You Street

State election law requires all candidates — losers and winners alike — to distribute leftover campaign funds in specific ways. Candidates can't keep a cent. "The law is clear," said Nancy Nicolescu, spokeswoman for the State Elections Enforcement Commission. "There are very specific ways that campaigns must disburse surplus funds." - You Street

There are better ways, such as fund-raising limits or maybe even -- gasp! -- public financing of campaigns, to ensure that incumbency doesn't overwhelm any chance a strong challenger has of getting elected. - You Street

Besides attempting to close Connecticut’s budget gap, Gov. M. Jodi Rell wants state legislators to return to the Capitol in December to fix a campaign finance reform law that’s poised to help fund 2010 state campaigns. The Republican said her proposed changes could help satisfy a federal judge, who recently struck down the law as unconstitutional, and provide certainty to the legislative and gubernatorial candidates who are already campaigning and raising matching funds to participate in the public funding system. “We must fix the law now and keep it workable and fair to anyone who aspires to public office,” Rell said on Wednesday. - You Street

Daily Insurance Puppets listed - Lieberman and McConnell so far, to little surprise - You Street

At the same time, Rell wants lawmakers to make changes in the campaign finance reform law, the subject of a federal court ruling that is being appealed. Most of the candidates for governor are abiding by the law's new rules, meaning that they must raise small contributions of $100 or less to qualify for $1 million in public financing for a primary and $3 million for the general election in November 2010. The candidates have been raising money under those rules, and any major changes by the federal court could disrupt an election in progress. Attorney General Richard Blumenthal has appealed the court ruling at the U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals in New York City. The current law will stand until the appeals court rules. - You Street

Governor Jim Doyle will sign the Impartial Justice Bill today. The bill, passed in both chambers of the Wisconsin Legislature, will provide full public financing for qualifying candidates for the Wisconsin Supreme Court who voluntarily agree to a spending limit of $400,000. - You Street

But the difference between Washington and Madison is that in America’s Dairyland, they don’t take such an assault on the independence of their judiciary so lightly. Earlier this month, lawmakers approved the state’s first public financing of judicial elections. The bill, which is expected to be signed into law by Gov. Jim Doyle, creates a system much like the one frequently proposed for Maryland’s state legislative races. Candidates for the high court could receive up to $100,000 and $300,000 from the state for primary and general elections by first collecting 1,000 small contributions. Those who qualify can receive much more if their opponents opt out of the system (and spend more than $100,000 or $300,000). - You Street

"I’ve said it before, I’ll say it again: the present-day abuse of the filibuster is a symptom, not the cause of the problem. The cause is corporate-financed Parties and candidates who are now effectively immune to public opinion, and doing the bidding of their paymasters, not their constituents. No amount of “higher standard-holding” lobbying is likely to force that behavior to change, absent public financing of campaigns for federal office." - You Street

The exciting “change” that so many of us hoped for after the November 2008 election has ground to a screeching halt. And it is largely the fault of Congress. Members of the House and Senate have blocked forward movement on such critical issues as addressing climate change, reforming the college student loan process, really fixing the health care system, regulating the big banks, and examining the ethical lapses of their own members. Why? The short answer is money, money, money, and more money -- the huge campaign contributions given to politicians by representatives of energy companies, oil and gas corporations, health insurers, pharmaceutical companies, financial institutions, banks, student loan companies, and more. - You Street

The Council enacted an ordinance on June 9, 2008, to establish a Voter Owned Elections Program to become effective beginning with the fall 2009 Town of Chapel Hill municipal elections. The pilot program is voluntary and requires extensive reporting requirements. Chapel Hill is the first municipality in North Carolina to receive the authorization from the NC General Assembly to enact such a program. Before the program may be established, the Council would need to receive approval from the State Board of Elections. A Voter Owned Election is a comprehensive system that provides candidates a voluntary option for a new way to run for office. Candidates who are registered with the program agree to: * Collect a large number of $5 to $20 qualifying contributions to demonstrate community support * Limit campaign spending * Agree to comply with strict administrative rules - You Street

Both indicated that special interest money is playing a big part in each other’s campaigns, and would like the rules to change. Essel said she supports changing a law to allow public financing of elections. - You Street

Public Campaign Action Fund, a national campaign finance watchdog group, named Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) its first "Insurance Puppet" in an online advertising campaign targeting Kentucky and Washington, D.C. The campaign finance watchdog group will release an "Insurance Puppet" each day at InsurancePuppets.com for the rest of the week in an effort to educate the public about the impact of the health insurance industry's campaign contributions on the health care debate. The industry has donated $17.7 million in campaign contributions to the Senators taking part in the current debate, according to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics. - You Street

During the past several years campaigns for the Wisconsin Supreme Court have been expensive and often downright dirty. That is why it is good news that the Impartial Justice bill has finally passed the Legislature and is heading for the Governor's desk for his signature. Our courts need to be fair, impartial and independent, and the people of Wisconsin should have full faith in the integrity of the Supreme Court. The Impartial Justice bill begins this process by creating a system of public financing for these critical races. While some might not believe it is optimal for state dollars to be spent on such elections, the alternative -- allowing partisan politics and multimillion-dollar campaigns into the courtroom -- is far worse. Public financing of judicial campaigns for the Wisconsin Supreme Court is an important step in maintaining and even restoring the public confidence in the fairness and integrity of the elected justices. - You Street

Columnist cites conservative Goldwater Institute study and argues that any politician who eschews special interest money in getting elected will turn around and inflate welfare budgets. "In my opinion, this study's findings should not surprise anyone. If one uses welfare to get elected (public funding), how can one expect them to hold a tough line on welfare for the general population once elected. That would be the epitome of hypocrisy." - You Street

The F.E.C. gutted the reform by totally misinterpreting it to say it does not apply when a senator is traveling on behalf of assorted party committees and not as “a candidate” himself. This is nonsense by any fair reading of the Senate’s rule, which clearly considers any incumbent an ongoing candidate 24/7, regardless of announced business in hopping a corporate jet. The Senate, which adopted the reform overwhelmingly in 2007, should be furious at the F.E.C.’s subverting such a vital ethics reform. The chamber must quickly overrule the commission with an explicit restatement of the rule. It might also reprimand the F.E.C. for twisting a needed ethics correction. - You Street

In a nation where large financial interests already dominate public policy, the Supreme Court is likely to issue a ruling soon that will move to allow businesses and labor unions to spend unlimited money on partisan political activity. That action would widen a gulf between nonprofit groups and businesses and could further seriously diminish charities' and foundations' influence, relevance, and clout in shaping solutions to the nation's problems. To close this gap — and better advance their missions — nonprofit organizations will need the courage to change both the culture and the rules that have held them back from strategic advocacy for far too long. That will be difficult, because events of the last few decades have undermined public-interest advocacy and created a damaging divide between groups that carry out services and those that seek policy changes. - You Street