Connecticut Senate Bill SB00196

Connecticut 2017 Regular Session

• Introduced: 1/18/17
• Refer: 1/18/17

Caption

An Act Concerning Certain Contributions To Candidates Participating In The Citizens' Election Program.

Impact

The impact of SB00196 on state laws is significant, as it strengthens the existing framework governing campaign contributions. By stipulating that nonqualifying contributions must be refunded, the bill aims to promote equitable funding for candidates, potentially leading to a more level playing field in electoral competitions. This change is poised to discourage candidates from accepting inappropriate contributions and thereby enhance the integrity of the electoral process in the state. Moreover, the measure signals to voters that the government is taking steps to ensure responsible campaign financing.

Summary

SB00196 aims to amend chapter 157 of the general statutes to address contributions to candidates participating in the Citizens' Election Program. The bill specifically mandates that any contribution made to a candidate's committee that exceeds one hundred dollars must be returned in full to the individual who made the contribution. This provision is intended to reinforce the eligibility criteria for contributions and enhance accountability within the electoral process. By requiring the return of excess contributions, the bill seeks to ensure greater adherence to campaign finance regulations.

Contention

Notable points of contention surrounding SB00196 may stem from differing perspectives on campaign finance regulation. Supporters argue that the bill is a necessary step toward increasing transparency and accountability in election financing. They believe that full refunds for excess contributions will deter breaches of campaign finance law and restore public confidence in the electoral system. Conversely, critics may contend that the bill could place undue burdens on candidates, complicating the fundraising process and possibly limiting the financial resources available to them. Concerns about the implications for smaller candidates or grassroots campaigns might arise, as they often rely heavily on individual contributions.