THE CONNECTICUT GENERAL ASSEMBLY

THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Thursday, May 25, 2017

(The House of Representatives was called to order at 10: 30 o'clock a. m. , Speaker Joe Aresimowicz in the Chair. )

SPEAKER ARESIMOWICZ (30TH):

Will the House please come to order? Will the members, staff, and guest please rise and direct your attention to the Dais where Father Charles Jacobs will lead us in prayer.

DEPUTY CHAPLAIN, REVEREND CHARLES E. JACOBS:

Thank you, Speaker.

Let us pray. Together, let us seek God's blessing. Lord, we continue to seek Your wisdom and Your guidance as Your Legislators continue throughout the legislative session. We continue to remember in prayer those in Manchester, England who lost their lives, and those who were injured as well. In You, we believe that all things will be made well. Amen.

SPEAKER ARESIMOWICZ (30TH):

Thank you, Father. Would Representative David Arconti of the 109th district please come to the Dais and lead us in the Pledge of Allegiance.

REP. ARCONTI (109TH):

(All) I pledge the allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands one nation under God invisible with liberty and justice for all.

SPEAKER ARESIMOWICZ (30TH):

Is there any business on the clerk's desk?

CLERK:
Mr
. Speaker the only business on the clerk's desk is the daily calendar.

SPEAKER ARESIMOWICZ (30TH):

Thank you very much sir. Are there are announcements or introductions? Representative Ritter it looks like we have a pretty big advantage, you ready to run the budget? (laughter) Seems more like the Congress in D. C. than the House in Connecticut. Are there any announcements or introductions? Will the clerk please call House Calendar 538?

CLERK:

State of Connecticut House of Representatives Calendar; Thursday, May 25, 2017. On Page 40, House Calendar 538 Substitute Senate Bill No. 916, AN ACT CONCERNING MINOR AND CONFORMING CHANGES TO STATUTES CONCERNING VETERANS. Favorable report of the Joint Standing Committee on Veterans' Affairs.

SPEAKER ARESIMOWICZ (30TH):

The representative from the great city of Bridgeport and a veteran himself, Representative Hennessy you have the floor.

REP. HENNESSY (127TH):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Good morning Mr. Speaker.

SPEAKER ARESIMOWICZ (30TH):

Good morning, sir.

REP. HENNESSY (127TH):

Mr. Speaker, I move acceptance as a Joint Committee's favorable report and passage of the bill.

SPEAKER ARESIMOWICZ (30TH):

The question before the Chamber is on acceptance of the Joint Committee's favorable report and passage of the bill. Representative Hennessy, please proceed.

REP. HENNESSY (127TH):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This is a, as the title of the bill indicates, it's a technical change, minor in conforming changes to state statute. I urge the House to support the bill and vote for it. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SPEAKER ARESIMOWICZ (30TH):

The question before the Chamber is on adoption of the bill. Will you remark? My very good friend, Representative Candelora of the 86th. You have the floor, sir.

REP. CANDELORA (86TH):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Good morning. Mr. Speaker, if I may, just to question the proponent.

SPEAKER ARESIMOWICZ (30TH):

Representative Hennessy, you are about to get a question so please prepare yourself. Representative Candelora please proceed.

REP. CANDELORA (86TH):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Under this bill, I was looking at it and it is mostly technical in nature, but under the summary it does talk about requiring each veteran service officer to complete a course in veteran's benefits no later than one year after commencing employment. Is that provision still in this bill and could the good gentleman just explain that if it is?

Through you.

SPEAKER ARESIMOWICZ (30TH):

Representative Hennessy.

REP. HENNESSY (127TH):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, through you Mr. Speaker, yes that still is in the bill and it appears to be just more of a semantic change than actual change.

Through you Mr. Speaker.

SPEAKER ARESIMOWICZ (30TH):

Representative Candelora.

REP. CANDELORA (86TH):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, yes after what I see here is we are changing the language just from within one year to not later than one year, so it's just sort of clarifying in its existing law. I appreciate the answer.

SPEAKER ARESIMOWICZ (30TH):

Thank you very much, sir. Will you remark further on the bill before us? Representative Ferraro of the 117th, you now have the floor sir.

REP. FERRARO (117TH):

Good morning Mr. Speaker, you really beat us to the punch today.

SPEAKER ARESIMOWICZ (30TH):

Every once in a while, sir.

REP. FERRARO (117TH):

Alright, I do rise in support of the bill, as the Chairman has said it is basically technical. I urge that the members of the House vote for the bill. Thank you very much.

SPEAKER ARESIMOWICZ (30TH):

Thank you very much, sir. Will you remark further on the bill before us? Will you remark further on the bill before us? If not, staff and guests please come to the well of the House. Members take your seats. The machine be open. (Ringing)

CLERK:

The House of Representatives is voting by roll. Members to the Chamber. The House of Representatives is voting by roll, members to the Chamber.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORRIS (140TH):

Have all the members voted? Have all the members voted? Will the members please check the board to determine whether their vote has been properly cast? If all the members have voted, the machine will be locked and the clerk will take a tally. The clerk will please announce the tally.

CLERK:

Senate Bill 916 in concurrence with the Senate.

Total number Voting 133

Necessary for Passage 67

Those voting Yea 133

Those voting Nay 0

Those absent and not Voting 18

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORRIS (140TH):

The bill as amended is passed. (Gavel) Are there any announcements or introductions? Any announcements or introductions? Representative Linehan of the 103rd. For what cause do you rise, madam?

REP. LINEHAN (103RD):

Thank you very much Mr. Speaker. I rise for the purpose of an announcement.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORRIS (140TH):

You may proceed.

REP. LINEHAN (103RD):

Thank you, sir. On behalf of the Chair of the Veteran's Committee, Representative Hennessy as well as our ranking member Ferraro and myself as the Vice Chair, we are honored to ask you all to participate in the 10th Anniversary Ceremony for the Wall of Honor in our Concourse. Happily, we have no new names to add to the wall this year but the names of the 65 service men and women who were killed in action in Iraq and Afghanistan, their names will be read in their honor. So, it's today at 4: 00 o'clock and I'd also like to give a special thanks to Nancy Wyman who in 2007 created the Annual Wall of Honor Ceremony and we'd be thrilled to have you all there, especially as we come upon Memorial Day to read those names and stand in solidarity with those who are bravely fighting for our country. Thank you, sir.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORRIS (140TH):

Thank you, madam. Representative Polletta of the 68th district.

REP. POLLETTA (68TH):

Good morning Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORRIS (140TH):

Good morning, sir.

REP. POLLETTA (68TH):

I rise for a purpose of an introduction this morning.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORRIS (140TH):

You may proceed.

REP. POLLETTA (68TH):

With me, I have West Connecticut senior Mr. Alex Laifer, who is an individual very interested in political science. He was a great aide to me on my campaign and he presently has a 3. 9 GPA as a senior looking to get into government, and his ultimate goal is to be President of the United States.

If everyone could please extend a warm welcome to my good friend Alex this morning. Thank you.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORRIS (140TH):

Thank you, sir, and the distinguished Deputy Speaker pro tem Representative Bob Godfrey of the 110th.

REP. BOB GODFREY (110TH):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. For purposes of an announcement.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORRIS (140TH):

You may proceed, sir.

REP. BOB GODFREY (110TH):

Thank you, sir. We are all very cognizant of all the hard work that non-profits do across our state in our individual districts and have heaped praise on them for years and years and years. We will have an opportunity later today at 5: 00 p. m. up in the old Judiciary Room to meet with many of them as the Connecticut Community Non-profit Alliances host a reception for the legislature and I hope you'll all be able to go up there later today from five to seven in old Judiciary and attend. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORRIS (140TH):

Thank you, sir. Representative Bolinsky of the 106th district. For what cause do you rise, sir?

REP. BOLINSKY (106TH):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It's great to see you this morning.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORRIS (140TH):

Likewise, sir.

REP. BOLINSKY (106TH):

I rise for a point of personal introduction, please?

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORRIS (140TH):

You may proceed.

REP. BOLINSKY (106TH):

To my sides over here are two of my finest constituents in Newtown. This young lady over here is a self-advocate. Her name is Sydney Ohlin. I'll tell you a little bit about her story in a moment. This is her mother Stacey Ohlin who roped me in and tied me down so that I'd listen to the whole story and start the advocating with them.

So, I do want to take this opportunity to tell you about a remarkable young woman. Sydney is 21 years old. She does have an intellectual disability and she suffers from some anxiety. As a recipient of services from the Department of Developmental Services though she's received help to continue to develop, thrive, gain purpose and be an incredibly productive member of our community. She is a true success story, and a story of how the state's tax dollars have truly yielded a greater return on investment that could have even been hoped for. In her senior year of high school, Sydney was extremely anxious and to a very large degree had no social support network. Her immediate next step, not having friends, was very, very frightening to her and coincidentally at about that time we were talking about very deep cuts to the high school graduating-type programs from DDS. I am really thrilled and proud to report though that over the last 18 months Sydney has done a complete 180. She has secured a job with a local daycare. Through DDS Family Support Services, she has been able to deal with her social isolation issues. She connects beautifully with others and she even now has a really great handful of special BFF's and even participates in weekend respite programs, which are wonderfully meaning for her and also a great relief for her family. So as a result of the self-directive services, she makes further progress and I'm proud to report that Sydney is also an active self-advocate teaching other people with intellectual disabilities, how to advocate for themselves. So, she carries every single thing forward.

Also, I want to introduce her to people in this Chamber that have actually heard from her. In the last session, on her own volition, Sydney did a self-advocacy e-mail campaign where she wrote to each and every one of the legislatures in the House of Representatives and the State Senate. So, yes this is the famous Sydney Ohlin. So, please join me in welcoming and taking your hats off to a wonderful young lady and her primary support person. (applause)

And, Mr. Speaker, if I might conclude. Sydney and her mom, their gonna be sitting outside the hall of the House for a couple of hours, and I welcome anybody who wants to hear a true success story about how somebody can advocate for themselves and build a life of independence, something that they're proud of, something that they wake up in the morning just absolutely enthusiastic to get going and do. Please meet Sydney. She is really, really, really an inspiration. Thank you, thank you, thank you Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORRIS (140TH):

Thank Representative Bolinsky, and thank you for that wonderful introduction, and welcome to the House of Representatives. Return to the Call of the Calendar. Will the clerk please call Calendar No. 327?

CLERK:

On page 48, House Calendar 327 Substitute House Bill No. 6347, AN ACT CONCERNING PET OWNER ACCESS TO STATE AGENCY RECORDS OF INVESTIGATION FOR COMPLAINTS OF WRONGDOING BY VETERINARIANS. Favorable report of the Joint Standing Committee on Public Health.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORRIS (140TH):

Representative Demicco.

REP. DEMICCO (21ST):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I move for acceptance of the Joint Committee's favorable report and passage of the bill.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORRIS (140TH):

The question is acceptance of the Joint Committee's favorable report and passage of the bill. Representative Demicco you have the floor, sir.

REP. DEMICCO (21ST):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, this bill would change the current law. Currently, if a pet owner files a complaint with the Department of Public Health against a veterinarian, the records that are used in the Department of Public Health's investigation of that complaint are confidential and remain confidential both during the investigation and after the investigation is concluded. This would change the law and allow the owner of the pet who filed the complaint to have access to those records to see what records were used in the determination by the Department as to whether probable cause exists to go forward with a more full investigation, and my understanding is that an amendment will be filed that will be an improvement to this bill and I look forward to that Mr. Speaker. Thank you.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORRIS (140TH):

Will you remark further on the bill that is before us? Will you remark further? Representative Harding of the 107th.

REP. HARDING (107TH):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Good morning Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I just have some comments to make and an amendment to propose. Just like Representative Demicco stated that this is supposed to be for owners to see the file in regard to veterinarian complaints filed with the Department of Public Health. Right now, the language is written in the bill that is currently before us states that any person who is responsible for the custody or control of such an animal, and that's written in addition to the owner. So, it broadens that language a little bit and it might open it up to some individuals who may not--you know is supposed to be privy to this particular information.

So, that being said, Mr. Speaker, the clerk has an amendment as LCO 6247. I would kindly ask the clerk to call it and I'd be allowed to summarize?

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORRIS (140TH):

Will the clerk please call LCO 6247, designated as House Amendment Schedule "A"?

CLERK:

House Amendment Schedule "A" LCO 6247 offered by Representative Candelora.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORRIS (140TH):

The representative seeks leave of the Chamber to summarize the amendment. Is there objection to summarization? Is there objection? Hearing none. Representative Harding, you may proceed with summarization.

REP. HARDING (107TH):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and just like as I mentioned before what this does is it strikes "any person who is responsible for the custody" in line 16 and strikes "or control of such an animal" in line 17.

So, it simply restricts the individual who can see the investigation or the file on the investigation to strictly the owner. I think it is a positive amendment and I would hope that my colleagues support it. So, with that said, Mr. Speaker, I move the adoption of the amendment.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORRIS (140TH):

To the Chamber; I'd ask that everyone would tone their voices down a little bit so we can hear. We're getting a little bit loud, okay? The question before the Chamber is adoption of House Amendment Schedule "A". Will you remark on the amendment? Representative Demicco.

REP. DEMICCO (21ST):

Yes, thank you Mr. Speaker. As I indicated previously, I consider this to be an improvement to the bill. I consider this to be a friendly amendment. It was introduced in the spirit of improvement of the bill and I would urge all of my colleagues to support the amendment, thank you.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORRIS (140TH):

Thank you, sir. Will you remark further on the amendment before us? Will you remark further on the amendment before us? If not, I will try your minds. All those in favor, signify by saying "Aye".

REPRESENTATIVES:

Aye

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORRIS (140TH):

All those opposed, "Nay". (Nay) The "Ayes" have it. The amendment is adopted. (Gavel) Will you remark further on the bill as amended? Will you remark further on the bill as amended? Will you remark further on the bill as amended? If not, will staff and guests please come to the well of the House. The machine will be open. (Ringing)

CLERK:
The House of Representatives is voting by roll
. Members to the Chamber. The House of Representatives is voting by roll. Members to the Chamber.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORRIS (140TH):

Have all the members voted? Have all the members voted? Will the members please check the board to determine whether your vote has been properly cast? If all the members have voted, the machine will be locked and the clerk will take a tally. Representative Kokoruda, for what purpose do you rise, madam?

REP. KOKORUDA (101ST):

Mr. Speaker, I rise for a request to enter a "yes" vote on the last bill please?

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORRIS (140TH):

The transcript will so note.

REP. KOKORUDA (101ST):

Thank you.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORRIS (140TH):

Thank you, madam. Will the clerk please? Yes, Representative Kokoruda your vote will be recorded. Are we all set? Okay. Will the clerk please announce the tally?

CLERK:

House Bill 6347, as amended by House "A".

Total number Voting 138

Necessary for Passage 70

Those voting Yea 138

Those voting Nay 0

Those absent and not Voting 13

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORRIS (140TH):

The bill as amended is passed. (Gavel) Will the clerk please call Calendar No. 535?

CLERK:
On Page 39, House Calendar 535, Substitute Senate Bill No
. 906, AN ACT CONCERNING LEAD GENERATORS OF RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE LOANS. Favorable report of the Joint Standing Committee on banking.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORRIS (140TH):

Representative Lesser.

REP. LESSER (100TH):

Good morning, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I move acceptance of the Joint Committee's favorable report and passage of the bill.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORRIS (140TH):

The question is acceptance of the Joint Committee's favorable report and passage of the bill. Representative Lesser, you have the floor, sir.

REP. LESSER (100TH):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, this bill is the result of a multi-year collaborative effort between the Department of Banking and forces in industry in response to the changing face of the residual mortgage industry. It seeks to license a new class of mortgage professionals, lead generators who are in the business of providing information on potential customers to the residential mortgage industry. It provides additional consumer safeguards and I believe after a number of years of effort, I think we've finally reached a consensus between regulators and the industry on the way forward.

Mr. Speaker, the clerk is in possession of an amendment; LCO 6935. I ask that the clerk please call the amendment and I would be granted leave of the Chamber to summarize?

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORRIS (140TH):

Will the clerk please call LCO 6935, previously designated Senate Amendment "A"?

CLERK:

Senate Amendment Schedule "A", LCO 6935, offered by Senator Winfield, Senator Martin, et al.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORRIS (140TH):

The Representative seeks leave of the Chamber to summarize the amendment. Is there objection to summarization? Is there is objection? Hearing none, Representative Lesser you may proceed with summarization.

REP. LESSER (100TH):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker this amendment, which was previously adopted by the Senate streamlines the bill, clarifies the intent with regard to enforcement and it eliminates a failure to supervise language that had attracted hostile response in Committee. Mr. Speaker I urge adoption with this item.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORRIS (140TH):

Will you remark further on the amendment before us? Will you remark further? Representative Simanski of the 62nd.

REP. SIMANSKI (62ND):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My name is on the amendment. I totally agree with everything the Good Chairman said and I move adoption of the amendment.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORRIS (140TH):

Will you remark further on the amendment before us? Will you remark further? If not, I will try your minds. All those in favor, please signify by saying "Aye".

REPRESENTATIVES:
Aye

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORRIS (140TH):

All those opposed, "Nay". (Nay) The "Ayes" have it. The amendment is adopted. (Gavel) Will you remark further on the bill as amended? Representative Lesser.

REP. LESSER (100TH):

Yes, Mr. Speaker. It's a good bill, ought to pass. It provides additional consumer protections for persons purchasing residential home mortgages in Connecticut.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORRIS (140TH):

Representative Simanski of the 62nd.

REP. SIMANSKI (62ND):
Thank you Mr
. Speaker. The chairman did a good job of explaining and summarizing what this bill is. It's a good consumer protection bill. It seeks to regulate and license to use lead generators, who a commissioner or banking found were causing a lot of issues. So, I certainly support the bill and I urge all my members to vote for it. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORRIS (140TH):

Will you remark further on the bill as amended? Will you remark further on the bill as amended? If not, will staff and guests please come to the well of the House? Will the members please take your seats? The machine will be open. (Ringing)

CLERK:
The House of Representatives is voting by roll
. Members to the Chamber. The House of Representatives is voting by roll. Members to the Chamber.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORRIS (140TH):

Have all the members voted? Have all the members voted? Will the members please check the board to determine whether your vote is properly cast? If all the members have voted, the machine will be locked and the clerk will take a tally. The clerk will please announce the tally.

