Skip to content

Brought to you by

Dentons logo

Pay to Play Law Blog

Articles, resources, insights on pay to play regulations on the federal and state level

open menu close menu

Pay to Play Law Blog

  • Home
  • About us
  • Categories
    • Categories
    • Alabama
    • Alaska
    • California
      • CalPERS
    • Citizens United
    • Colorado
    • Commodities Futures Trading Commission
    • Compliance
    • Connecticut
    • District of Columbia
    • Exempt Organizations
    • Federal Contractors
    • Federal Government
    • Federal Lobbyists
    • First Amendment
    • Florida
    • General
    • Georgia
    • Hawaii
    • Illinois
    • In The News
    • Indiana
    • Kentucky
    • Maryland
    • Michigan
    • Missouri
    • Montana
    • Nevada
    • New Jersey
    • New Mexico
    • New York
    • Non classifié(e)
    • North Carolina
    • Ohio
    • Pennsylvania
    • Philadelphia
    • Rhode Island
    • SEC
    • Texas
    • Transparency

Connecticut Stands Firm to Enforce Pay-to-Play Against State Party Committee

By Benjamin Keane
June 16, 2016
  • Connecticut
Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share via email Share on LinkedIn

In announcing a $325,000 settlement with the Connecticut Democratic State Central Committee, the State Elections Enforcement Commission (“SEEC”) has made clear that it will not tolerate efforts to circumvent the state’s pay-to-play laws.  At issue was the state party’s solicitation of state contractor money into the party’s federal account and subsequent use of those funds to finance mailers in support of Governor Dannel Malloy’s re-election campaign.  The agency, which oversees enforcement of Connecticut’s pay-to-play law (Ct. Gen. Stat. 9-612), had earlier chosen to offer a friendly warning not to use federal political party accounts to circumvent the state’s pay-to-play regulatory scheme.  As we have previously noted, Connecticut takes some degree of pride in its restrictive pay-to-play statute, and in the fact that the statute’s constitutionality was upheld in federal court.  Connecticut is one of those states which will debar a state contractor or prospective state contractor from future business for a full year if it, or its employees, directors, spouses, or children, engage in impermissible contribution activity.

You can thus imagine that the SEEC was none too amused to read news reports back in 2014 highlighting Connecticut Governor Malloy’s prowess in raising funds in $10,000 chunks from state contractors for the Connecticut Democratic Party’s federal account.  (PRO TIP: If you are going to “launder” state contractor funds through your federal account, don’t issue press releases airing your dirty laundry).  Thus, on February 11, 2014, the SEEC convened a special meeting for the purpose of issuing an unsolicited advisory opinion “clarify[ing] and publish[ing] advice on the use of money and assets of the federal account in Connecticut elections”.  Mostly, however, the SEEC used the opportunity to clarify that “[o]f most concern is the fact that much of the reported fundraising has involved Connecticut state contractors, who are prohibited from making contributions to party committees registered with the SEEC,” and to make clear everyone understands that federal “funds that are generally prohibited from being used in Connecticut elections are not, in fact, used to make expenditures in Connecticut elections.”

When the state party failed to acquiesce and acknowledge the SEEC’s inherent wisdom, the Commission filed suit in state court asserting the long-standing principles of administrative law and common law sovereignty referred to by legal scholars as the “Doctrine of Can You Hear Me Now?”

While Connecticut Republicans expressed dismay that the Democratic Party will not have to abandon its argument that federal campaign finance laws “Trump” the Connecticut statute and were able to characterize their payment of $325,000 as “voluntary”, the fact remains that SEEC executive director Michael Brandi was able to state that the penalty was “probably in the range of multiple times what the commission has ever issued in the past” and that to his recollection the previous high-water mark for such a “voluntary” payment was $20,000.

Ultimately, the solution set forth in the proposed settlement agreement involves the common use of separate “Compliance Accounts” within the state party’s federal account.  The fix is relatively simple but one which allows state regulators to ensure their guidance is being heard.

Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share via email Share on LinkedIn
Subscribe and stay updated
Receive our latest blog posts by email.
Stay in Touch
Benjamin Keane

About Benjamin Keane

As a member of Dentons' Political Law, Ethics and Disclosure team, Benjamin P. Keane focuses his practice on the representation of elected officials, political candidates, PACs, political parties, corporations, non-profit organizations and other entities with respect to federal, state and local election law, political contributions, lobbying, and ethics matters.

All posts Full bio

About Dentons

Dentons is the world’s largest law firm, delivering quality and value to clients around the globe. Dentons is a leader on the Acritas Global Elite Brand Index, a BTI Client Service 30 Award winner and recognized by prominent business and legal publications for its innovations in client service, including founding Nextlaw Labs and the Nextlaw Global Referral Network. Dentons’ polycentric approach and world-class talent challenge the status quo to advance client interests in the communities in which we live and work. www.dentons.com.

Dentons digital

Twitter

Categories

Subscribe and stay updated

Receive our latest blog posts by email.

Stay in Touch

Dentons logo

© 2021 Dentons

  • Legal notices
  • Privacy policy
  • Terms of use
  • Cookies on this site