Connecticut House Bill HB06633

Connecticut 2013 Regular Session

• Introduced: 3/12/13
• Refer: 3/12/13
• Report Pass: 3/27/13
• Refer: 4/8/13
• Report Pass: 4/15/13

Caption

An Act Concerning Campaign Finance Law And Prior Bad Acts.

Impact

The implications of this bill are significant, as it seeks to reshape the accountability structure surrounding campaign finances. By implementing stricter guidelines on who can serve as campaign treasurers and adding penalties for intentional violations of election laws, the bill seeks to enhance the integrity of electoral processes. This action could lead to increased public trust in campaign financing as it directly addresses concerns related to corruption and unethical financial practices in political campaigns.

Summary

House Bill 06633, known as an Act Concerning Campaign Finance Law and Prior Bad Acts, proposes amendments to existing campaign finance regulations aiming to ensure stricter enforcement and compliance among candidates and political committees in Connecticut. The bill includes provisions that require campaign treasurers to adhere to additional eligibility criteria, particularly regarding past criminal convictions that may reflect on their ability to manage campaign funds. Furthermore, the bill aims to strengthen oversight by empowering the State Elections Enforcement Commission to enforce these provisions more effectively.

Sentiment

Discussions around HB 06633 reveal a mix of support and opposition among lawmakers and advocacy groups. Proponents argue that these changes are essential for maintaining ethical standards in political financing and preventing corruption. They believe that stricter regulations will lead to a fairer electoral process. Conversely, critics express concern that the bill may disproportionately impact candidates from smaller parties or those with less financial backing, thereby reducing their competitiveness in elections.

Contention

Notable points of contention include the definitions of what constitutes a 'prior bad act' and the implications for candidates with criminal records. Opponents argue that the bill could unfairly penalize individuals who have served their time and turned their lives around, restricting their ability to participate in public service. Discussions also highlighted the potential challenges that could arise in enforcing these provisions, particularly regarding the interpretation of prior convictions and the administrative burden on the State Elections Enforcement Commission.