CLERK:

Senate Bill 906, as amended by Senate "A" in concurrence with the Senate.

Total number Voting 141

Necessary for Passage 71

Those voting Yea 130

Those voting Nay 11

Those absent and not Voting 10

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORRIS (140TH):

The bill as amended is passed in concurrence with the Senate is passed. (Gavel) Will the clerk please call Calendar No. 474?

CLERK:

On Page 31, Calendar 474, Senate Bill No. 899, AN ACT CONCERNING PUBLIC UTILITIES REGULATORY AUTHORITY ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS FOR PURCHASED GAS ADJUSTMENTS, ENERGY ADJUSTMENT CHARGES OR CREDITS AND TRANSMISSION RATES. Favorable report of the Joint Standing Committee on Energy and Technology.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORRIS (140TH):

Representative Reed of the 102nd.

REP. REED (102ND):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I move for acceptance of the Joint Committee's favorable report in concurrence with the Senate and passage of the bill.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORRIS (140TH):

The question before the Chamber is on acceptance of the Joint Committee's favorable report and passage of the bill. Representative Reed, you have the floor madam.

REP. REED (102ND):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The clerk has in his possession an amendment, LCO 6248, Senate "A". I request that he be asked to call it and that I'd be allowed to summarize.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORRIS (140TH):

We don't have a Senate amendment on that? Do we have a House amendment? House to stand at ease.

REP. REED (102ND):

Mr. Speaker, I stand corrected. Apparently, there was no amendment.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORRIS (140TH):

Excuse me, madam. The House will come back to order. Madam, you may proceed.

REP. REED (102ND):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. So, I stand corrected. Apparently, there was no amendment. So, I request permission to summarize?

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORRIS (140TH):

So, what you mean, madam, is there is no called amendment?

REP. REED (102ND):

Correct.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORRIS (140TH):

Correct.

REP. REED (102ND):

So, I'm going to summarize the bill if that meets with your approval Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORRIS (140TH):

Thank you, madam.

REP. REED (102ND):

Thank you. So essentially this bill is part of Pure's efforts to streamline the processes, their processes, to save money for rate payers. This particular one involves a periodic rate review process. It usually involves implementing adjustments that have already been reviewed, and what they want to is instead of doing a full-on public hearing and mandating that, they want that to be discretionary for non-contested issues. It's costly and time consuming. It clearly is a use of staffs that could apply elsewhere. You know, all the things that we're trying to do to streamline our agencies and to make them more productive for everyone, and essentially that's what this bill does, and I move adoption for passage.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORRIS (140TH):

Thank you, madam. Will you remark further on this bill? Representative Hoydick of the 120th district.

REP. HOYDICK (120TH):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I concur with the gentle chairwoman of energy that this is a good bill. It's a consumer protection bill, and as my colleagues were commenting actually the name of the bill is exactly what it does which is fairly unusual for us in this Chamber, but what this bill will do is it will save rate payers money. It will reduce administrative expenses and time and be more efficient. If something is questioned or there is a hearing that is necessary, Pure will call it, otherwise they will go through the administrative process.

I urge my colleagues to support this. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORRIS (140TH):

Thank you, madam. Will you remark further on this bill? Will you remark further on this bill? If not, will staff and guests please come to the well of the House? Will the members please take your seats? The machine will be open. (Ringing)

CLERK:
The House of Representatives is voting by roll
. Members to the Chamber. The House of Representatives is voting by roll. Members to the Chamber.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORRIS (140TH):

Have all the members voted? Have all the members voted? Will the members please check--one more, okay. Will the members please check the board to determine if your vote has been properly cast? If all the members have voted, the machine will be locked and the clerk will take a tally. The clerk will please announce the tally.

CLERK:

Senate Bill 899.

Total number Voting 144

Necessary for Passage 73

Those voting Yea 144

Those voting Nay 0

Those absent and not Voting 7

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORRIS (140TH):

The bill passes. (Gavel) Will the clerk please call Calendar No. 524? Clerk, please hold a moment. Representative Srinivasan, for what purpose do you rise sir?

REP. SRINIVASAN (31ST):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise for the purpose of requesting my vote to be counted in the affirmative on Senate Bill 906.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORRIS (140TH):

The transcript will be so noted.

REP. SRINIVASAN (31ST):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate that.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORRIS (140TH):

Thank you, sir. Will the clerk please call Calendar No. 524?

CLERK:

On Page 38, Calendar 524, Senate Bill No. 755, AN ACT CONCERNING THE COUNCIL ON MEDICAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM OVERSIGHT. Favorable report of the Joint Standing Committee on Public Health.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORRIS (140TH):

Representative Steinberg.

REP. STEINBERG (136TH):

Good morning, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORRIS (140TH):

Good morning, sir.

REP. STEINBERG (136TH):

Let's see. I move for acceptance of the Joint Committee's favorable report and passage of the bill.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORRIS (140TH):

The question before the Chamber is acceptance of the Joint Committee's favorable report and passage of the bill. Representative Steinberg, you have the floor sir.

REP. STEINBERG (136TH):

Thank you very much Mr. Speaker. This bill is a very simple bill. It ends the existence of a sub-committee of MAPOC which as we know stands for the Council of Medical Assistant Programs Oversight. The sub-committee which is the Medical Assistant Programs Oversight Committee has done its job. It has made recommendations. It has issued a report, and the report has been posted on the MAPOC Connecticut site and we are ending the sub-committee for the work well done. I move adoption.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORRIS (140TH):

Will you remark further on this bill? Representative Srinivasan.

REP. SRINIVASAN (31ST):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Good morning, Mr. Speaker. Good to see you there.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORRIS (140TH):

Likewise, sir.

REP. SRINIVASAN (31ST):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Through you Mr. Speaker, a few questions to the Chair on Public Health.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORRIS (140TH):

Representative Steinberg, prepare yourself for questions. Representative Srinivasan, you may proceed sir.

REP. SRINIVASAN (31ST):

Through you Mr. Speaker, if the good Chair could just enumerate one more time the intent of this bill.

Through you Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORRIS (140TH):

Representative Steinberg.

REP. STEINBERG (136TH):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The intent of this bill is to end the existence of a sub-committee at MAPOC that had specific responsibility for making recommendations having to do with HUSKY A and HUSKY B. It has completed its work as required. It has provided recommendations in a report, the report has been posted. Recommendations are being considered to be implemented, and therefore there is no longer -- bless you -- no longer a need for the sub-committee and this bill would end its existence.

Through you.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORRIS (140TH):

Representative Srinivasan.

REP. SRINIVASAN (31ST):

Through you Mr. Speaker, what was the job that was described to this sub-committee? Through you Mr. Speaker, the sub-committee that we are now saying does not need to exist anymore.

Through you Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORRIS (140TH):

Representative Steinberg.

REP. STEINBERG (136TH):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and that the good Representative for the question. This particular sub-committee was monitoring Medicaid Care Management initiatives, such areas of the enrollment process, the sufficiency of Medicaid provider rates and the benefits package for each of the affected programs. That was their mandate and purview, and that's what they made recommendations on.

Through you Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORRIS (140TH):

Representative Srinivasan.

REP. SRINIVASAN (31ST):

Through you Mr. Speaker, as I understand this and I want to thank the Good Chair for informing us in more detail. The purpose of this sub-committee was to make sure that we had cost savings on Medicaid. Was that the intent? Was that the purpose of this sub-committee?

Through you Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORRIS (140TH):

Representative Steinberg.

REP. STEINBERG (136TH):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Indeed, that was one very important area under their purview, looking at rates and looking at the process. So, I would say yes.

Through you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORRIS (140TH):

Representative Srinivasan.

REP. SRINIVASAN (31ST):

Through you, Mr. Speaker, cost savings is important. We all know that, and that was the charge that the sub-committee had. Along with that, Mr. Speaker, did this committee also have the charge of looking at best practices?

Through you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORRIS (140TH):

Representative Steinberg.

REP. STEINBERG (136TH):
Thank you Mr
. Speaker. Through you, yes that is correct.

Through you.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORRIS (140TH):

Representative Srinivasan.

REP. SRINIVASAN (31ST):

So, through you, Mr. Speaker, so this sub-committee which is a part of the MAPOC that the Good Chair eluded to. The charge that the sub-committee had was to look; A, at best practices and B, at cost savings. Through you, Mr. Speaker, was that the purpose of the sub-committee?

Through you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORRIS (140TH):

Representative Steinberg.

REP. STEINBERG (136TH):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I think that is a good summary of their main objectives.

Through you.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORRIS (140TH):

Representative Srinivasan.

REP. SRINIVASAN (31ST):

And through you, Mr. Speaker, what we are trying to do here is dissolve this sub-committee that was charged with making sure we constantly looked at A, cost savings and B, best practices. Through you, Mr. Speaker, are we trying to dissolve this sub-committee which was charged with, as I said, I want to make sure you heard that. I was a little distracted. I just wanted to make sure about that. Through you, Mr. Speaker, that the charge of this sub-committee was cost savings and best practices, and that's the committee which we feel we do not need anymore.

Through you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORRIS (140TH):

Representative Steinberg.

REP. STEINBERG (136TH):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Through you, I think the Good Representative is asking a good question in there. If I interpret it, he's perhaps concerned that by ending this sub-committee that we won't be looking at those things. That is not the case. There are other sub-committees such as the sub-committee on Access and Accountability which will continue to look at those things as we go forward.

Through you.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORRIS (140TH):

Representative Srinivasan.

REP. SRINIVASAN (31ST):

Through you, Mr. Speaker, if there are other sub-committees that are going to be looking into this then that is my concern, because the charge of this sub-committee was very critical, it was very important in terms of cost savings, in terms of best practices, and we all know through you, Mr. Speaker, the economic crisis that our state is in right now, and the last thing we can do is make sure that we dissolve a committee that is looking primarily at cost savings. Through you, Mr. Speaker, is there another committee or a sub-committee, or who will be charged if this legislation were to move forward at looking at best practices and looking at cost savings.

Through you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORRIS (140TH):

Representative Steinberg.

REP. STEINBERG (136TH):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Again, that is an excellent question and one that concerns me as well and I know it also concerned the MAPOC Executive Committee which is why they thought very carefully about ending the assignment for this sub-committee, but it was felt that the Access And Accountability Sub-Committee had sufficient purview to continue that work, and you can also be assured that the MAPOC Broader Council will continue to make sure that those issues remain foremost in our consideration as we talk about all things Medicaid.

Through you.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORRIS (140TH):

Representative Srinivasan.

REP. SRINIVASAN (31ST):

Through you, Mr. Speaker, if MAPOC's Overview A and B other sub-committees are going to be looking into this charge. It is then my interpretation that cost savings and best practices are something that needs to be looked at and monitored closely and on an ongoing basis.

Through you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORRIS (140TH):

Representative Steinberg.

REP. STEINBERG (136TH):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am not sure I heard a question there, but I tend to agree with the Good Representative's sentiments.

Through you.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORRIS (140TH):

Representative Srinivasan.

REP. SRINIVASAN (31ST):

Through you, Mr. Speaker, if we all agree that cost savings and best practices will always be an ongoing issue for us, cause best practices in 2016 are different than best practices in 2018 and moving forward. Cost savings also is a changing field there and obviously we are very concerned with what is going to come down for us from Washington D. C. in terms of Medicaid, in terms of Medicaid reimbursements, in terms of block grants that we might be getting and how are we going to make sure that we continue to provide these Medicaid services. So, as I see all of that, which is a changing field and it's always moving, always changing, nothing fixed at all, why are we eliminating this sub-committee which is primarily charged and then saying some other committee whether it be MAPOC or other committee is going to be looking at these same issues?

Through you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORRIS (140TH):

Representative Steinberg.

REP. STEINBERG (136TH):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Through you, I think that Representative raises a very important issue. The uncertainty at the federal level as to the future of Medicaid gives us all pause. In fact, this kind of uncertainty is very unsettling to all those who depend on Medicaid and on the broader insurance marketplace. I think this is something that we're gonna need to focus on going forward, but that very uncertainty caused him to question as to the explicit mandate of this sub-committee looking at HUSKY A and B, I would submit we don't know what the future of HUSKY A and B will be in the future depending upon was Washington decides to do. So again, this sub-committee had a very explicit, narrow mandate looking at HUSKY A and B and I think that we'd have to look into the future as to whether or not we might need to constitute a new sub-committee to look at whatever changes need to happen in response to what goes on the federal level.

So, I think it's a good question, but again this sub-committee with its explicit, narrow context doesn't need to exist. We will have to react to what goes on in Washington sometime in the future.

Through you.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORRIS (140TH):

Representative Srinivasan.

REP. SRINIVASAN (31ST):

Through you, Mr. Speaker, I definitely agree with my Good Chair that it is possible that this sub-committee does not need to exist. I get that. But my concern is, our primary concerns have not gone away and will never go away, in fact make it even more complex, maybe even more demanding depending on what is gonna happen as an impact on us from what happens down in D. C.

So, having said that, my concern is who is going to be charged A, with best practices and B, will cost savings, if we were to dissolve this sub-committee which was primarily charged with that?

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORRIS (140TH):

Representative Steinberg.

REP. STEINBERG (136TH):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and again I share the Good Representative's concerns. We do have the Access and Accountability Sub-Committee whose purview would certainly encompass this. There is the broader MAPOC Council's responsibility to always look at these issues, and I think that he raises a good point. I wouldn't be surprised if at some point next year when we know what's going on in Washington that we might need a sub-committee to look at whatever they're actually proposing. Right now, it's hard to create a mandate for a sub-committee not knowing what's gonna happen in Washington.

Through you.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORRIS (140TH):

Representative Srinivasan.

REP. SRINIVASAN (31ST):

Through you, Mr. Speaker, if we were not to dissolve this sub-committee knowing very well that the need for what the sub-committee does will never go away. The need will always be there constantly, consistently looking at best practices and cost savings. So, what this committee does, obviously the need is there. So, if by eliminating this and requesting somebody else to be looking at it constantly, are we saving any dollars from a fiscal point of view? Is there a savings because of the fact that we are eliminating this sub-committee?

Through you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORRIS (140TH):

Representative Steinberg.

REP. STEINBERG (136TH):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Through you, another excellent question. Obviously when we eliminate a sub-committee, we eliminate it's need to meet and therefore the staffing responsible to making sure that they meet and have minutes and everything they may need, so I would imagine there's probably some modest savings in not having sub-committees, and I think it's our responsibility as a legislature to make sure that we don't have more meetings than we need, create more sub-committees or councils than we need. I daresay a task force. So, that this is responsible government by constantly monitoring whether or not we need sub-committees.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORRIS (140TH):

Representative Srinivasan.

REP. SRINIVASAN (31ST):

It is my understanding, Mr. Speaker, that there was no fiscal note that was going to be impacted, positively or negatively, and in this case positively in terms of a cost reduction by eliminating this sub-committee. This is my understanding and I did hear the Good Chair say that at the most we may have some modest savings. Through you, Mr. Speaker, could the Good Chairman share with us what would be the savings in terms of personnel time and if you could translate that maybe into dollars and cents for us.

Through you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORRIS (140TH):

Representative Steinberg.

REP. STEINBERG (136TH):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, through you, the Good Representative gives me great credit for being able to do the financial analysis. I should emphasize that the members of this sub-committee are all volunteers. So obviously they are not being compensated for their time. The staff that would service this sub-committee would then have bandwidth perhaps to do other functions. So, there may not be anything that we could put a dollar and cents amount on, but as I said it's good government to end sub-committees that no longer have purpose. So, I don't know if I answered his question precisely. There may not be a dollars and cents number we can put on it. It's another one of our voluntary sub-committees and it's just good practice for us to consider whether it's necessary.

Through you.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORRIS (140TH):

Representative Srinivasan.

REP. SRINIVASAN (31ST):

Through you, Mr. Speaker, I do want to thank the Good Chair for expanding on the financial component of that, and I do understand that the council members in the serving of the sub-committee are all serving in a voluntary basis so there's no compensation there. Staff time, obviously, you can never calculate precisely as to what you know the staff time spent in A, spent time in B, it's a sum total of all the charges that they have. So, I do get that. Then from a staff point of view, it is almost impossible to say what the cost savings are going to be. But to me, I don't see any cost savings from a staff point of view, not from the voluntary part, but from a staff point of view. Cause if I do remember clearly the Good Chair telling us that these services in best practices, these services in terms of cost savings, if not done by the sub-committee, somebody else will be doing that. Somebody else has to be monitoring that on an ongoing basis. So, does the Good Chair fell, through you Mr. Speaker, that best practices and cost savings for the time being since we already have a report and the report is up on the Web and everything else, does not need to be monitored for a certain period of time?

Through you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORRIS (140TH):

Representative Steinberg.

REP. STEINBERG (136TH):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It's a good question. I think it has had a certain period of time to get responses to the report, and as I've stated previously I do believe that there is ongoing monitoring by MAPOC, either through its broad council or through the Access and Accountability Sub-Committee. So, I'm confident that that oversight is being addressed in the fashion that the Good Representative suggested.

Through you.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORRIS (140TH):

Representative Srinivasan.

REP. SRINIVASAN (31ST):

Through you, Mr. Speaker, if we dissolve the sub-committee, the staff I get that you know they could be re-directed to do something else and some of the people will constantly be monitoring though perhaps not as closely as those two important components that I've talked about over and over again in the last ten minutes on what would be important for us to monitor. But in terms of committee when we dissolve this committee, how many of these members are we reducing the overall council by?

Through you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORRIS (140TH):

Representative Steinberg.

REP. STEINBERG (136TH):
Thank you Mr
. Speaker. Through you, it's a good question. I believe there are six volunteer members of this sub-committee at this time. I'm sure all of them have other roles perhaps through MAPOC more broadly, and they are all very committed to the cause and I'm sure will remain involved even if the sub-committee doesn't exist.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORRIS (140TH):

Representative Srinivasan.

