Incumbent politicians have a lot of advantages in campaigns. They have a network of donors to call on for support. They have an in with party leaders and lobbyists. Their actions and press releases often make it into news reports.
Making matters worse, in many states, incumbents tilt campaign laws to favor their re-election. By imposing low limits on campaign contributions, legislators can force their opponents to spend more time fundraising instead of speaking with voters.
Unfortunately, a new Index by the Institute for Free Speech has named Connecticut one of the 10 worst states at protecting political giving freedom.
In these states, challengers and political newcomers struggle to get their message out. These candidates often may have to win a primary before worrying about success in November. Meanwhile, incumbents have their entire term to rub elbows with powerful people and increase their name recognition. This a major head start and challengers can’t catch up if contribution limits are too low.
Recognizing this problem, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2006 that contribution limits can be unconstitutional if they are “too low and too strict.” The court observed that such low limits can “harm the electoral process by preventing challengers from mounting effective campaigns against incumbent officeholders … reducing democratic accountability.”
Yet according to the Institute for Free Speech, many states maintain low contribution limits that hinder the political process and restrict First Amendment rights.
In a new Free Speech Index on political giving, Connecticut, along with 10 other states, receives an ‘F’ grade.
Connecticut’s limits are so low that individuals can give no more than $250 per election to a candidate for the House of Representatives. The state doesn’t adjust its limits for inflation either, meaning a citizen’s ability to support candidates will continue to decline. And while Connecticut has a program that doles out taxpayer dollars to campaigns in the hopes of bolstering candidates, these programs are easily gamed by savvy political actors and do little to change the makeup of legislatures or Connecticut legislators’ voting behavior.
The problems don’t end there. The state limits individual giving to political committees to $750 per year, and also limits the ability of groups and parties to support candidates.
In all the debate over what can go wrong when people give money to candidates, we rarely consider the benefits. Making a donation to a candidate or group with shared beliefs is one of the simplest and most effective ways for Americans to make their voice heard. These contributions fund campaign spending that raises awareness and interest in elections, especially among those least interested in government.
Contribution limits stand in the way of this process. They hinder candidates trying to spread their message and make it harder for voters to learn about the choices they’ll be asked to make on Election Day.
Perhaps most disappointing of all, they hobble political newcomers trying to shake up the system.
Not all states perform poorly in the free speech index. Eleven states earn ‘A’ grades and allow individuals to donate without limit to the candidates, parties, and groups of their choice. Short of that, most states can improve their grade with simple reforms, such as adjusting limits for inflation.
States can’t erase all the advantages that come with incumbency, but they can empower challengers and give them a real chance to compete.
Until then, Connecticut citizens must make do with a democracy that is less vibrant and less free thanks to ineffective limits on the freedom to support candidates and causes.
This post originally ran in Journal Inquirer on June 7th 2018.
