Abstract
The Citizens Election Fund, Connecticut’s version of a clean elections law, was established in 2005 in the wake of the corruption scandal during the administration of Governor John Rowland. Modeled after the public financing systems of Maine and Arizona, Connecticut’s law has been touted as the most comprehensive in the nation. Scholars have hypothesized that states with public funding of campaigns have more competitive elections (Werner & Mayer, 2007). This paper will address whether the introduction of the Citizens’ Election Program has increased the level of electoral competition by specifically focusing on state house seats in Connecticut during the 2008 and 2010 election cycles. Contestation for seats in the Connecticut General Assembly is a particularly salient issue due to the fact that many seats typically go unchallenged and as Mayer (2007) observed “a seat in the Connecticut House or Senate had become one of the safest offices anywhere, approaching if not exceeding the security of membership in the U.S. Congress.” The findings suggest that the hypothesized positive relationship between public financing and electoral competition show mixed results. After the introduction of the Citizens’ Election Program, the number of uncontested seats decreased slightly with more challengers emerging to contest incumbents in the 2008 and 2010 election cycles. While some positive effects are seen by the 2010 election cycle with the margin of votes cast for winners narrowing in 41% of house races, the vast majority of house incumbents continue to win and do so by larger vote margins. Finally, the overall reelection rate for incumbents remained largely unchanged. Further research with a longer time horizon that is inclusive of more state house elections will have to be conducted before any firmer conclusions can be drawn regarding the efficacy of the Citizens’ Election Program.
Highlights
The year 2004 was a tumultuous one in Connecticut state government
The findings suggest that the hypothesized positive relationship between public financing and electoral competition show mixed results
All of the minute differences observed, when they are observed, occur by the 2010 election cycle
Summary
The year 2004 was a tumultuous one in Connecticut state government. In the wake of the scandal, the Connecticut General Assembly adopted the most comprehensive public election finance system in the country. While Maine and Arizona’s clean election laws predated that of Connecticut’s by several years, Connecticut’s program was the most sweeping in terms of its scope. Unlike its counterparts in other states whose clean election laws provided partial funding for select public offices, Connecticut’s law established full financing for all state offices (Nyart, 2006). Connecticut was the only state to adopt the law via the legislative process whereas Maine and Arizona had enacted their programs through a ballot initiative. Sensing the public outrage and appetite for reform, state legislators prepared to tackle the issue directly
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