REP. SRINIVASAN (31ST):

And through you, Mr. Speaker, if the need arises or if we as a body feel that these two important parts that we need to monitor on an ongoing basis and if this charge has been taken away from the sub-committee, given to somebody else, but obviously they are not going to monitoring it as closely because they already have other responsibilities, this is an added responsibility. Does the Good Chair feel that we would be able to bring back this sub-committee without having to go through a legislative process? If the need is there?

Through you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORRIS (140TH):

Representative Steinberg.

REP. STEINBERG (136TH):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Through you, another excellent question. Yes, I think that MAPOC has demonstrated its flexibility in reacting to changes going on particularly in the Medicaid sphere which is a fast-changing landscape and has been able to address on an ad hoc basis through one or more of its sub-committees changes as they go on, while we might entertain a legislative creation of a new sub-committee based upon new information. So, I think that is exactly the process that's likely to occur should circumstances change and we expect circumstances to change.

Through you.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORRIS (140TH):

Representative Srinivasan.

REP. SRINIVASAN (31ST):

Through you, Mr. Speaker, do we have a report from either MAPOC or any of the other sub-committees that they are willing to take on this added responsibility of cost savings and best practices?

Through you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORRIS (140TH):

Representative Steinberg.

REP. STEINBERG (136TH):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, through you, yes we would not have entertaining the sub-committee the MAPOC Executive Committee considered it very carefully to make sure that there would be no gaps, nothing lost and that is the reason why we've reached this point.

Through you.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORRIS (140TH):

Representative Srinivasan.

REP. SRINIVASAN (31ST):

So, through you Mr. Speaker, if this legislation were to move forward and signed and go on and on, if this sub-committee is dissolved because we really feel that they have done as the Good Chair said, their job is being done, their recommendations are up for all of us to review for the committees to review, and then act upon that. Through you, Mr. Speaker, is the Chair concerned at all that the basic functions of this sub-committee will be adequately discharged by the other committees?

Through you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORRIS (140TH):

Representative Steinberg.

REP. STEINBERG (136TH):

Mr. Speaker, through you, no I do not have that concern.

Through you.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORRIS (140TH):

Representative Srinivasan.

REP. SRINIVASAN (31ST):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I want to thank the Good Chair for answering all of these concerns that I just raised, and typically as you could imagine Mr. Speaker on this side of the aisle, we always want less endowment, less the better because we obviously have an intended purpose.

So, it is a unique situation that we are standing right here morning that has now become afternoon you know when we started this debate, where my good counterpart my Chairman is requesting or suggesting that we do not need this sub-committee and I'm here on the other side of the aisle concerned about dissolving this sub-committee. You know as you can imagine, and I can see from the wonderful smile on your face you are amused at this yourself as in a way I am, but I am concerned and I want to share the concern with the legislature not in this legislation. Not in the fact that we can dissolve this sub-committee. I get that. I have no problems with that at all. There is no significant cost factor, which is a good thing. We could have, at best, a cost savings which is phenomenal.

So, all in all, it is the right thing to do to dissolve this sub-committee, but my only concern and I will always be concerned about that is that as you can imagine Mr. Speaker medicine, you know what was good yesterday is not good today and is definitely not gonna be good tomorrow. And Medicaid and the eligibility, the affordability and the landscape that we have in terms of who's going to be eligible, what are the criteria, is there fraud in the system, is it being abused, is there being excessive use, are all big concerns for you, for me, for the entire state because at the end of the day it comes out of our state budget and as you know Mr. Speaker it's a huge part of our state budget which we are having significant difficulties in trying to balance.

So, for me, Medicaid oversight is important from two angles; A in making sure that those services are available for those in our society that depend on them. That's extremely important. We know, Mr. Speaker that Medicaid coverage is getting more and more difficult. Physicians accepting Medicaid are reducing. Specialists especially, we find that they're not participating because of the reimbursement rates.

So in fairness to everybody, you have the healthcare providers that have their concerns, we have the patients that need to be adequately provided as far as the services are concerned, and so to me the monitoring of the services, monitoring of the best practices so there is no abuse, there is no excessive usage and at the same time it is available, those services are available which is very critical, is an ongoing issue and whether the report is filed in 2016 or maybe this year in 2017 is a good thing, but this needs to be monitored ongoing constantly and consistently. And for me, my big concern is MAPOC without the sub-committee which was primarily charged with best practices and cost savings, who will take over that mantle? Who will take over the responsibility and ensure that both those important components are always watched constantly and consistently.

I will be listening to this debate as it moves on the floor of the House. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Good Chair for his indulgence and for answering all of these multiple concerns that I have, which he shares them too. I definitely get that. We are together in this goal, his goal, my goal, our common goal in the legislature is very simple; to make sure that the best practices are followed and we have cost savings. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORRIS (140TH):

Thank you, sir. Representative Abercrombie of the 83rd district, Meriden.

REP. ABERCROMBIE (83RD):

Good morning, Mr. Speaker, oh it's afternoon already. Good afternoon, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORRIS (140TH):

Good afternoon.

REP. ABERCROMBIE (83RD):

Mr. Speaker I rise in support of this legislation and I would just like to thank my colleague from the other side of the aisle for his questions, and I think that I can give some clarity to why we believe that we don't need this sub-committee anymore. I am currently the co-chair of the Medicaid Oversight Council. The Oversight Council is made up of legislators and providers and advocates throughout the state of Connecticut. Through that process, we have five sub-committees. We've been looking at trying to be more effective with our sub-committees and that's why we felt it was important that this sub-committee be combined with another subcommittee. We have two sub-committees that can look at some of the costs that we pay as a state. One is the Quality and Access Committee and one is the PCMH which is the Care Management which has been looking at rates. So, I believe that this legislation is very important that we do not need this sub-committee anymore. I will say that we are very concerned with what's gonna happen from the federal government, especially around Medicaid, and we are lucky in this state that our Medicaid Director, Kate McEvoy, is also the Vice President of the national organization. We meet monthly as a council and we get updates monthly as to what's going on through the federal government and some of the concerns that all of the directors have.

So, I urge my colleagues to support this. I think that all of my colleague-on-the-other-side-of-the-aisle's issues will be addressed through the sub-committees. He is actually a member of the MAPOC Oversight Council. He is more than welcome to come to the meetings and voice his concerns, and actually add items to the agenda if he has anything in particular. So, I urge my colleagues to adopt this legislation. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORRIS (140TH):

Thank you, good madam. Representative Petit of the 22nd district.

REP. PETIT (22ND):

Thank you very much Mr. Speaker. Question for the proponent of the bill sir?

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORRIS (140TH):

Representative Steinberg, prepare yourself for question. Representative Petit, you may proceed sir.

REP. PETIT (22ND):

For the Good Co-Chair and my colleague on Public Health, I am wondering if there are concerns about the change in the makeup of committee members, cause as I understand it the sub-committee that we are losing including the Child Advocate or designee, a family or child advocate, etc. , people involved with developmental disabilities. So, I am wondering if the change in the makeup raises any concerns for the proponent.

Through you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORRIS (140TH):

Representative Steinberg.

REP. STEINBERG (136TH):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and thank the Good Representative for an excellent question. As is often the case with sub-committees, they are members of the broader council itself so we're not losing their expertise or their input. They will remain involved, it's just that they won't serve on this specific sub-committee.

Through you.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORRIS (140TH):

Representative Petit.

REP. PETIT (22ND):

I thank you for that answer and I think that was the only question I had. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORRIS (140TH):

Representative Steinberg.

REP. STEINBERG (136TH):

Good to see you again Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORRIS (140TH):

Representative Klarides-Ditria of the 105th.

REP. KLARIDES-DITRIA (105TH):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And I just have a few questions for the Good Co-Chair and the proponent of the bill. Through you, Mr. Speaker, how long was this sub-committee, how long were they formed? A year?

Through you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORRIS (140TH):

Representative Steinberg.

REP. STEINBERG (136TH):

Through you, Mr. Speaker, I don't know the exact time. Certainly, I think more than a year in its entire existence. Probably closer to two to three years, so they've had plenty of opportunity to do their work and to come up with their recommendations.

Through you.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORRIS (140TH):

Representative Ditria.

REP. KLARIDES-DITRIA (105TH):

Did the sub-committee fulfill their charge?

Through you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORRIS (140TH):

Representative Steinberg.

REP. STEINBERG (136TH):

Through you, Mr. Speaker, yes they did.

Through you.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORRIS (140TH):

Representative Ditria.

REP. KLARIDES-DITRIA (105TH):

Did the sub-committee feel they needed additional time to fulfill their charge?

Through you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORRIS (140TH):

Representative Steinberg.

REP. STEINBERG (136TH):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. To my understanding, there was no pressure on them to issue their recommendations. They did so when they were ready, and that's why we have their report.

Through you.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORRIS (140TH):

Representative Ditria.

REP. KLARIDES-DITRIA (105TH):

Did they achieve cost savings with this sub-committee?

Through you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORRIS (140TH):

Representative Steinberg.

REP. STEINBERG (136TH):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I think it may be pre-mature to point to explicit cost savings. They made recommendations, which are obviously being considered and I'm sure in some cases implemented, but I can't point to specific savings as of this time.

Through you.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORRIS (140TH):

Representative Ditria.

REP. KLARIDES-DITRIA (105TH):

And do you feel the sub-committee was adequately represented?

Through you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORRIS (140TH):

Representative Steinberg.

REP. STEINBERG (136TH):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. An excellent question. I think that we had the luxury on the MAPOC Council of selecting the most appropriate people to serve on this sub-committee and I think that if you look at the six different members they represent an interesting cross section of expertise. So, yes, I would say that we had the right people on this sub-committee.

Through you.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORRIS (140TH):

Representative Ditria.

REP. KLARIDES-DITRIA (105TH):

Mr. Speaker, as I serve on the Public Health Committee would like to thank the Good Representative and the proponent of this bill for the hard work and time he put into this as well as the sub-committee. Thank you very much Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORRIS (140TH):

Thank you, madam. Representative Fishbein of the 90th district.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Good afternoon.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORRIS (140TH):

Good afternoon, sir.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH):

I too have some questions for the proponent if I may?

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORRIS (140TH):

You may proceed, sir.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH):

Thank you, sir. The need for the sub-committee to begin with, where there deficiencies that the good work of this sub-committee was sought to fill?

Through you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORRIS (140TH):

Representative Steinberg.

REP. STEINBERG (136TH):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Through you, an excellent question. Obviously as I said earlier, Medicaid has been a bit of a moving landscape. There are constantly changes to requirements and Connecticut is justly proud of its HUSKY A and HUSKY B programs, so we wanted to make sure we are on top of recent changes that would occur at that level. I am not sure whether there was a specific stimulating event to create this sub-committee, but its charge was explicitly to look at the HUSKY A and B programs as it relates to rates and process, and we felt it was timely to give it that kind of focus.

Through you.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORRIS (140TH):

Representative Fishbein.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Does the Good Proponent of the bill know how many reports, perhaps, the sub-committee has rendered understanding that the first report was supposed to come out by January 1, 2015?

Through you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORRIS (140TH):

Representative Steinberg.

REP. STEINBERG (136TH):

Through you, Mr. Speaker. I am not sure if there were any really final reports beyond the report that we posted, but I am sure there were interim reports and information provided back to MAPOC so that MAPOC would know how they were doing, but their work product, if you will, is the recommendation report that is on the website.

Through you.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORRIS (140TH):

Representative Fishbein.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And I know that the Good Proponent of the bill was asked when this sub-committee was originally founded or the legislation passed, and I know he didn't have that information, but I am of the understanding that at least at the time of the passage it was anticipated that this would be an ongoing situation given that the language called for annual recommendations. And if I could ask, through you Mr. Speaker, if the proponent knows why the legislature at that time thought that this should be an ongoing situation?

Through you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORRIS (140TH):

Representative Steinberg.

REP. STEINBERG (136TH):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I don't know specifically. Perhaps at that time we were under the assumption that the Affordable Care Act would remain, the Healthcare Law of the Land and that we would just be dealing with that. Perhaps at this point we recognize that the landscape is changing and its impact on HUSKY A and B are such that we're uncertain as to what that would be going forward. So, there may have been an assumption of steady state and ongoing previously. Perhaps that situation no longer obtains.

Through you.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORRIS (140TH):

Representative Fishbein.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I note that the overall legislation calls for another standing sub-committee of the council of Medical Assistance Program Oversight and that has to do with complex healthcare needs. If the Good Proponent of the bill knows, is that sub-committee still in operation?

Through you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORRIS (140TH):

Representative Steinberg.

REP. STEINBERG (136TH):

Through you, Mr. Speaker. Yes that is so.

Through you.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORRIS (140TH):

Representative Fishbein.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Is it anticipated that sub-committee also dealt with in this legislation will in the near future also be going away?

Through you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORRIS (140TH):

Representative Steinberg.

REP. STEINBERG (136TH):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Through you, no not to my knowledge.

Through you.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORRIS (140TH):

Representative Fishbein.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH):

Thank you. And the sub-committee that we are dealing with here today, is it my understanding that their recommendations have been implemented via statute or regulation, or they are merely under consideration at this time?

Through you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORRIS (140TH):

Representative Steinberg.

REP. STEINBERG (136TH):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. An excellent question. I am not exactly sure whether or not much of it has been implemented. Obviously, these recommendations have to be very seriously considered and brought up with the agencies themselves, so I couldn't give you an answer as to how many have been implemented at this time.

Through you.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORRIS (140TH):

Representative Fishbein.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I think we are dealing with a very important area of you know coverage health insurance, certainly health insurance coverage for the underprivileged and the poor, and I think that we should tread very lightly here when we get rid of sub-committees. I think I am in favor of this given what I've heard, and I thank the speaker for allowing me to ask the proponent the questions here today. So, thank you.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORRIS (140TH):

Thank you, sir. Representative McCarty of the 38th district. Good afternoon, madam.

REP. MCCARTY (38TH):

Good afternoon and thank you Mr. Speaker. Just a comment and then a few questions to the proponent of the bill, if I may?

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORRIS (140TH):

You may proceed, madam.

REP. MCCARTY (38TH):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Yes, I would just like to point out that I think that this Medicaid Oversight Council was an excellent idea to begin with that we know that we really need to look to our cost efficiencies and to all that we possibly can do to help our citizens here in the state to achieve the best healthcare we can and Medicaid plays such an important and integral role in that provision. So, with that, I did appreciate hearing that the members of this council will still be included as we move forward with looking at Medicaid cost efficiencies and savings, particularly looking at the Home Care Provision, nursing home, looking with individuals with disabilities and including which many times are left out the superintendent of schools and the education piece. But my question through you Mr. Speaker to the proponent of the bill, if I may?

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORRIS (140TH):

You may proceed, madam.

REP. MCCARTY (38TH):

Thank you. I'm concerned with all of the good work that the council has achieved and looking at all of the best practices, cost efficiencies, can you please explain to me how we actually will get that information out to our citizens in Connecticut to those that this oversight council looking for the recommendations? How that will be effectuated?

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORRIS (140TH):

Representative Steinberg.

REP. STEINBERG (136TH):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Through you, an excellent question. Obviously, that's one of the reasons why we felt it was important to post the report of the recommendations on the MAPOC Website so that anybody who is interested in their deliberations or the recommendations can see so directly. Obviously, the agencies involved as they implement programs need to make sure all those effected are made aware of those changes. So, I think that the process that's been in place for changes as it relates to Medicaid and particularly HUSKY A and B should be sufficient to make sure those who are affected are aware of any changes that will be implemented.

Through you.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORRIS (140TH):

Representative McCarty.

REP. MCCARTY (38TH):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. But my question may go somewhat deeper. How would the person in the public know to get onto the website? Have there been any activities, outreach to the communities? Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORRIS (140TH):

Representative Steinberg.

REP. STEINBERG (136TH):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Through you, again that is a good further drilling down. It's important to note that many of the members of MAPOC come from the community themselves. They are community organizers, they are people who are involved with the impact of Medicaid, and really at the grassroots level, so we depend on them as well to make sure the information gets out to the affected populations and that has been effective in the past.

Through you.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORRIS (140TH):

Representative McCarty.

REP. MCCARTY (38TH):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And then just one final question if I may.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORRIS (140TH):

Please proceed.

REP. MCCARTY (38TH):

Thank you. As we move forward then with the oversight council, there will continually be annual reports it's just that this committee is consolidated, if I heard that correctly? Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORRIS (140TH):

Representative Steinberg.

REP. STEINBERG (136TH):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Through you, yes, I like the Good Representative terms "consolidated" or merged. Nothing is being lost here. The focus remains important to everybody who's involved with MAPOC and we have every confidence that we will be able to move forward with the appropriate oversight.

Through you.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORRIS (140TH):

Representative McCarty.

REP. MCCARTY (38TH):

I appreciate that answer. Thank you very much Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORRIS (140TH):

Thank you, madam. Will you remark further on this bill? Will you remark further on this bill? If not, will staff and guests please come to the well of the House? Will the members please take your seats? The machine will be open. (Ringing)

CLERK:

The House of Representatives is voting by roll. Members to the Chamber. The House of Representatives is voting by roll. Members to the Chamber.

DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN (139TH):

Have all members voted? Have all members voted? Will the members please check the board to determine if their vote is properly cast? If all the members have voted, the machine will be locked and the clerk will take a tally. The clerk will announce the tally.

CLERK:

Senate Bill 755 in concurrence with the Senate.

Total number Voting 148

Necessary for Passage 75

Those voting Yea 148

Those voting Nay 0

Those absent and not Voting 3

DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN (139TH):

The bill passes in concurrence with the Senate. (Gavel) Are there any announcements or introductions? Representative O'Dea of the 125th, sir do you have something to say?

REP. O'DEA (125TH):

Yes, thank you Mr. Speaker. Good seeing you up there. I stand for the purpose of an introduction if I may, sir?

DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN (139TH):

Please proceed, sir.

