Public financing merits protection

The issue: As Connecticut’s stalemate over a new budget stretches into a new season, Republicans are trying to eliminate one thing the state has done right over the past decade: The Citizens’ Election Program. Republicans’ current logic is that politicians can campaign for less than they would under the program.

Connecticut was the first state to enact public financing, providing a model other states have emulated. It was the right move for unfortunate reasons. That reason had too many names, chief among them former Gov. John G. Rowland, who served prison time for accepting free work on his summer home from state contractors.

That nagging, lazy epithet of the Rowland era — “Corrupticut” — has been difficult for the state to shake. That hasn’t stopped politicians on both sides of the aisle (Democrats once pitched suspension of the program) from occasionally suffering convenient memory loss about motivations for the program’s creation.

We haven’t forgotten those reasons. Nor have we forgotten that this issue has a habit of resurfacing during campaign season. Here are reminders from the past two autumns:

What we wrote: “Candidates for state office can qualify for state campaign funds by raising threshold levels in $5 to $100 donations primarily from their home district. A person running for the state House has to raise $5,000 to qualify for a $27,850 state grant for the general election; a gubernatorial candidate has to raise $250,000 to qualify for $6.5 million in public money. This keeps most politicians seeking support in their districts, not from lobbyists and others courting favor in Hartford. A $100 check, the highest amount, does not wield influence.” Nov. 20, 2015

“Many municipalities can point to fantasy candidates for mayor who decline to serve because it would mean a dramatic pay cut. What we like about the state program is that it helps level the field for citizens who lack the resources to run for office under typical circumstances. We need more candidates almost as badly as we need more voters. Reducing the financial challenges can also draw a wider diversity of candidates in regards to age, race and income.” Sept. 18, 2016

Where it stands: The principles behind the program remain sound. It removes fundraising shackles from candidates, allowing them to focus on issues rather than cash, and expands the diversity of the candidate pool.

There is room for improvement. Making uncontested candidates ineligible would be a good place to start.

And while there are far too many bumper stickers and lawn signs, we prefer they be funded by the proceeds of abandoned property and unclaimed bottle deposits than by lobbyists and other big money donors who want something in return.

Claiming the need no longer exists is akin to reasoning that we don’t need police when crime rates dip. The Citizens’ Election Program is a statement that Connecticut is committed to ethical campaigning. It’s an insurance plan, a smoke alarm, a watchdog. It should remain.