoral candidates' opponent, and despite the fact that he had knowledge that the candidates filed late due to problems with the state online filing system that had for the first time been opened to mayoral candidates participating in the New Haven Democracy Fund, a public campaign financing program that I administer.
It is true that the law does not provide for the consideration of mitigating circumstances (a clerk does not have to consider anything at all but dates). Neither does the law penalize clerks for not fining a candidate when there are mitigating circumstances. Were a clerk to fail to fine a candidate under such circumstances, it would look like an act of uncommon fairness. Instead, it looks like a way of making his running mate's opponents look bad.
See a past blog post on clerk enforcement of campaign finance in Colorado, which considers issues involving clerks' staffing and priorities, in addition to clerks' political interests.
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics
203-859-1959
Story Topics:
- Robert Wechsler's blog
- Log in or register to post comments