REP. O'DEA (125TH):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Standing with me is Win Everets, the Executive Director of ARC Connecticut, and Holly Buckley, both of New Canaan and both parents of children with intellectual development disabilities. These two people are amazing, amazing individuals. Mr. Everets has educated me immensely on those most in need and I would ask my colleagues to please consider the First Choice Program and the Day Employment Program in the budget when we look at it because those populations are the most in need. So, I would ask the Chamber to please give a round welcome and applause to Win and Holly. Thank you very much.

DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN (139TH):

Thank you for being with us here today. We certainly appreciate the fine work you do. Thank you. Are there any other announcements or introductions? Hearing none, will the clerk please call Calendar No. 482?

CLERK:

On Page 33, House Calendar 482, Substitute Senate bill No. 953, AN ACT IMPLEMENTING THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE TASK FORCE ON PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT AND IN-SERVICE TRAINING REQUIREMENTS FOR EDUCATORS. Favorable report of the Joint Standing Committee on Education.

DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN (139TH):

Representative Fleischmann, Distinguished Chairman of the Education Committee. Sir, you have the floor.

REP. FLEISCHMANN (18TH):

Thank you, Mr. Distinguished Speaker of the House. I move acceptance of the Joint Committee's favorable report and passage of the bill.

DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN (139TH):

The question is before the chamber on acceptance of the Joint Committee's favorable report and passage of the bill in concurrence with the Senate. Representative Fleischmann, you have the floor.

REP. FLEISCHMANN (18TH):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. So, the measure before us reflects the hard work and great forethought of a task force that this general assembly asks to come together to put their minds together and consider what ways we could streamline requirements that have accumulated over the years in the areas of professional development and in-service training in schools. Folks from the Connecticut Association of Boards of Education were particularly clear in their desire to have this area re-examined because they felt that there were a lot of overlapping requirements that had developed over the course of the years, and folks from the Connecticut Association of Public Schools and Connecticut Association of Public Schools Superintendents felt the same way.

So, this group came together and was extremely thoughtful, productive, came forth with a bunch of recommendations, most of which are embodied in the bill before us. I'll just highlight the main ones. In the areas of professional development, it requires school districts professional development programs for certified employees to be consistent with the goals that the district or employees have identified. It eliminates the requirement of the district's attest in writing to the State Department of Ed. that they meet the state's professional development requirements since this attestation already exists in other documents that are submitted to the state department. It eliminates the requirements that SCE notify a district of its failure to meet the requirements, or again that was considered duplicative. It eliminates the State Board of Education's authority to assess financial penalties against districts if it has a finding of noncompliance with these requirements. That's all in professional development.

In the area of in-service training, it eliminates several topics districts are currently required to cover when providing training for certified teachers, administrators and other personnel, and because those areas are covered by other aspects of our statute.

So, in sum the bill gets rid of duplicative requirements, streamlines what our local education authorities shall be doing and really reflects the best thinking of folks who examined all of these different requirements together. I hope that this House, like the Senate, like the education Committee, will be unanimous in supporting this good measure. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN (139TH):

Thank you Representative. Representative Lavielle of the 143rd. Ma'am, you have the floor.

REP. LAVIELLE (143RD):

Thank you very much Mr. Speaker. Good afternoon. I rise in very, very strong support of this bill. I think that no one in this chamber or probably even watching us in unaware of our state's financial circumstances and the pressure that it's currently putting on towns and local districts. Because that has been the case really for some time, many of us have been in search of viable options to reduce one-size-fits-all mandates and directives on individual school districts. Now, the original conception of this bill was not really based so much on mandate relief as in quality and appropriateness of training, but it also has that affect and the commission, the task force that was put together, I would echo what our chairman said, is one example of the need to pull together professionals in the area because they really know it inside and out, and having them produce a work product that is actually extremely useful to us in making good legislation. And of course, they found, while they were doing their work, that the chairman referred to some inconsistencies and requirements, they actually found that over the years the mandates for professional development on school districts had gotten to the point where our districts were required to provide 106 hours of professional development by some statutes and in the summary statute that covered that they were only required to provide 18 hours. In the space of the school year, it is very difficult and of course very expensive to train a lot of people in things that perhaps they don't really need to know how to do. Whereas only certain people need to know those things.

So, the task force did a very diligent job of going through all of the professional development and in-service training requirements for teachers. Our superintendents and Boards of Ed. had asked many of us to please address that issue. This task force did and came up with a very efficient series of recommendations that either eliminated some of the requirements because they were duplicative or they eliminated in some cases the certain categories of people who needed to be trained in everything. And this was greeted frankly with a lot of enthusiasm by superintendents, Boards of Ed. , teachers, RESKs anyone you want, and certainly the committee. That's why it passed unanimously and why I think it is such a good and necessary bill. It will save, I would venture to say, almost every district if not every district valuable time, money and use of resources and actually probably improve the quality and focus of the training that is provided to people who really need it, and that is given at appropriate intervals. So, this is a very important bill. It's something that I think everyone can take home to their districts and say this is going to help particularly in this time of stress and I really cannot urge everyone in the chamber strongly enough to pass it. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN (139TH):

Thank you Representative. Representative McCarty of the 38th district. Ma'am, you have the floor.

REP. MCCARTY (38TH):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. If I may, a comment and then one very quick question to the chairman of the Education Committee? First of all, I would just like to also rise in very, very strong support of this bill. I can tell you as a member of a Board of Education for many decades, this is an issue that we hear repeatedly from our teachers that they need more time for professional development and this bill will streamline and give much more flexibility to the districts so that they will be able to meet their own district goals. So, I'm very pleased that the Education Committee has put this bill forward today and I would like to recognize and thank the committee. But if I may, one question to the chairman?

DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN (139TH):

Please proceed ma'am.

REP. MCCARTY (38TH):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In the bill there is a mention of the development of the professional development council that will continue to recommend recommendations going forward on professional development. Can you tell me if that council has already been formed?

DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN (139TH):

Representative Fleischmann.

REP. FLEISCHMANN (18TH):

Through you, Mr. Speaker. Not to my knowledge. I believe it will form once we pass the bill and it becomes effective.

Through you.

DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN (139TH):

Representative McCarty.

REP. MCCARTY (38TH):

And if I may, would the duties of the council once it's established be to assist with professional development best practices?

DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN (139TH):

Representative Fleischmann.

REP. FLEISCHMANN (18TH):

Through you, Mr. Speaker, yes that does sound like one of the core duties that would be given to this new body.

Through you.

DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN (139TH):

Representative McCarty.

REP. MCCARTY (38TH):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Again, I rise in very strong support of this bill. Thank you.

DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN (139TH):

Thank you, ma'am. Will you remark further on the bill before us? Will you remark further on the bill before us? If not, will staff and guests please come to the well of the House? Will members please take their seats? The machine will be open. (Ringing)

CLERK:

The House of Representatives is voting by roll. Members to the Chamber. The House of Representatives is voting by roll. Members to the Chamber.

DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN (139TH):

Have all members voted? Have all members voted? Will the members please check the board to make sure their vote has been properly cast? If all the members have voted, the machine will be locked and the clerk will count the tally. The clerk will announce the tally.

CLERK:

Senate Bill 953 in concurrence with the Senate.

Total number Voting 150

Necessary for Passage 76

Those voting Yea 150

Those voting Nay 0

Those absent and not Voting 1

DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN (139TH):

The bill passes in concurrence with the Senate. (Gavel) Are there any announcements or introductions? Any announcements or introductions? Once again, are there any announcements or introductions? Representative Fleischmann of the 18th, you have the floor sir.

REP. FLEISCHMANN (18TH):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker there was a rare convergence today as people were voting on the education bill, some of the people were most concerned about when it comes to education had just arrived at our Chamber. They are children from fourth grade at Aiken Elementary School in West Hartford, Connecticut, and they are studying government and were watching our vote as it was in progress and trying to figure out why people weren't voting more quickly. I tried to explain about business outside the Chamber. Anyhow, I hope the whole of the House will join me in giving a warm welcome to the adults and children from Aiken Elementary School. (applause)

DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN (139TH):

It's great to have you here and I hope you learned a lot watching your representative in action. Representative Ritter, the majority leader, of the 1st district. Sir, you have the floor.

REP. RITTER (1ST):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I want to second that warm welcome that Representative Fleischmann gave and I see Representative Slap, so another round of applause for the kids from West Hartford. How about that? (applause)

DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN (139TH):

Will the clerk please call Calendar No. 379?

CLERK:

On Page 22, House Calendar 379, Substitute House Bill No. 5589, AN ACT CONCERNING CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM. Favorable report of the Joint Standing Committee on Government Administration and Elections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN (139TH):

Distinguished representative from Stamford, Representative Fox. You have the floor, sir.

REP. FOX (148TH):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker I move acceptance of the Joint Committee's favorable report and pass for the bill.

DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN (139TH):

The question before the Chamber is on acceptance of the Joint Committee's favorable report and passage of the bill. Representative Fox, you have the floor.

REP. FOX (148TH):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker as my colleagues are likely aware, I have a tendency to speak very, very quickly. This is the result of an illness two years ago. I mention this as I would never want my colleagues to be hesitant to ask me to repeat myself or clarify something that I've said. Also, should anyone have any need for an auctioneer, I'm more than willing to assist. Mr. Speaker, the clerk is in possession of an amendment of LCO 7830. I ask the amendment to be called and grant me leave of the chamber to summarize.

DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN (139TH):

Will the clerk please call LCO 7830?

CLERK:

LCO 7830 designated House amendment Schedule "A" offered by Representative Fox, Senator Flexer, et al.

DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN (139TH):

Representative seeks leave of the Chamber to summarize the amendment "A". Is there objection to summarization? Is there objection? Hearing none, Representative Fox you may proceed with summarization.

REP. FOX (148TH):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, Connecticut has among the strongest disclosure laws in the United States. Past following the Supreme Court's ruling in Citizens United. Their laws have their limits and need to be updated. In Connecticut, IE political committees, are currently authorized pursuant to SEEC declaratory ruling. SEEC ruled that in light of the line-up of cases, ruling the contribution limits to IE political committees are unconstitutional. We no longer enforce contribution limits to political committees that receive and spend funds only for IE's unless it received further guidance from the legislative or a court. This bill, Mr. Speaker, is an attempt to provide legislature's guidance. Independent expenditure making entities have found ways to shield the identity of contributors through layers of different entities. In the same way that a member of the public can look up and determine who has made qualifying contributions, we should be able to determine just as easily who was involved with independent expenditures.

This bill is an effort to find out who is working to elect or defeat candidates. Question was asked, what is an independent expenditure. The law defines independent expenditure as follows; an expenditure made without the consent, coordination or consultation of a candidate or candidate's agent, candidate committee, PAC or party committee. In an effort to address the IE issue, House Bill 5589 does the following things; codifies independent expenditure political committee, the type of political committee under Connecticut's campaign finance laws. Number two like other committees that make independent expenditures, the bill requires their registration within SEEC. It defines them as political committees and make only independent expenditures and contributions to other IE political committees.

The bill requires disclosure of those giving money to an independent expenditure political committee to spend to promote or defeat candidates to affect elections. Not a generalized database of people's beliefs and ideas. According to the Supreme Court, Mr. Speaker, congress can prohibit a $ 5,500 contribution to an official campaign because this contribution is corrupting or creates the appearance of corruption. According to the D. C. Circuit and a more recent case, SpeechNOW, congress cannot prohibit a $ 10 million dollar contribution to a super PAC because this contribution does give rise to corruption or even the appearance of corruption. The bill limits cover transfers to $ 70,000 dollars per donor per recipient per year. Thus, limiting contributions to independent expenditure groups without placing any limits on spending by those groups. That's a very important point, Mr. Speaker. The bill bars foreowned or influence entities from making IE's or cover transfers. The purpose is to prevent undue influence in our elections by foreign-owned entities. The bill requires governing board approval by entities making political disbursements over $ 10,000. The board approval would need to be reported to shareholders. A report will be filed with SEEC. The bill applies to stand by your ad provisions. We require of candidates to IE makers. The CEO of an entity must appear in ads and verbally provide the disclaimer.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, the bill makes several changes to the CEP program. The bill provides for its exploited review by SEEC of certain complaints. The bill empowers staff to quickly review and dispose of meritless complaints. The bill provides for discussion of result, complaints and imposes a one-year timetable in disposing of cases by SEEC unless a continuous is granted or other factors are impacted, like outside legal case or investigation about the process. They will reduce its grants to CEP candidates who file late in the cycle. It aligns minor party nominations and CEP initial filling with major party candidates. Finally, the bill provides for clarifying exceptions from disclaimer requirements for small-size internet or social media ads or links to the same.

Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption and request when the vote be taken, it be taken by roll. Thank you.

DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN (139TH):

At the request of the chairman, when the vote is taken it will be taken by roll. Question before the Chamber is adoption of House Amendment Schedule "A". Will you remark on the amendment? Will you remark on the amendment? Representative Devlin of the 134th. Ma'am, you have the floor.

REP. DEVLIN (134TH):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Good afternoon. A few questions for the proponent of the bill, through you?

DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN (139TH):

On the amendment ma'am?

REP. DEVLIN (134TH):

On the amendment, yes, sorry. Thank you.

DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN (139TH):

Please proceed.

REP. DEVLIN (134TH):

Thank you. So, through you, Mr. Speaker, if I could draw the attention of the good representative to Section 3, Line 53, which is on I think it's still on Page 3, I haven't quite transferred everything from the old amendment to the new amendment. Line 53 the word "entirely"; could you please explain what does that mean and for what purpose was that added?

Through you, Mr. Speaker.

REP. FOX (148TH):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker the word "entirely" without sounding too blunt I think it means what it says entirely independent, so totally separated from the independency of a candidate.

Through you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN (139TH):

Representative Devlin.

REP. DEVLIN (134TH):

Okay, thank you Mr. Speaker. And if I could direct, through you Mr. Speaker, the representative to Section 3, Line 192? So, the lines that extend for the next page or so, is it true that under this amendment that if an individual contributed to an organization and that organization then contributed to an independent expenditure organization who then made an independent expenditure. Would that individual who made the original contribution, would they be revealed under this amendment?

DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN (139TH):

Representative Fox.

REP. FOX (148TH):

Mr. Speaker, for purposes of clarification is the proponent the representative is asking about Section 4, I believe, Line 192?

Through you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN (139TH):

Representative Devlin.

REP. DEVLIN (134TH):

Through you, Mr. Speaker. Corrected, yes, Section 4.

DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN (139TH):

Representative Fox.

REP. FOX (148TH):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The bill requires disclosure of persons and entities that make cover transfers to organizations to make political expenditures and choose not to utilize a segregated account.

Through you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN (139TH):

Representative Devlin.

REP. DEVLIN (134TH):

So, let me clarify that Mr. Speaker, if an individual contributes let's say to the United Way and an aggregate for the year that individual makes a contribution of $ 1,000 and then the United Way turns around and makes a contribution to a 501c4 organization for the sake of it let's call it Let's Help Kids in Connecticut and then that Let's Help Kids in Connecticut organization makes a contribution to an independent expenditure organization let's call it Turn Connecticut Around. So, if Turn Connecticut Around then makes an independent expenditure, would that original individual who made a contribution to the United Way need to be revealed under this amendment?

Through you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN (139TH):

Representative Fox.

REP. FOX (148TH):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, it is somewhat dependent on whether or not the underlying non-profit had a segregated account. The Connecticut law allows the use for segregated bank accounts and the proposed continues to allow for this. So, if a segregated account was used, then that individual would not be disclosed. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN (139TH):

Representative Devlin.

REP. DEVLIN (134TH):

Okay, thank you for that Mr. Speaker. So, let me ask another clarifying question around this same section if I may? Could the Good Representative please define what is an organizational committee?

Through you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN (139TH):

Representative Fox.

REP. FOX (148TH):

Mr. Speaker, the bill in Section 2, Line 16-21 codifies independent expenditure political committee known as an IE-only PAC as a type of PAC under Connecticut Campaign Finance Laws like other committees that make IE's requires a registration with SEEC, defines them as PAC's that make only IE's and contributions to IE-only PAC's.

Through you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN (139TH):

Representative Devlin.

REP. DEVLIN (134TH):

Oh, just for point of clarification. An organizational committee?

Through you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN (139TH):

Representative, I believe the representative is asking about an organization committee, the definition of that.

REP. FOX (148TH):

Mr. Speaker, will the representative please point to a line in the bill?

DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN (139TH):

Representative Devlin.

REP. DEVLIN (134TH):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Would a Union PAC be considered an organizational committee?

Through you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN (139TH):

Representative Fox.

REP. FOX (148TH):

Mr. Speaker, I believe that the -- if the representative how a 501c5 and 501c6 membership organization such as Chambers of Congress and Labor Unions are affected by the bill. They are affected by the bill as any IE maker. So, they are affected of independent expenditure and subject to disclosure.

Through you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN (139TH):

Representative Devlin.

REP. DEVLIN (134TH):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Really, I'm just asking a simple question. Would a Union PAC be considered an organizational committee? Thank you.

DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN (139TH):

Representative Fox.

REP. FOX (148TH):

Through you, Mr. Speaker. I am slightly confused as I don't believe organizational committee is defined in the proposed.

Through you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN (139TH):

Representative Devlin.

REP. DEVLIN (134TH):

Okay, so thank you. You know last election we saw some very aggressive efforts mainly through a PAC that was called Labor United, so if I may a few questions for the good representative? Are union dues collected by the state of Connecticut to state employee workers?

DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN (139TH):

Representative Fox.

REP. FOX (148TH):

Through you, Mr. Speaker. I don't know.

Through you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN (139TH):

Representative Devlin.

