Brennan Center for Justice

*Cross-posted from The Huffington Post 

Last night, a Republican was the victor in one of the most important
political contests of 2007. With apologies to the debaters in Michigan,
the contest last night with the most promise for a more accountable
democracy was won by Jason Perillo. Perillo, a publicly financed
Republican defeated a publicly financed Democrat in an historic special
legislative election in a state, that just a few short years ago, was
Exhibit A for the best government that money could buy. Our nation's
political leaders, particularly those in Congress, and those traipsing
through Iowa and New Hampshire, would do well to learn from a state
that seized, rather than deferred, its reform moment.

A less likely catalyst for democratic change than Connecticut's
113th House District is difficult to fathom. Every two years since 1974
the people of the 113th-yes, the state ranked 48th in total area has
151 districts- elected, re-elected, and re-re-elected Republican
Richard Beldon. Their unwavering and trans-generational loyalty made
Beldon the longest continuously serving member in state house history.
The last time someone other than Beldon won the 113th was the same day
Richard Nixon defeated George McGovern.

But Beldon passed away earlier this year, and a special election was
scheduled to replace him. Last night, that special election marked the
first test of a landmark full public financing system enacted in the
wake of state contracting scandals, corruption, and official
resignations that left Connecticut's governor in prison. Candidates of
both major parties participated in the program, eschewing special
interest money in favor of untainted public funds.

Connecticut's public financing system, known as the Citizens'
Election Program (CEP), is the first of its kind to be approved by
incumbent legislators whose own elections could be affected. Similar
public financing systems in Arizona and Maine were passed directly by
voters via ballot initiative. In Connecticut, however, elected
officials who had succeeded under the compromised status quo had the
courage to strive-at their own risk-for a more open and competitive
system. Because of that courage, a state that only recently was
justifiably dubbed "Corrupticut" is now a model for states across the
nation-and for the U.S. Congress.

As is true in Congress, the excessive influence of green in
Connecticut affected those affiliated with both red and blue.
Connecticut's many scandals resulted in the resignations Republicans
and Democrats alike. Likewise, recent bribery, ethics, and contracting
investigations involving members of Congress have involved powerful
members of each major party. Viewed over time, one realizes that for
every Randy "Duke" Cunningham yacht (R) there is a William Jefferson
freezer (D) and vice-versa. In terms of the overall impact of a system
of donor-capture on public policy, reciting just two notorious players
from each party is akin to analyzing football teams by mentioning only
their quarterbacks-the experts know that the truly severe problems are
deep in the trenches and hidden from plain view. But the cross-party
similarities of corruption in Connecticut and Congress underscore an
important point: advocating for a government that is as responsive to
mere voters as it is to donors should be a populist, not partisan push.

The people comprehend the problem. Nationally, in October of 2006,
75 percent of likely voters from across the political spectrum said
that the problem of political corruption was "extremely important" or
"very important" to them, while only 8 percent said it was only
"slightly important" or "not at all important." And in a national exit
poll of voters in the 2006 elections, "Corruption/Ethics" topped the
list of issues cited as "extremely important."

The people also see the answer. 74 percent of those surveyed in a
June 2006 poll said they supported a proposal for voluntary public
funding of federal elections. Support included 80 percent of
self-identified Democrats, 65 percent of Republicans and 78 percent of
independent voters. The challenge is whether, as in Connecticut,
understanding can be translated into action before it is too late.
Because what happens to a reform moment deferred? Make absolutely no
mistake: stakeholders in the status quo ensure that it dries up like
the proverbial raisin in the sun.

Substantial steps are being taken to overcome that inertia. Most
importantly, Senators Dick Durbin (D-IL) and Arlen Specter (R-PA) have
introduced the Fair Elections Now Act.
It is a federal adaptation of the "clean elections" models in place in
Maine, Arizona and now, Connecticut. As is true in Maine and Arizona,
where candidate participation and overall satisfaction rates are high,
the federal legislation is much more than an anti-corruption measure.
It also has the potential to invigorate public policy by emancipating
even the best-intentioned politicians from the constant, unyielding
tether of fundraising from the few, so that they might serve the many.

Consider that in the 2004 elections, less than 0.6 percent of
Americans of voting age made a contribution to a candidate of more than
$200, the threshold for public disclosure of donors. Then consider that
the average House winner in 2006 spent $1.6 million and the average
U.S. Senate winner in 2006 spent $9.6 million. The unavoidable
consequence is that, on average, starting immediately upon election,
the average House member must raise more than $1,000 per day, and the
average U.S. Senator must raise more than $3,000 per day in order to
sufficiently wage their next campaign. Still more to the point, nearly
all of that fundraising comes from that same 0.6 percent of Americans.
Even setting the anti-corruption interest aside, is it really a
surprise, in such circumstances, that so many of our public policies
reflect a compromised process, rather than a process of compromise?

The CEP will be available for all major party candidates and
qualified minor party candidates for the legislature in 2008. For the
citizens of the 113th, who now have their first new representative
since just after Nixon's resignation in 1974, change was inevitable.
For Connecticut, passing the CEP was anything but. It represented a
difficult, sustained, and finally successful effort to turn scandal
into progress. The result is a dramatic departure from the mores that
gave rise to another resignation-then-Governor Rowland's in 2004. The
Constitution State seized its reform moment, and seized back its good
name. The time is now for Congress to do the same.