REP. DEVLIN (134TH):

Okay, so thank you Mr. Speaker. In fact, I believe that they are and that the state of Connecticut makes a payroll payment to a state worker and then in turn collects union dues and incurs the cost of those dues and then in turn distributes those dues to the particular union organizations, to their treasury accounts, which then are swept and in some cases given in political contributions. So AFSCME for example donates as much as 30 percent or as much of 30 percent of the dues collected do go to political activity. So, there was an organization that was formed with an initial contribution from the State Employee International Union SEIU Connecticut State Council for a contribution of $ 20,000 dollars to set up an organization called Labor United for Connecticut. Labor United for Connecticut was funded just a few contributions $ 20,000 dollars from the congress of Connecticut community colleges which was part of SEIU 1973, $ 30,000 dollars from SEIU local 32BJ PAC, $ 10,000 from the Connecticut State Employees Association, $ 10,000 dollars from SEIU local 511, $ 10,000 dollars from CEUI, $ 10,000 from the Connecticut State University American Association of University Professors. Contributions of that amount, would these contributions be subject to the same type of reporting that is required under say an example of a donation to the United Way that maybe then was spent through a segregated account?

Through you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN (139TH):

Representative Fox.

REP. FOX (148TH):

Through you, Mr. Speaker. I believe so, yes.

DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN (139TH):

Representative Devlin.

REP. DEVLIN (134TH):

Did I hear that correctly? The answer from the good representative was "yes", so in fact these contributions, the donors behind those numbers, would be publicized. Is that correct?

DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN (139TH):

Representative Fox.

REP. FOX (148TH):

Yes, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker the labor unions will be affected by this bill the same as any IE maker.

Through you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN (139TH):

Representative Devlin.

REP. DEVLIN (134TH):

Great, so just to make sure that I do understand that Mr. Speaker. So, any individual who would have contributed in aggregate of $ 1,000 dollars or more then that would be reported. Is that correct?

DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN (139TH):

Representative Fox.

REP. FOX (148TH):

Through you, Mr. Speaker. Yes.

DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN (139TH):

Representative Devlin.

REP. DEVLIN (134TH):

Thank you very much Mr. Speaker. If I could direct the good representative to Section 4, Line 260 and let me see if that's still on Page 9 cause we are working off two closely timed amendments here. The section I am referring to; yes, so the lines are the same. Around Lines 263-267, and this refers to the state elections enforcements commission. Through you, Mr. Speaker, will this require greater resources from SEEC to administer?

Through you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN (139TH):

Representative Fox.

REP. FOX (148TH):

Through you, Mr. Speaker. Possibly. I don't know a definite answer to that. Through you, Mr. Speaker, possibly.

DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN (139TH):

Representative Devlin.

REP. DEVLIN (134TH):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. So that would be a concern. I believe that SEEC has even said they don't have the resources to audit affidavits that are produced at polling locations during voting for individuals that don't have any form of identification. So that would be a little troubling if it was, in fact, requiring additional resources from SEEC that continues to have its resources diminished. Through you, Mr. Speaker, if I could direct the good representative to Section 18, I believe that should be Page 23. Through you, Mr. Speaker, are there any caps on covered transfers through this amendment?

DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN (139TH):

Representative Fox.

REP. FOX (148TH):

Mr. Speaker, I believe the answer to that question is yes.

Through you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN (139TH):

Representative Devlin.

REP. DEVLIN (134TH):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and if I could ask through you why was $ 70,000 dollars chosen?

DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN (139TH):

Representative Fox.

REP. FOX (148TH):

Mr. Speaker, through you, $ 70,000 dollars was chosen to -- somehow made base by chief justice in the Michael McCutcheon Case on the relative value of an independent expenditure versus the direct expenditure on the corresponding value of a contribution. We believe the number reflects the count because it's the best guidance we have. Mr. Speaker, we believe it's a reasonable figure that does not chill the speech of the contributor or address the state's concern about the potentially corrupting influences of IE contributions.

Through you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN (139TH):

Representative Devlin.

REP. DEVLIN (134TH):

Thank you, and through you, Mr. Speaker, for the good representative are there any constitutional concerns with capping covered transfers at $ 70,000?

DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN (139TH):

Representative Fox.

REP. FOX (148TH):

Through you, Mr. Speaker. At this point in time the Supreme Court does not address the issue.

Through you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN (139TH):

Representative Devlin.

REP. DEVLIN (134TH):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In fact, in 2013 in the second circuit court of which we are a part of there was already ruled New York Progress and Protection PAC versus Walsh in an attempt to create a cap of $ 150,000 dollars that in fact that was unconstitutional. In addition to that, SEEC has also issued a declaratory ruling that would essentially concur. So, government monitoring of any political activity is very dangerous let alone concerning, and financial contributions given by any individual, they can reveal information about their beliefs or about their interests that used inappropriately can also be misinterpreted and misused completely. So, particularly in an era where there seems to be tremendous retaliation against differing points of view, this would be a very dangerous path to go down. So, if I could through you, Mr. Speaker, direct the good representative to Section, we are gonna go back to Section 13. It was Line 599, let's see if that is the same; 597-612.

So, through you Mr. Speaker, are the business entities that are identified or referenced in this section, are they now currently required to disclose contributions that they make?

Through you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN (139TH):

Representative Fox.

REP. FOX (148TH):

Through you, Mr. Speaker, can the representative please repeat the question?

Through you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN (139TH):

Representative Devlin.

REP. DEVLIN (134TH):

Absolutely, I would be happy to. Are the business entities now required to -- do they already disclose this information what is now being put in a requirement under Section 13?

Through you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN (139TH):

Representative Fox.

REP. FOX (148TH):

Through you, Mr. Speaker. I believe Section 13 is new language. So, based on that, Mr. Speaker, the answer would be no.

Through you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN (139TH):

Representative Devlin.

REP. DEVLIN (134TH):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And is that based on the amount of the contributions?

Through you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN (139TH):

Representative Fox.

REP. FOX (148TH):

Through you, Mr. Speaker. To clarify is what based on the amount?

Through you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN (139TH):

Representative Devlin.

REP. DEVLIN (134TH):

That would be the disclosure, Mr. Speaker.

Through you.

DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN (139TH):

Representative Fox.

REP. FOX (148TH):

Through you, Mr. Speaker, I believe so.

Through you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN (139TH):

Representative Devlin.

REP. DEVLIN (134TH):

So, thank you. So, currently I believe most companies that do have or business entities that do have a PAC and make contributions to publicize what those contributions are already, but a couple of examples for clarification if the good representative could indulge me through you Mr. Speaker? If we took a company like AETNA. AETNA is headquartered in the state of Connecticut. If AETNA chose to make political contributions in Texas, would AETNA be required, its board, to vote on any of those contributions outside of the state of Connecticut that exceeded $ 10,000 dollars?

Through you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN (139TH):

Representative Fox.

REP. FOX (148TH):

Through you, Mr. Speaker, no.

DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN (139TH):

Representative Devlin.

REP. DEVLIN (134TH):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. If AETNA made a contribution within the state of Connecticut at that level, would they be required to publish that contribution?

DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN (139TH):

Representative Fox.

REP. FOX (148TH):

Through you, Mr. Speaker, yes.

DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN (139TH):

Representative Devlin.

REP. DEVLIN (134TH):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. So, it sounds like there is some additional requirements on companies doing business in the state of Connecticut that are headquartered here. So, for a company like Google, through you Mr. Speaker, Google is headquartered in Washington State but if Google was to make a contribution in the state of Connecticut over $ 10,000 would they in fact be required to disclose that contribution?

Through you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN (139TH):

Representative Fox.

REP. FOX (148TH):

Through you, Mr. Speaker, yes.

DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN (139TH):

Representative Devlin.

REP. DEVLIN (134TH):

So, in essence, it sounds like we are now requiring any company to have a separate rule for the state of Connecticut, which I also believe we are asking that within 48 hours that they would publicize these contributions on their website. Through you, Mr. Speaker, how would companies across the United States be informed about this new change in the state of Connecticut?

DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN (139TH):

Representative Fox.

REP. FOX (148TH):

Through you, Mr. Speaker, I presume that will be done through their corporate governments.

Through you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN (139TH):

Representative Devlin.

REP. DEVLIN (134TH):

I'm sorry, Mr. Speaker, through you I didn't quite understand that answer. So, the change in rules to the state of Connecticut, companies across the United States, how would they be informed that the rules have changed in the state of Connecticut?

DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN (139TH):

Representative Fox.

REP. FOX (148TH):

Through you, Mr. Speaker, I presume that will be done through let's say Google's corporate government's office.

Through you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN (139TH):

Representative Devlin.

REP. DEVLIN (134TH):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. So, I am assuming the state of Connecticut then, through you Mr. Speaker, would issue some type of requirement.

Through you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN (139TH):

Representative Fox.

REP. FOX (148TH):

Through you, Mr. Speaker, I am guessing under the fact pattern provided by the fine representative that Google and large entity with potential activity of this nature all throughout the country might be aware of changes that are made at the state level of this nature.

Through you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN (139TH):

Representative Devlin.

REP. DEVLIN (134TH):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It sounds like added requirements and potentially limiting participation in contributions that may be of benefit to organizations in the state of Connecticut. If I could direct the good representative to Section 20, which I believe might still be Line 884-886 -- 875-915.

Through you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN (139TH):

Ma'am, was there a question there?

REP. DEVLIN (134TH):

If the good representative could please describe what the change is that is represented in Section 20 in those lines that would be helpful.

DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN (139TH):

Thank you. Representative Fox.

REP. FOX (148TH):

May I have one minute Mr. Speaker, I am just looking for something Mr. Speaker. Can I have one minute?

DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN (139TH):

Sure. Chamber will stand at ease. Chamber will come back to order. Representative Fox.

REP. FOX (148TH):

Mr. Speaker, the fine representative was inquiring what the changes applicable in Section 23 Mr. Speaker?

DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN (139TH):

Representative Devlin.

REP. DEVLIN (134TH):

Yes, Mr. Speaker. If the good representative could just describe what is in Section 20?

DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN (139TH):

Representative Fox.

REP. FOX (148TH):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker Section 20 pertains to the process by which SEEC must file when reviewing complaints and outlines the potentially new procedures that will be undertaken by SEEC if the complaint is filed with that entity.

Through you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN (139TH):

Representative Devlin.

REP. DEVLIN (134TH):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And through you, with the resources that SEEC currently has how would they be able to manage this new requirement?

Through you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN (139TH):

Representative Fox.

REP. FOX (148TH):

Through you, Mr. Speaker, at the moment I don't know an answer to that other than stating that SEEC has been involved in the negotiations concerning this underlying section and have been assisting us through obtaining this language.

Through you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN (139TH):

Representative Devlin.

REP. DEVLIN (134TH):

I'm sorry, could the good representative please repeat his answer?

DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN (139TH):

Representative Fox.

REP. FOX (148TH):

By all means. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, SEEC has been assisting us in crafting the language for this section, so to the extent in how were they being involved they've been very involved in the sense that they've assisted in crafting the language.

Through you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN (139TH):

Representative Devlin.

REP. DEVLIN (134TH):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and while that is encouraging to have that engagement, is there any concern that having also a clock starting and ending within a one-year timeframe that there would be important cases that may not be able to be pursued or that may fall by the wayside because the clock essentially runs out?

Through you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN (139TH):

Representative Fox.

REP. FOX (148TH):

Through you, Mr. Speaker. It's an excellent question by the representative from Fairfield, and it's an issue that was brought up at the committee level and discussed in quite detail. It was a primary cause of concern pertaining to this underlying section for the exact reason that the representative makes. The fact that an individual who potentially had a complaint filed against them could, let's say the court would lawyer up and have a lawyer or some other entity prolong the matter another year and have what was otherwise a valid complaint potentially dismissed because of the one-year timeframe. It's a very good point and well taken by the representative. That was a concern, but we believe the manner by which the components of this section have been finalized that we ideally would be able to avoid that situation.

Through you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN (139TH):

Representative Devlin.

REP. DEVLIN (134TH):

Thank you and, through you Mr. Speaker, if I could direct the good representative's attention to Line 886 which is on Page 29. It's sort of line 85 and 86 which if I may read it through you, Mr. Speaker, says "engage the respondent in discussions in an effort to speedily resolve any matter pertaining to a De Minimis violation". Could the good representative please define for me what is a De Minimis violation?

DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN (139TH):

Representative Fox.

REP. FOX (148TH):

Mr. Speaker, I don't have the exact statutory definition in front of me. I'm not sure if one exists. My understanding of De Minimis violation is something that does not raise up -- it's a minor violation that does not raise or increase the seriousness of the claim.

Through you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN (139TH):

Representative Devlin.

REP. DEVLIN (134TH):

Great. Thank you very much Mr. Speaker, and that is all of my questions on the amendment at this time. I do believe that this amendment overall risks -- well we have an effort to have clean election laws and some of the cleanest election laws in the nation, some of the components in this amendment in fact don't help but yet would further compromise the ability for free speech and constitutionality related to elections and participation, and therefore I will not be supporting the amendment, and I would also encourage my colleagues to take the same approach. Thank you.

DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN (139TH):

Thank you Representative. Will you remark further on the amendment? Will you remark further on the amendment? Representative Ackert.

REP. ACKERT (8TH):
Thank you Mr
. Speaker. Through you, a couple of questions to the proponent of the amendment?

DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN (139TH):

Please proceed.

REP. ACKERT (8TH):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. To the good gentleman, the only areas that I -- so much was already covered and I didn't hear this being brought up, but in Lines 905 and on it talks about a timeframe in which the elections enforcement shall essentially complete an investigation and it looks like it's essentially a one-year timeframe in that area in which they once receiving a complaint they have to turn around the result of that.

So, through you Mr. Speaker, is that correct?

DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN (139TH):

Representative Fox.

REP. FOX (148TH):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I thank the gentleman for the question. That is correct to a certain extent. There are some qualifications pertaining to that.

Through you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN (139TH):

Representative Ackert.

REP. ACKERT (8TH):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. So, could you give me an example of what would extend that timeframe?

Through you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN (139TH):

Representative Fox.

REP. FOX (148TH):

By all means Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker for complaints received on or after January 1, 2018 the final decision is delayed by -- there's a number of following actions the length of the delay is added to the one-year deadline. For instance, the issuants of a subpoena in connection with the complaint on a commission or the commission stopped granting a respondent extension or continuance prior to issuance of the decision. Litigation and state or federal court related to complaint or consultation with the Chief of State's Chief Attorney, Attorney General, U. S. Department of Justice or U. S. Attorney for Connecticut.

Through you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN (139TH):

Representative Ackert.

REP. ACKERT (8TH):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and although I don't know a lot about election complaints thankfully; I just was interested. What was the need for a time value to begin with?

Through you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN (139TH):

Representative Fox.

REP. FOX (148TH):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Is the representative asking what the need for the underlying one-year component?

Through you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN (139TH):

Representative Ackert.

REP. ACKERT (8TH):

That is correct.

Through you, Mr. Speaker. Thank you.

DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN (139TH):

Representative Fox.

REP. FOX (148TH):

I thank the gentleman for the question. I apologize for the clarification. The need for the one year was just to essentially potentially expedite matters of complaints that are filed at SEEC in hopes that we can avoid matters being bogged down at SEEC.

Through you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN (139TH):

Representative Ackert.

REP. ACKERT (8TH):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. How many inspectors does this group have to do these complaints, through you Mr. Speaker, that are actively working?

DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN (139TH):

Representative Fox.

REP. FOX (148TH):

Through you, Mr. Speaker. I don't know the exact number, but I believe its somewhere in the area of a handful.

Mr. Speaker through you.

DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN (139TH):

Representative Ackert.

REP. ACKERT (8TH):

Approximately half of that actually. So, my concern is that to do an adequate job, you need to have the time to do the job and the staffing to do the job and so I've got a concern that you know we may be putting undue pressure and I think when you're rushed and/or cannot complete it that a thorough investigation may be not the right thing that we want to do in our elections. So, through you, Mr. Speaker, if we have such as limited amount of people, will this amendment address the need for additional staff if need be?

Through you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN (139TH):

Representative Fox.

REP. FOX (148TH):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. No.

Through you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN (139TH):

Representative Ackert.

REP. ACKERT (8TH):

So, if an organization doesn't have the staffing for the investigation so we put a timeframe on it, I know granted most of these cases are resolved in a very short amount of time with a due diligence of a well-working staff, but unless there's a mechanism here that if you put a timeframe on that maybe cases that should be investigated would maybe not be able to be completed and immediate result would be a dropped case. Is that correct through you Mr. Speaker? If the case that they've been given cannot be turned around without the exceptions in here, subpoenas and other issues, that is it the understanding of the good gentlemen that if they're working on it, they don't have the staff to handle it and they can't turn it around in time and it hits that one-year timeframe, is that case essentially dropped?

Through you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN (139TH):

Representative Fox.

REP. FOX (148TH):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I thank the representative for the question. To a certain extent yes, but I will note that the qualifications contained within the statute do provide the staff some flexibility to extend the timeframe.

Through you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN (139TH):

Representative Ackert.

REP. ACKERT (8TH):

Thank you. Thank you to the good gentleman for the answer. Who grants the extension again?

Through you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN (139TH):

Representative Fox.

REP. FOX (148TH):

The Commissioner or the Commissioner's staff.

Through you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN (139TH):

Representative Ackert.

REP. ACKERT (8TH):

So, the commission itself grants itself an extension. Am I hearing that right or am I misunderstanding, and that could be I could be misunderstanding it but through you, Mr. Speaker. Is that correct what I just said?

DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN (139TH):

Representative Fox.

REP. FOX (148TH):

Through you, Mr. Speaker, yes the commissions can grant the extension themselves.

Through you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN (139TH):

Representative Ackert.

REP. ACKERT (8TH):

So now I am more confused on why we have a timeframe if the commission itself can grant itself an extension. I will listen to further dialogue. Let me just make sure that I got that correct and I thank the good gentleman, and it could be on myself. So, there's an imposed timeframe on a commission but the commission itself can grant an extension to itself?

Through you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN (139TH):

Representative Fox.

REP. FOX (148TH):

Through you, Mr. Speaker, I believe and I understand the source of confusion I apologize I think that might have been more on my end explaining it. The commission is the entity that would be granting the extension, but I believe it would have to do more with if the underlying matter necessitated an extension.

Through you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN (139TH):

Representative Ackert.

REP. ACKERT (8TH):

Ok, well I won't belabor that, but I do believe that at times when we do put in an, you know, a time commitment timeframe and granted they do a great job, but I don't think they turn the percentages nearly like they've been doing 80-90 percent within a year. Some of these take longer, and granted there are some exceptions in there and I think that's a value to the process. I just hope the fact that what we do with this legislation doesn't for some reason, you know, essentially you know things that should be followed through on and should be investigated and should be taken care of in whatever manner it may be, you know civilly and/or further that we're not pushing the envelope in terms of a timeframe on here and we don't do the job that needs to be done by a commission.

So, I thank the good gentleman for his answer and thank you Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN (139TH):

Thank you, sir. Representative Candelora. Sir, you have the floor.

REP. CANDELORA (86TH):
Thank you Mr
. Speaker. Mr. Speaker if I may, a question to the proponent of the amendment which deals with this same section that we're just talking about?

DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN (139TH):

Please proceed sir.

REP. CANDELORA (86TH):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN (139TH):

I must admit I am having trouble seeing you, but okay.

REP. CANDELORA (86TH):
Under this section my understanding as we were talking about the extension being granted and the -- as I read this it's the commission is granting the extension to the respondent and that would be the specific circumstance in which an extension would be given
. So, I imagine if I'd bring a complaint and a complainant and it is filed and the respondent says I need time to answer, SEEC would be able to grant that extension and that's what we're talking about.

Through you.

DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN (139TH):

Representative Fox.

REP. FOX (148TH):

Through you, Mr. Speaker, yes.

Through you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN (139TH):

Representative Candelora.

REP. CANDELORA (86TH):
Thank you Mr
. Speaker. Are there any circumstances I guess then where any other extensions could be granted, through you?

DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN (139TH):

Representative Fox.

REP. FOX (148TH):

Through you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to direct the gentleman's attention to Lines, I believe its Lines 908 through 915 which detail the other potential opportunities for extensions.

Through you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN (139TH):

Representative Candelora.

REP. CANDELORA (86TH):
Thank you Mr
. Speaker. That's also helpful. And I guess my last question on this is if a complaint is dismissed because of lack of a decision within the timeframe allotted, what would be the recourse for the complainant? Would they, I guess, specifically have the ability to continue this in state court or are they foreclosed from seeking any further remedies?

Through you.

DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN (139TH):

Representative Fox.

REP. FOX (148TH):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I thank the gentleman for the question. My understanding of the SEEC process is that if a complaint is dismissed or denied in any sort, then the individual also has the ability to appeal.

Through you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN (139TH):

Representative Candelora.

REP. CANDELORA (86TH):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And that appeal would be through what body?

Through you.

DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN (139TH):

Representative Fox.

REP. FOX (148TH):

Through you, Mr. Speaker, I believe the superior court.

Through you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN (139TH):

Representative Candelora.

REP. CANDELORA (86TH):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I appreciate those answers. I think this piece of the amendment gives me a lot of pause. Over the last 20 years, having been a public official and being involved in politics, I think the complaint process is something that's very important for not just political parties to be able to seek recourse but also for individuals within a town, and I think since we've seen our budget constraints continue we have seen more and more delay of the process, but I think it's an important piece of that process and so because that delay is caused I think in part by lack of staff being able to hear all of these complaints. I don't think that's a justification to say then we're gonna shut the door on an opportunity for individuals to be able to have a right of recourse that's cost effective, not just to the state of Connecticut but all the parties involved. The thought that I would be running for political office, I may inadvertently put a qualifier on one of my mailers that would give rise to a complaint and before I know it in a year's time I could be having to defend that action in a state court. I don't think it's fair to people running for public office, but I also don't think it's fair for the individuals that bring that complaint because its gonna cost all of us money, and I find this provision very frustrating and I think it's really subversive to the public and I think this gives us a bad name because I think it looks like we're trying to create a barrier and to prevent an opportunity from people to bring bona fide complaints against campaign violations.

Just in our '12 senatorial district we had four years ago, an issue arose of independent campaign expenditures coming in upward of $ 300,000 dollars that was given in a senatorial campaign. And I think there were legitimate concerns raised in that complaint. Those questions still haven't been answered by SEEC, and I think they need to be answered not because it would change the outcome of the complaint, or the election excuse me, but going forward it would make our process better and define how expenditures should be spent through the SEEC process.

Under this new provision, that complaint will be dismissed without an answer and so the person that brought that complaint is now gonna be faced with the decision do I bring it in superior court? Which I don't think is a good result for any of us.

I also don't think that it provides a very good process to our whole electoral process. I mean frankly I think we've seen more and more, especially with social media, that we've become a divided country politically and we see things play out politically among the two parties. This provision is gonna just encourage that. So, rather seeking recourse through an administrative process which is fairly informal, we are gonna be inviting people to bring lawsuits against each other. And I think the good people that are gonna run for office, won't. We hear time and again, I don't know how you do it, it's such a difficult, thankless job, I could never handle it, and the thought of trying to encourage somebody to run for office when potentially a complaint could be filed that ends up in superior court because of this provision could be very damaging.

I think if I saw that happen in a local race -- in my town we have volunteer town council members, they don't get paid anything and we have a nine-member board. It's difficult to get people to run for those offices. The thought that they now potentially will have to defend a complaint that could be as minor as inadvertently forgetting to put your name on a brochure that could land them in superior court.

I just pause on what we're really doing here with this provision. So, I'm just disappointed to see it. I think it's going to frustrate our entire process. I know that people are frustrated with the SEEC, but I think this is so strictly written it doesn't give any latitude to be able to extend a case out to give them an extra week. The only exception we have is, you know, the respondent could be given some time to reply to I guess to a complaint, which again if they are lawyered up their lawyer might request that, if a subpoena is issued, if there's litigation in another court, if there's an investigation by the state's attorney. Those all contemplate the high level complaints that you read about in the newspapers, but it doesn't address our smaller ones which might not get acted on within a year.

So, I just find it very disappointing to see that in this provision and I cannot support this amendment. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN (139TH):

Thank you, sir. Representative Ziobron of the 34th. Ma'am you have the floor.

REP. ZIOBRON (34TH):
Thank you very much Mr
. Speaker and good afternoon.

DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN (139TH):

Good afternoon.

REP. ZIOBRON (34TH):

I rise with several questions for the proponent of the bill please through you, Mr. Speaker. The first question I have is as per usual I first go to the fiscal note for every bill that's being debated here so I can understand how it's affecting the budget and shockingly this LCO has no fiscal note filed.

Through you, Mr. Speaker, why is that?

DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN (139TH):

Representative Fox.

REP. FOX (148TH):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Through you Speaker I understand the fine representative's concern and appreciate her commitment to this area. I believe we are still waiting for the fiscal note to be published.

Through you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN (139TH):

Representative Ziobron.

REP. ZIOBRON (34TH):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and how often or how common is it for us to debate such an over-reaching, long-reaching, maybe not over-reaching, long-reaching bill proposal in this chamber that doesn't have a fiscal note? How can we do our due diligence and our job without understanding the impact of the tax payer?

Through you.

DEPUTY SPEAKER GENTILE (104TH):

Representative Fox.

REP. FOX (148TH):

Thank you, Madam Speaker, again I thank the representative for the question. Is she asking my personal experience and knowledge on this, through you Madam Speaker? I'm just trying to clarify your question if it's on the underlying or just in general.

DEPUTY SPEAKER GENTILE (104TH):

Representative Ziobron.

REP. ZIOBRON (34TH):

Thank you very much for the question for the clarification. So, I'm looking at the page now on the CGA Website. There's a lot of different amendments filed. I see maybe eight quickly counting. Fiscal notes on amendments that are filed on the CGA Website, but not for this one. So, I would like to understand how common it is to have the larger amendment before us with no fiscal note but yet smaller amendments with a fiscal note. I just hadn't seen that yet, I've only been here a short time but how common is that?

Through you.

DEPUTY SPEAKER GENTILE (104TH):

Representative Fox.

REP. FOX (148TH):

Through you, Madam Speaker, I don't know.

Through you Madam Speaker, madam speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER GENTILE (104TH):

Representative Ziobron.

REP. ZIOBRON (34TH):

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, at this time I'd like to call a Point of Order. Is this before us properly since there is no fiscal note filed and available to the legislatures of Connecticut? If you could please double check that, I'd appreciate it.

DEPUTY SPEAKER GENTILE (104TH):

Chamber will stand at ease.

DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN (139TH):

The Chamber will come back to order. Representative Ziobron. I believe you have the floor.

REP. ZIOBRON (34TH):

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. At this time, I'd like to withdraw my Point of Order. Thank you.

DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN (139TH):

Thank you, ma'am. Representative Fox.

REP. FOX (148TH):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker I would like to withdraw House Amendment Schedule "A".

DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN (139TH):

The amendment is withdrawn. Representative Fox.

REP. FOX (148TH):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The clerk is in possession of Amendment LCO 7858. I ask the amendment to be called and grant me leave of the Chamber to summarize.

DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN (139TH):

The question before the Chamber is adoption of House Amendment Schedule B-- Will the clerk please call, excuse me, LCO 7858? Designated House Amendment Schedule "B".

CLERK:

House Amendment Schedule "B", LCO 7858, offered by Representative Fox, Senator Flexer, et al.

DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN (139TH):

The representative seeks leave of the Chamber to summarize the amendment. Is there objection to summarization? Is there objection? Hearing none, Representative Fox you may proceed with summarization.

REP. FOX (148TH):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker the amendment before us is a strike all amendment, which is identical to the amendment that was just previously before us as Schedule "A", except Section 20 is removed thereby removing the fiscal note that was attached to it. Mr. Speaker I urge adoption and when the vote be taken ask the vote be taken by roll call. Thank you.

DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN (139TH):

Thank you Representative. Will you remark? When the vote is taken, the vote will be taken by roll call. Question before the chamber is adoption of House Amendment Schedule "B". Will you remark on the amendment? Will you remark on the amendment? Representative Ziobron.

REP. ZIOBRON (34TH):

Thank you very much Mr. Speaker, and I appreciate the due diligence to get OFA on the record on this new amendment for the fiscal note. I'm just reading through it now and I just want to make sure I understand. It does say that in the note itself it says "see below". When you read below that it does say that this may result in a workload increase at the full grant deadline date and SEEC may need additional resources to cover overtime costs. Could the good proponent of the amendment please explain exactly what it means that there may be overtime costs and yet there is no fiscal note recorded?

Through you.

DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN (139TH):

Representative Fox.

REP. FOX (148TH):
Thank you Mr
. Speaker. I thank the representative for the question, the inquiry. I believe what they may be eluding to are the sections addressed in the bill which had been Sections 21-23, which I believe now are Sections 20-22 pertaining to the additional potential for the adjustment of the filing deadlines.

DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN (139TH):

Representative Ziobron.

REP. ZIOBRON (34TH):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. So, when I, again, my specific question was why isn't the potential cost of overtime written in this fiscal note. Again, I appreciate the due diligence and the change. I'll continue to listen. Maybe I'll send an e-mail to OFA myself, but the actual write-up of the fiscal note states that this may result in a workload increase, I'd just like to understand that a little bit more so I'll be listening to the debate. Thank very much you Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN (139TH):

Thank you Representative. Representative Devlin of the 134th. Ma'am did you want to speak on the amendment?

REP. DEVLIN (134TH):
Yes, Mr
. Speaker. To the representative please, if he could please just describe what was in Section 20 that has been removed from the amendment before us.

Through you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN (139TH):

Representative Fox.

REP. FOX (148TH):
Of course, thank you Mr
. Speaker. I thank the representative for the clarification. Section 20 was a section pertaining to SEEC and the one year deadline in terms of filing the complaints.

Through you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN (139TH):

Representative Devlin.

REP. DEVLIN (134TH):
Thank you Mr
. Speaker. I appreciate the clarity.

DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN (139TH):

Representative Wilms, did you want to speak on the amendment?

REP. WILMS (142ND):

Yes, thank you Mr. Speaker. Through you, I have some questions for the proponent of the amendment.

DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN (139TH):

Please proceed sir.

REP. WILMS (142ND):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Through you, has the proponent initiated a process to -- cause there's been a lot of questions here in the debate about the legality or the constitutionality of this bill, and I'm wondering if the proponent could describe for the chamber the legal research or opinions that the committee has received that confirm that this amendment is indeed constitutional or even legal.

Through you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN (139TH):

Representative Fox.

REP. FOX (148TH):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker it's a very good question. I thank the representative for the question. The underlying question as to constitutionality derives from a case called SpeechNOW. org v. FEC in the United States District Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. The issue before that court -- that court ruled contributions to super PAC's cannot be limited. We believe that the underlying issue as to the constitution of the issue of super PAC's has not been addressed by the Supreme Court.

Through you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN (139TH):

Representative Wilms.

REP. WILMS (142ND):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Follow-on question; has the proponent sought advice or guidance from State of Connecticut resources in terms of the constitutionality? Has the proponent reached out to the Attorney General's office and requested a formal opinion from the AG on this proposed amendment?

Through you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN (139TH):

Representative Fox.

REP. FOX (148TH):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I thank the representative for the question, it's a very good one. The answer is no. Through you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN (139TH):

Representative Wilms.

REP. WILMS (142ND):

I'm sorry, did I hear that the answer was "no"?

DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN (139TH):

Representative Fox.

REP. FOX (148TH):

That's correct, yes.

Through you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN (139TH):

Representative Wilms.

REP. WILMS (142ND):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I thank the proponent for the candor. I have to confess shock and surprise that here we are dealing with something that is so fundamental and no attempt was made to independently receive an independent opinion on the constitutionality or legality of this bill and I bring this up because clearly you know respectfully I guess no thought had gone into any fiscal analysis on this bill and now we understand that in addition to that oversight apparently we've now not received any opinion from the Attorney General, that now being a second oversight. So, we've have fiscal and legal oversights. I'm just wondering if the proponent could talk about what sort of due diligence and preparation he's put into the preparation he's put into this amendment.

Through you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN (139TH):

Representative Fox.

REP. FOX (148TH):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I appreciate the question. We believe that the legislation before us is in fact constitutional and will withstand any challenge.

Through you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN (139TH):

Representative Wilms.

REP. WILMS (142ND):

Oh, I thank you for that answer. Is the proponent aware of the Citizens United decision from the U. S. Supreme Court?

DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN (139TH):

Representative Fox.

REP. FOX (148TH):

Through you, Mr. Speaker, yes I am.

Through you.

DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN (139TH):

Representative Wilms.

REP. WILMS (142ND):

Thank you for that, and could I ask if the proponent would be willing to summarize his understanding of that decision?

Through you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN (139TH):

Representative Fox.

REP. FOX (148TH):

Through you, Mr. Speaker. My understanding of that matter as it pertains to the underlying legislation is that Citizens United did not address contribution limits at all. Citizens United concerned expenditure limits.

Through you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN (139TH):

Representative Wilms.

REP. WILMS (142ND):

Alright, thank you for that Mr. Speaker. Further question, is the proponent aware of the New York Progress and Protection PAC versus James A. Walsh, Case Docket No. 13-3889 by the U. S. Court of Appeals of the Second Circuit that was decided on October 24, 2013?

DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN (139TH):

Representative Fox.

REP. FOX (148TH):

Through you, Mr. Speaker. Not entirely, no.

Through you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN (139TH):

Representative Wilms.

REP. WILMS (142ND):

Well I am not entirely surprised by that. I wasn't aware of it either, you know, until recently. I'm sure it's not something that we all walk around you know thinking about particular cases, but having researched that case I found it extremely interesting and I know my good colleague Representative Devlin referenced that case, and I would invite anyone to just Google it and read it. What's interesting about it, it seems to have a lot of overlap with the proposed amendment. Through you, Mr. Speaker, I would to ask the proponent if he has any opinion on the overlap of that case with this proposed amendment.

DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN (139TH):

Representative Fox, would you care to offer your opinion?

REP. FOX (148TH):

Through you, Mr. Speaker. Of course, to the fine representative. My opinion on the underlying legislation is that the U. S. Supreme Court does not address the constitutionality of the particular issue.

Through you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN (139TH):

Representative Wilms.

REP. WILMS (142ND):

Thank you for that, Mr. Speaker. I apologize for asking for an opinion. I understand that I'm not allowed to do that. What was interesting in reading the decision is that the Supreme Court ruled in Citizens United that the government has no anti-corruption interest in limiting independent expenditures and the decision goes on to say that limiting expenditure donors to an independent such as NYPP is even further removed from political candidates and they may not be limited in their ability to contribute to such committees, and then it goes on to say it lists decisions from other courts where it's been quite consistent in those types of rulings.

Another question, through you, Mr. Speaker, does this amendment have a severability clause built into it?

DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN (139TH):

Representative Fox.

REP. FOX (148TH):

It does not, Mr. Speaker; however, I will note that the fine representative from Norwalk that the Connecticut statute Section 1-3 contains a severability clause for the statute state of Connecticut.

Through you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN (139TH):

Representative Wilms.

REP. WILMS (142ND):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and thank you for that answer because if for example in this amendment if any one part of it was ruled unconstitutional it would be a shame then to have the entire amendment, I suppose, ruled unconstitutional as opposed to that section.

So, I will sum up. In summation, Mr. Speaker, obviously I am opposed to this amendment. There has been some real grave questions that have been raised so far. Certainly, as we've seen there was apparently an oversight in the area of a fiscal analysis and candidly I did not feel like I heard good, solid answers to questions posed by my colleague about the fiscal impact that we might be facing. And then secondly, it appears that there's significant doubt about the constitutionality of this amendment and so based on all that, I'm going to listen to this debate much further but I have some serious, serious, serious questions and reservations. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN (139TH):

Representative Cheeseman of the 37th district. Ma'am, you have the floor.

REP. CHEESEMAN (37TH):

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I have a few questions for the proponent of the amendment.

Through you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN (139TH):

Please proceed.

REP. CHEESEMAN (37TH):

Thank you so much. These relate to Section 19 and the required attributions. The first part, Line 723-740 deal with written communication and the amendment states that the name of a person and if such person is an entity, the name of the entity's chief execute officer or equivalent. Could you define the kind of business or entity to which this particular clause refers?

Through you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN (139TH):

Representative Fox.

REP. FOX (148TH):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I believe it is an entity that makes an IE expenditure so they can act.

Through you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN (139TH):

Representative Cheeseman.

REP. CHEESEMAN (37TH):

Through you, Mr. Speaker, so would any business or corporation be required to form a PAC to make such independent expenditures or could such entity or corporation make it through their own funds, i. e. let's say a sole proprietor or LLC?

Through you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN (139TH):

Representative Fox.

REP. FOX (148TH):

Through you, Mr. Speaker, they'd be able to so long as the entity making, give me one minute Mr. Speaker? Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I apologize for the delay. Mr. Speaker, the entity making -- this would apply to IE's made in connection with an election or contribution to -- it covers entities just making an independent expenditure we're trying to get candidates to cover transfers, i. e. PAC's in Connecticut.

DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN (139TH):

Representative Cheeseman.

REP. CHEESEMAN (37TH):

Thank you very much. Through you, Mr. Speaker, so I'm not quite clear. A business would be required to form a PAC to make an independent expenditure or could a business make the independent expenditure through its own right?

DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN (139TH):

Representative Fox.

REP. FOX (148TH):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker if an independent expenditure is being made, the entity has to register.

Through you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN (139TH):

Representative Cheeseman.

REP. CHEESEMAN (37TH):

So, the business could make the expenditure as its own entity rather than having to form a PAC, am I understanding correctly?

Through you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN (139TH):

Representative Fox.

REP. FOX (148TH):

Mr. Speaker, the answer to the question is that an independent expenditure political committee, if the entity is making a contribution for a political party, the success or defeat of a candidate for nomination or of election or the success or defeat of a referendum question, then the entity would have to register.

Through you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN (139TH):

Representative Cheeseman.

REP. CHEESEMAN (37TH):

So, if I may give an example through you, Mr. Speaker? Let's say, to take something current, a local automobile dealership or dealer group decides to promote a candidate who is opposing TESLA coming into the state. That automobile group or dealership would have to form an independent expenditure PAC to make such a contribution to advocate for or against a candidate?

Through you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN (139TH):

Representative Fox.

REP. FOX (148TH):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Point of clarification to the representative, would the contribution be made toward a candidate or toward the cause?

Through you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN (139TH):

Representative Cheeseman.

REP. CHEESEMAN (37TH):

Through you, Mr. Speaker, let's say toward a candidate to encourage that candidate's election because they were advocating a position that the business agreed with.

Through you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN (139TH):

Representative Fox.

REP. FOX (148TH):

Through you, Mr. Speaker, I thank the representative for the clarification. In that instance, they would have to register.

Through you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN (139TH):

Representative Cheeseman.

REP. CHEESEMAN (37TH):

So, given this hypothetical dealership did create a PAC, further down in the section it says "the five largest contributors to this entity making such communications during the 12-month period would also have to be listed". So, let's say the five largest customers made a contribution because they believed that they should be able to buy Chevy's, through you Mr. Speaker, their name would have to also be listed on the ad?

Through you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN (139TH):

I'm sorry. Representative Fox.

REP. FOX (148TH):

Through you, Mr. Speaker, that's correct.

Through you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN (139TH):

Representative Cheeseman.

REP. CHEESEMAN (37TH):

Through you Mr. Speaker, would this also apply to any not-for-profit that had a political committee advocating for the election of a candidate?

Through you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN (139TH):

Representative Fox.

REP. FOX (148TH):

Through you, Mr. Speaker, that's correct, yes.

Through you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN (139TH):

Representative Cheeseman.

REP. CHEESEMAN (37TH):

Through you Mr. Speaker, so the names of the five largest contributors only to that political action committee would have to be listed?

DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN (139TH):

Representative Fox.

REP. FOX (148TH):

Through you, Mr. Speaker, again if they come within the definition of the lawful purpose of the committee or the definition of independent expenditure political committee then the answer is yes.

Through you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN (139TH):

Representative Cheeseman.

REP. CHEESEMAN (37TH):

Through you Mr. Speaker, how would it be determined that the funds were segregated into the appropriate political action committee? There are many organizations that solicit donations that actually do political activity. How would it be determined that no funds that were intended for say I don't know distributing art in schools for a group that was advocating for the election of a candidate remained in that set account?

DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN (139TH):

Representative Fox.

REP. FOX (148TH):

Thank you, I thank the representative for the question. That responsibility is placed on the reporting entity.

Through you Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN (139TH):

Representative Cheeseman.

REP. CHEESEMAN (37TH):

So, if I as a donor make a contribution not knowing that political activity is going to be carried out, I am relying on the entity to carefully segregate that donation and not use it for any political activity?

Through you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN (139TH):

Representative Fox.

REP. FOX (148TH):

That's correct, yes.

Through you, Mr. Speaker.

REP. CHEESEMAN (37TH):

Alright going on to the next section I think which relates to audio ads. Again I am the entity's Chief Executive Officer's equivalent. This message was made independent of any candidate, so again the same attribution would be required this time in audio form from the Chief Executive of the entity that had the political action committee

Through you, Madam Speaker.

ASSISTANT DEPUTY SPEAKER MUSHINSKY (85TH):

Representative Fox.

REP. FOX (148TH):

Thank you, Madam Speaker. The representative asked if the reporting requirements would be similar in that situation?

Through you, Madam Speaker.

REP. CHEESEMAN (37TH):

That is correct Madam Speaker; that was my question. Thank you.

REP. FOX (148TH):

That's correct.

Through you, Madam Speaker.

ASSISTANT DEPUTY SPEAKER MUSHINSKY (85TH):

Representative Cheeseman.

REP. CHEESEMAN (37TH):

And through you Madam Speaker would this need to be the actual voice of the Chief Executive Officer or equivalent of the entity or could you know an electronically generated voice or an actor's voice be used?

Through you, Mr. -- Madam Speaker.

ASSISTANT DEPUTY SPEAKER MUSHINSKY (85TH):

Representative Fox.

REP. FOX (148TH):

Madam Speaker the legislation before us indicates it has to be the voice of the individual, the actual voice of the individual putting themselves out as the CEO or individual responsible for the entity.

Through you, Madam Speaker.

ASSISTANT DEPUTY SPEAKER MUSHINSKY (85TH):

Representative Cheeseman.

REP. CHEESEMAN (37TH):

Alright, and it says here communications shall also state the additional information about the person making such communication may be found on the SEEC website. Through you Madam Speaker, what additional information about that person would be required to be placed on the SEEC Website?

Through you, Madam Speaker.

REP. FOX (148TH):

Through you Madam Speaker, I thank the representative for the question. I believe it requires the name, the entity for which they are from and the business address of the entity.

Through you Madam Speaker.

ASSISTANT DEPUTY SPEAKER MUSHINSKY (85TH):

Representative Cheeseman.

REP. CHEESEMAN (37TH):

Through you Madam Speaker, and would any additional information be required to be placed either in the ad or on the SEEC Website of the five largest contributors through the PAC?

Through you Madam Speaker.

ASSISTANT DEPUTY SPEAKER MUSHINSKY (85TH):

Representative Fox.

REP. FOX (148TH):

Through you Madam Speaker, no.

Through you Madam Speaker.

ASSISTANT DEPUTY SPEAKER MUSHINSKY (85TH):

Representative Cheeseman.

REP. CHEESEMAN (37TH):

So, if I understand correctly, through you Madam Speaker, it is only the name, the business address, etc. of the Chief Executive Officer of the entity that would be found in the ad and on the SEEC Website?

Through you Madam Speaker.

ASSISTANT DEPUTY SPEAKER MUSHINSKY (85TH):

Representative Fox.

REP. FOX (148TH):

Through you Madam Speaker, I believe that's correct.

Through you Madam Speaker.

ASSISTANT DEPUTY SPEAKER MUSHINSKY (85TH):

Representative Cheeseman.

REP. CHEESEMAN (37TH):

Would the Chief Executive Officer be required to file any affidavits or something certifying that the funds that were used were solely from the segregated account relating to the PAC?

Through you Madam Speaker.

ASSISTANT DEPUTY SPEAKER MUSHINSKY (85TH):

Representative Fox.

REP. FOX (148TH):

Through you Madam Speaker, I believe that the only thing they file is the documents with SEEC.

Through you Madam Speaker.

ASSISTANT DEPUTY SPEAKER MUSHINSKY (85TH):

Representative Cheeseman.

REP. CHEESEMAN (37TH):

Through you Madam Speaker and in the documents that are filed with SEEC, what details are contained that would relate to these expenditures?

Through you Madam Speaker.

ASSISTANT DEPUTY SPEAKER MUSHINSKY (85TH):

Representative Fox.

REP. FOX (148TH):

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Through you, I believe again it's the identifying information of the underlying entity.

Through you, Madam Speaker.

ASSISTANT DEPUTY SPEAKER MUSHINSKY (85TH):

Representative Cheeseman.

REP. CHEESEMAN (37TH):

So, these expenditures relate solely to candidates or political parties?

Through you, Madam Speaker.

ASSISTANT DEPUTY SPEAKER MUSHINSKY (85TH):

Representative Fox.

REP. FOX (148TH):

Through you Madam Speaker, yes or it would also include referendum questions.

Through you Madam Speaker.

ASSISTANT DEPUTY SPEAKER MUSHINSKY (85TH):

Representative Cheeseman.

REP. CHEESEMAN (37TH):

So, advocating for or against a particular position in a referendum, this would apply?

Through you Madam Speaker.

ASSISTANT DEPUTY SPEAKER MUSHINSKY (85TH):

Representative Fox.

REP. FOX (148TH):

Through you Madam Speaker, yes.

Through you.

ASSISTANT DEPUTY SPEAKER MUSHINSKY (85TH):

Representative Cheeseman.

REP. CHEESEMAN (37TH):

Through you Madam Speaker, would these regulations apply to other advocacy ads?

Through you, Madam Speaker.

ASSISTANT DEPUTY SPEAKER MUSHINSKY (85TH):

Representative Fox.

REP. FOX (148TH):

Through you Madam Speaker, I believe the answer is no, but I am somewhat -- whether the representative makes reference to other advocacy ads. Can she clarify that?

Through you Madam Speaker.

ASSISTANT DEPUTY SPEAKER MUSHINSKY (85TH):

Representative Cheeseman.

REP. CHEESEMAN (37TH):

Through you Madam Speaker, let's say one were advocating for safer driving or better recycling or something along those lines.

ASSISTANT DEPUTY SPEAKER MUSHINSKY (85TH):

Representative Fox.

REP. FOX (148TH):

Through you Madam Speaker, I thank the representative for the clarification. The answer is no.

Through you Madam Speaker.

ASSISTANT DEPUTY SPEAKER MUSHINSKY (85TH):

Representative Cheeseman.

REP. CHEESEMAN (37TH):

Through you Madam Speaker, I understand when we pass legislation we look at the fiscal impact upon the state. Have we looked at the fiscal impact upon the entities that may be using their funds to make these expenditures?

Through you Madam Speaker.

ASSISTANT DEPUTY SPEAKER MUSHINSKY (85TH):

Representative Fox.

REP. FOX (148TH):

Through you Madam Speaker, I have not.

Through you.

ASSISTANT DEPUTY SPEAKER MUSHINSKY (85TH):

Representative Cheeseman.

REP. CHEESEMAN (37TH):

And in the $ 70,000 dollar cap, I believe, are these funds that would go toward producing these ads, etc. , included in that $ 70,000 dollar cap?

ASSISTANT DEPUTY SPEAKER MUSHINSKY (85TH):

Representative Fox.

REP. FOX (148TH):

Through you Madam Speaker, The $ 70,000 dollar cap relates to donations per donor per recipient per year. Through you Madam Speaker, I believe the answer may be, depending on how you interpret that, no.

Madam Speaker, through you.

ASSISTANT DEPUTY SPEAKER MUSHINSKY (85TH):

Representative Cheeseman.

REP. CHEESEMAN (37TH):

Through you Madam Speaker, how are these expenditures tracked?

ASSISTANT DEPUTY SPEAKER MUSHINSKY (85TH):

Representative Fox.

REP. FOX (148TH):

Thank you, Madam Speaker, through you, the filing entity will track the expenditures.

Through you Madam Speaker.

REP. CHEESEMAN (37TH):

Through you Madam Speaker, if I understand correctly. So, upon the formulation of this particular independent expenditure organization, similar to candidate committees, there would be initial fillings, quarterly fillings? Am I correct, Madam Speaker?

Through you, Madam Speaker.

ASSISTANT DEPUTY SPEAKER MUSHINSKY (85TH):

Representative Fox.

REP. FOX (148TH):

Through you Madam Speaker, that is correct.

Through you Madam Speaker.

ASSISTANT DEPUTY SPEAKER MUSHINSKY (85TH):

Representative Cheeseman.

REP. CHEESEMAN (37TH):

Thank you very much Madam Speaker. I want to thank the proponent for his answers to these questions.

ASSISTANT DEPUTY SPEAKER MUSHINSKY (85TH):

Thank you, madam. Representative Carney of the 23rd.

REP. CARNEY (23RD):
Thank you Madam Speaker
. Through you, just a few questions to the proponent of the bill.

ASSISTANT DEPUTY SPEAKER MUSHINSKY (85TH):

Go head, sir.

REP. CARNEY (23RD):
Okay under this amendment, will any independent expenditure committees
; are there any protections against family members of candidates or current elected officials from donating to those independent expenditure committees?

Though you Madam Speaker.

ASSISTANT DEPUTY SPEAKER MUSHINSKY (85TH):

Representative Fox.

REP. FOX (148TH):

Through you Madam Speaker, I don't believe. I believe the language pertained in that section may have been eliminated in a prior version of the bill.

Through you Madam Speaker.

ASSISTANT DEPUTY SPEAKER MUSHINSKY (85TH):

Representative Carney.

REP. CARNEY (23RD):
Okay, through you Madam Speaker, why was that section eliminated?

ASSISTANT DEPUTY SPEAKER MUSHINSKY (85TH):

Representative Fox.

REP. FOX (148TH):

Madam Speaker, I believe just process of negotiation.

Through you Madam Speaker.

ASSISTANT DEPUTY SPEAKER MUSHINSKY (85TH):

Representative Carney.

REP. CARNEY (23RD):
Okay, through you Madam Speaker, are there any protections in the bill against family members of sitting elected officials or candidates from benefiting from the funds of an independent expenditure committee?

Through you Madam Speaker.

ASSISTANT DEPUTY SPEAKER MUSHINSKY (85TH):

Representative Fox.

REP. FOX (148TH):

Through you Madam Speaker, I do not believe so.

Through you Madam Speaker.

ASSISTANT DEPUTY SPEAKER MUSHINSKY (85TH):

Representative Carney.

REP. CARNEY (23RD):
Okay, I appreciate that response
. Are there any protections in the bill from candidate PAC's or candidates specifically giving to an independent expenditure committee? I'm a realtor. I know the good Senate majority leader from Norwalk is also a realtor and we do have the option of providing money for the realtor PAC, I don't, but there is that option in there and I know some folks in here work for unions. They may be paying union dues. Are there any protections in this bill that will prevent elected officials or candidates from giving to PAC's such as the ones I had mentioned?

Through you Madam Speaker.

ASSISTANT DEPUTY SPEAKER MUSHINSKY (85TH):

Representative Fox.

REP. FOX (148TH):

Madam Speaker, the representative asked if there's any protections preventing or protecting candidates from giving to PAC's?

Through you Madam Speaker.

REP. CARNEY (23RD):

I'm sorry, is there anything preventing candidates or sitting elected officials from giving to independent expenditure committees or getting money funneled to an independent expenditure committee? Through you Madam Speaker.

ASSISTANT DEPUTY SPEAKER MUSHINSKY (85TH):

Representative Fox.

REP. FOX (148TH):

Through you Madam Speaker, for point of clarification I apologize for this, is the representative asking for instance if I wanted to give to an IE committee is there anything preventing me in the legislation from doing that?

Through you Madam Speaker.

REP. CARNEY (23RD):

Correct.

REP. FOX (148TH):

I don't believe so.

Through you Madam Speaker.

ASSISTANT DEPUTY SPEAKER MUSHINSKY (85TH):

Representative Carney.

REP. CARNEY (23RD):

Okay, thank you for that answer. Now, would this be similar for independent expenditure committees similar to when we file with the SEEC, we have to put in details about what we spend our money on. Will the independent expenditure committees be having to do the same thing? And I guess a second follow-up question on that, will they also have the same deadlines that we have when we file campaigns through the Citizens Election Program?

Through you Madam Speaker.

ASSISTANT DEPUTY SPEAKER MUSHINSKY (85TH):

Representative Fox.

REP. FOX (148TH):

Madam Speaker, yes. It is anticipated that the fillings will be similar.

Through you Madam Speaker.

ASSISTANT DEPUTY SPEAKER MUSHINSKY (85TH):

Representative Carney.

REP. CARNEY (23RD):

Okay, thank you for that answer. When campaigns file through the SEEC, usually toward when it gets closer to the election date, we have to weekly fillings and on those weekly fillings there is sometimes payment for say mailers that may not have been sent yet but I believe under SEEC law once that money leaves the bank account it has to go on that filling. Now, would an independent expenditure committee have to put details, if they sent a mailer out, of who that mailer is for even if it hasn't been sent out yet?

Through you Madam Speaker.

ASSISTANT DEPUTY SPEAKER MUSHINSKY (85TH):

Representative Fox.

REP. FOX (148TH):

Through you Madam Speaker, for point of clarification would the expenditure have already been incurred even though the mailer has not been sent out?

Through you Madam Speaker.

REP. CARNEY (23RD):

Yes, let's just say for this example yes it has.

ASSISTANT DEPUTY SPEAKER MUSHINSKY (85TH):

Representative Fox.

REP. FOX (148TH):

Through you Madam Speaker, then if the expenditure has already been incurred then the answer to whether or not it needs to be noted in the fillings is yes.

Through you Madam Speaker.

REP. CARNEY (23RD):

To add onto then that, through you Madam Speaker, because there are laws against candidates from knowing that an independent expenditure committee has spent funds on their behalf, so if on the filling it says that and the candidate sees it, say it says "Mailer for Candidate John Smith" or something like that, wouldn't then that candidate know that an independent expenditure and everybody know that an independent expenditure committee is then spending money on their behalf for their campaign prior to that mailer for example hitting a mailbox?

Through you Madam Speaker.

ASSISTANT DEPUTY SPEAKER MUSHINSKY (85TH):

Representative Fox.

REP. FOX (148TH):

Through you Madam Speaker, I suppose it's possible.

Through you Madam Speaker.

ASSISTANT DEPUTY SPEAKER MUSHINSKY (85TH):

Representative Carney.

REP. CARNEY (23RD):

Okay, I appreciate that response. To go along with what Representative Cheeseman was talking about with the disclaimers, I am just curious would a PAC or an independent expenditure committee treasurer be the equivalent of a CEO for purposes of a PAC that's not being run by a business?

Through you Madam Speaker.

ASSISTANT DEPUTY SPEAKER MUSHINSKY (85TH):

Representative Fox.

REP. FOX (148TH):

Through you Madam Speaker, I believe the answer is yes.

Through you Madam Speaker.

ASSISTANT DEPUTY SPEAKER MUSHINSKY (85TH):

Representative Carney.

REP. CARNEY (23RD):

Okay, so on an advertisement the PAC treasurer would have to put their photo and some sort of a message saying that "I, John Smith, treasurer of this PAC approve this message"?

Through you Madam Speaker.

ASSISTANT DEPUTY SPEAKER MUSHINSKY (85TH):

Representative Fox.

REP. FOX (148TH):

Through you Madam Speaker, I believe the answer to that is yes.

Through you Madam Speaker.

ASSISTANT DEPUTY SPEAKER MUSHINSKY (85TH):

Representative Carney.

REP. CARNEY (23RD):

I appreciate those responses. I do have a question about a different section of the bill related to reducing grants for candidates who raise their money late, I believe it's 40 days before and election the grants are reduced in the Citizens Election Program. I'm just wondering is there any exception for a candidate who gets into a race and raises their money within that 40-day window due to a death of a candidate or an elected official or a withdrawal of a candidate or elected official?

Through you Madam Speaker.

ASSISTANT DEPUTY SPEAKER MUSHINSKY (85TH):

Representative Fox.

REP. FOX (148TH):

Through you Madam Speaker, this legislation does not address that.

Through you Madam Speaker.

ASSISTANT DEPUTY SPEAKER MUSHINSKY (85TH):

Representative Carney.

REP. CARNEY (23RD):

Okay, thank you for that response. And finally, I just want to be clear, how will this amendment in the proponents best words; how will this amendment really limit campaign spending?

Through you Madam Speaker.

ASSISTANT DEPUTY SPEAKER MUSHINSKY (85TH):

Representative Fox.

REP. FOX (148TH):

Through you Madam Speaker, I'm not sure if it a question of limiting campaign spending, I think it's more a question of highlighting disclosure and transparency in campaign spending.

Through you Madam Speaker.

ASSISTANT DEPUTY SPEAKER MUSHINSKY (85TH):

Representative Carney.

REP. CARNEY (23RD):

Okay, thank you very much for that response. I would have liked to have seen probably some sort of legislation addressing campaign spending. I know this is more about disclosures. I think we really need to look at the spending aspect of it. You know, we are -- when we get into the Citizens Election Program we are supposed to abide by the rules of that program and I think we get a decent amount of money from that program if we so chose to participate. So, I think in terms of campaign finance reform, I would have like to have seen something more to really limit that outside spending. I don't believe this amendment does that, so for that reason I will be voting against the amendment and I'll continue to listen to the discussion after the amendment is called. Thank you very much Madam Speaker.

ASSISTANT DEPUTY SPEAKER MUSHINSKY (85TH):

Thank you, sir. Representative MacLachlan of the 35th.

REP. MACLACHLAN (35TH):
Thank you Madam Speaker
. One brief question for the proponent if I may?

ASSISTANT DEPUTY SPEAKER MUSHINSKY (85TH):

Go ahead sir.

REP. MACLACHLAN (35TH):

Thank you, ma'am. Through you Madam Speaker, is it safe to say that this amendment will essentially be the meat and bones of the underlying bill?

Through you Madam.

ASSISTANT DEPUTY SPEAKER MUSHINSKY (85TH):

Representative Fox.

REP. FOX (148TH):

That's correct Madam Speaker, it is a strike all amendment. The amendment will become the bill.

ASSISTANT DEPUTY SPEAKER MUSHINSKY (85TH):

Representative MacLachlan.

REP. MACLACHLAN (35TH):
Thank you
. Thank you, Madam Speaker. In referring to the amendment at hand that will become the underlying bill should it pass, I think it's safe to say that we all believe in clean elections. It's safe to say we all want to win by playing by the rules because it feels better to do so. It's the right thing to do when you play by the rules, and I think we've already passed landmark election reform to address issues that state elections has had in the past, not the organization but state-wide elections in general in the past, and so I stand here rather confused as to what we're doing today with the amendment at hand that will become the bill.

I have the understanding that there are regulations in place that already address donations that create conflicts of interest. I think those are excellent pieces of public policy. I may have some issues with using taxpayer dollars for political elections during a budget crisis. I think if we wanted to do a service to the public we would talk about reigning in the Citizens Election Program expenditures, not necessarily the policies that prevent conflict of interest which I think serve the public, but maybe we should be talking about spending less taxpayer dollars on elections.

I think what we are doing in this bill is continuing that status quo while also putting an asterisk on what the Supreme Court has already said is a person's free speech. That campaign contribution is freedom of speech. We may all have disagreements upon that, and I'm not here to debate the Citizens Election ruling; the Supreme Court has spoken. All I'm saying is I don't think we're in a position to backtrack and argue that decision. We don't interpret the law here, we write the law, and I believe that the highest court in the land has already spoken despite my serious concerns with that ruling Madam, and yet here we are.

This is going to have a negative impact on our state for a number of reasons. I think this is gonna hit non-profits at a time when our state is cash-strapped and needs to be relying upon non-profits to provide services that the state can no longer pay for because we don't have our fiscal house in order.

This is going to affect the ability of non-profit organizations and advocacy groups who feel strongly about engaging in civic duty, I'm sorry the amendment that will become the bill will have an adverse effect on advocacy groups to express their first amendment rights and raise and spend funds that would benefit the state and reflect their ability to speak freely as they are protected under the constitution. This means less money for organizations that are tackling issues of the public good and we need their contribution more than ever.

Like I said, the Supreme Court's already decided upon speech and elections, and we're here arguing that decision I feel like and I think it's a poor waste of our precious time in a state that's already highly regarded with a clean election system, but more importantly while we argue here our job growth has stagnated, the deficit is widening and despite the hard work and the numbers put forward by OFA, I have a strong inclination that if this amendment becomes the bill at hand and the bills passes in this House and passes the Senate and goes through and receives the governor's signature and becomes law, there's a very good chance that it's fought in court and that will incur a fiscal impact upon the taxpayers of Connecticut, and I don't believe that's reflected here realistically.

Let's be clear, our state just received another credit downgrade. We are in a crisis and both Moody's and S&P said because of high debt, low economic growth, our credit rating and our ability to borrow money has just gotten more expensive. So, I feel like in the middle of some of the most difficult financial times in our state, we are closing the door on a mosaic of voices that otherwise would want to get involved in the political process. Closing that door while the ship goes down. And that may not be intentional, but I feel that is a side effect of what's happening right now, and I think we would be making a big mistake to limit the freedom of speech that our constituents have to express themselves.

You know, my alma matter just received a large donation from an anonymous donor, a small college, but an anonymous donor made a very generous gift of about $ 25 million dollars. They chose to remain anonymous, more interested in getting credit from the public for that. And while we're dealing with advocacy organizations and independent expenditures in this bill, I wonder how many individuals who care passionately about certain political issues are gonna think twice before making a donate to a political organization that they care about, that they feel reflects their interest for fear of joining the political fray, and the backlash that their donation may cause.

This bill is going to limit the people's ability to participate in government and I think that's wrong. You know tomorrow in Killingworth a small business owner is gonna wake up and not know how much she's gonna need to pay in property taxes, in income taxes, let alone state taxes, so what is she gonna do? She's gonna look to lower operating expenses, she's gonna look at different states and compare the cost of living and maybe she brings her business elsewhere, and I'm concerned that we're not taking the right approach to improving this state and making our state an easier place to raise families to participate in the political process to put people to work.

And so today we have two paths in front of us. You know one path puts us down the road of tackling issues that are politically potent and I don't think have much to do with fixing our state's economy, Madam. And the other as it's coming together to put a plan together for the issues of the day, and as a champion of our districts and as the state of Connecticut, I would challenge my colleagues to put aside our partisan differences and to fix problems that are facing our state.

ASSISTANT DEPUTY SPEAKER MUSHINSKY (85TH):

Sir, can you sum up your remarks pertaining to the amendment please? Thank you.

REP. MACLACHLAN (35TH):
Yes ma'am
. You know the future of our kids and grandkids depends on that and I don't support the bill or the amendment.

ASSISTANT DEPUTY SPEAKER MUSHINSKY (85TH):

Thank you. Roll call was requested, it was granted. Would staff and guests please go to the well of the House. Members take your seats. The machine will be open. (Ringing)

CLERK
The House of Representatives is voting by roll
. Members to the Chamber. The House of Representatives is voting by roll. Members to the Chamber.

ASSISTANT DEPUTY SPEAKER MUSHINSKY (85TH):

Have all the members voted? Have all the members voted? Members please check the board to determine if your vote is properly cast. If all the members have voted, the machine will be locked and the clerk will take a tally. Clerk, please announce the tally.

CLERK:

House Amendment "B"

Total number Voting 149

Necessary for Adoption 75

Those voting Yea 79

Those voting Nay 70

Those absent and not Voting 2

ASSISTANT DEPUTY SPEAKER MUSHINSKY (85TH):

The amendment is adopted. Will you remark further on the bill as amended? Representative Devlin of the 134th.

REP. DEVLIN (134TH):

Thank you, Madam Speaker. The clerk has an amendment. It is LCO 6836. Would you please ask the clerk to call it and I be allowed to summarize?

ASSISTANT DEPUTY SPEAKER MUSHINSKY (85TH):

Will the clerk please call amendment LCO 6836 which will be designed House "C"?

CLERK
House Amendment Schedule "C" LCO 6836 offered by Representative Klarides, Representative Candelora, et al
.

ASSISTANT DEPUTY SPEAKER MUSHINSKY (85TH):

Representative seeks leave of the Chamber to summarize the amendment, is there objection to summarization? Is there objection? Hearing none, Representative you may proceed and summarize the amendment.

REP. DEVLIN (134TH):

Thank you, Madam Chair. This amendment works to alleviate some serious concerns among my caucus and frankly serious concerns that should exist across this entire chamber. First, it will remove by striking Section 4, the overbearing transfer requirements, and by striking Section 18 it will remove the unconstitutional cap on covered transfers. Madam Speaker, I move adoption of the amendment, and when the vote is taken I ask that it be taken by roll.

ASSISTANT DEPUTY SPEAKER MUSHINSKY (85TH):

The question before the Chamber is on a roll call vote. All those in favor please signify by saying "Aye"

REPRESENTATIVES:

Aye

ASSISTANT DEPUTY SPEAKER MUSHINSKY (85TH):

Twenty percent has been met, roll call will be allowed. Will you remark further on the amendment madam?

REP. DEVLIN (134TH):

Thank you, Madam Speaker. You know in his testimony on the original bill that was brought before the GAE Committee the speaker said that this was an opportunity to take back our democracy. Quite frankly without the amendment, I'm not convinced that the legislation that had been before us wouldn't have a chilling effect on contributions to organizations that do so much good in our state. It would reveal people who had no intent of getting involved in the political arena and would discourage those contributions. Alone that would be reason enough why we should support this amendment, but further imposing a limit on contributions to organizations making independent expenditures is unconstitutional. We've discussed that at length and under the second court with which covers the state of Connecticut in 2013 we had such a ruling. This amendment would ensure that Connecticut's campaign finance laws were clean and unconstitutional. And with this amendment, in fact, we would be able to take back our democracy. Thank you, Madam Speaker. I encourage both my caucus and everybody in the chamber to support this amendment. Thank you.

ASSISTANT DEPUTY SPEAKER MUSHINSKY (85TH):

Thank you, madam. Representative Fox.

REP. FOX (148TH):
Thank you Madam Speaker
. I rise in opposition of the underlying amendment, although I have great respect and admiration for my ranking member and appreciate all her efforts on behalf of GAE this past session. I must say that the underlying amendment I think takes the guts out of the bill. The bill has proposed -- the overriding purpose of the bill is to enhance and strengthen our regime for disclosure and regulation of independent expenditures. It's to push forward disclosure and transparency, and I believe this amendment does just the opposite of just that. Madam Speaker, I believe that the Supreme Court has not weighed in on the contribution of super PAC's and as such a $ 70,000 limit is at this time constitutional. I urge that the Chamber reject the amendment. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

ASSISTANT DEPUTY SPEAKER MUSHINSKY (85TH):

Will you remark further on the amendment before us? Will you remark further? If not, member requested and was granted a roll call. Staff and guests please come to the well? Members take your seats. The machine will be open. (Ringing)

CLERK:

The House of Representatives is voting by roll. Members to the Chamber. The House of Representatives is voting by roll. Members to the Chamber.

ASSISTANT DEPUTY SPEAKER MUSHINSKY (85TH):

Have all the members voted? Have all the members voted? Members please check the board to determine if your vote is properly cast? If all the members have voted, the machine will be locked and the clerk will take a tally. Clerk, please announce the tally.

CLERK:

House Amendment "C"

Total number Voting 148

Necessary for Adoption 75

Those voting Yea 69

Those voting Nay 79

Those absent and not Voting 3

ASSISTANT DEPUTY SPEAKER MUSHINSKY (85TH):

The amendment fails. (Gavel) Will you remark further? Representative Perillo of the 114th.

REP. PERILLO (113TH):

Thank you. Madam Speaker if I may, I believe there's a colleague in the chamber who would like to speak on the previous bill and the vote I would yield if that's permissible.

ASSISTANT DEPUTY SPEAKER MUSHINSKY (85TH):

Representative Duff.

REP. DUFF (2ND):
Madam Speaker I would like -- I didn't get a chance to cast my ballot on the last go around and if I could be placed on the affirmative
.

ASSISTANT DEPUTY SPEAKER MUSHINSKY (85TH):

The transcript will so note. Thank you, sir.

REP. DUFF (2ND):
Thank you Madam
.

ASSISTANT DEPUTY SPEAKER MUSHINSKY (85TH):

Will you remark further? Representative Perillo.

REP. PERILLO (113TH):

Madam Speaker thank you very much. Much has been spoken about today regarding transparency and it is very clear that one of the underlying goals of this bill, whether you agree with it or not, from the proponent is transparency in campaign finance. I think everybody in this chamber believes in that and to that end Madam Speaker the clerk is in possession of an amendment, LCO 6551. I ask that he please call the amendment and I be given leave of the chamber to summarize.

ASSISTANT DEPUTY SPEAKER MUSHINSKY (85TH):

The clerk has amendment LCO 6551. I would ask the clerk to please call the amendment, designated House "D".

CLERK:

House Amendment Schedule "D" LCO 6551 offered by Representative Klarides and Representative Candeora, et al.

ASSISTANT DEPUTY SPEAKER MUSHINSKY (85TH):

The representative seeks leave of the chamber to summarize the amendment. Is there objection to summarization? Is there objection? Hearing none, representative you may proceed with summarization.

REP. PERILLO (113TH):

Madam Speaker, if I may I have a correction in that the amendment number I presented is the incorrect amendment number. Indeed, the amendment should have been LCO 7836.

ASSISTANT DEPUTY SPEAKER MUSHINSKY (85TH):

Representative would you like to withdraw the original amendment?

REP. PERILLO (113TH):

Madam Speaker, yes, I would like to withdraw the original amendment.

ASSISTANT DEPUTY SPEAKER MUSHINSKY (85TH):

House "D" has been withdrawn.

REP. PERILLO (113TH):

Thank you, Madam Speaker. If I may, the clerk is in possession of another amendment LCO 7836. I ask that he please call and I'd given leave to summarize.

ASSISTANT DEPUTY SPEAKER MUSHINSKY (85TH):

Please repeat the LCO number.

REP. PERILLO (113TH):

Yes Madam, its 7836, 7836.

ASSISTANT DEPUTY SPEAKER MUSHINSKY (85TH):

Will the clerk please call LCO 7836 which will be designated House Amendment Schedule "E".

CLERK:

House Amendment Schedule "E" LCO 7836 offered by Representative Klarides, Representative Candelora, et al.

ASSISTANT DEPUTY SPEAKER MUSHINSKY (85TH):

Representative seeks leave of the chamber to summarize the amendment. Is there objection? Is there objection? Hearing none, Representative Perillo you may proceed with summarization.

REP. PERILLO (113TH):

Thank you very much Madam Speaker. I appreciate the opportunity. What this amendment does is prohibit a state senator or state representative from serving as a chairperson, treasurer, deputy treasurer or other officer of or establish or control a political committee except for legislative caucus committees or legislative leadership committees. Madam Speaker, I would move adoption and I would request that when the vote be taken it be taken by roll.

ASSISTANT DEPUTY SPEAKER MUSHINSKY (85TH):

The question before the chamber is a roll call vote. All those in favor please signify by saying "Aye".

REPRESENTATIVES:

Aye.

ASSISTANT DEPUTY SPEAKER MUSHINSKY (85TH):

Twenty percent has been met, roll call will be allowed. Will you remark further on the amendment?

REP. PERILLO (113TH):

Thank you, Madam Speaker. As has been stated, transparency is paramount in this situation, but currently right now we do have a structure that provides what I would call a loophole in terms of how we fund our elections. Legislators both in the House and the Senate are permitted to have their own legislative PAC's. What those PAC's may do has some latitude and what we have seen happen is legislators forming those PAC's, raising money from lobbyists and corporate PAC's and other interest groups and then redistributing those funds to other political committees, be they leadership PAC's, be they caucus PAC's, be they local town committees of either party or even the state party.

I do not believe and many might agree that is not the intent of our clean election laws, and certainly I don't believe the intent of the legislation that is before us. You know sometimes you have to throw a little color on these things, so I'll give an example of one particular legislative PAC. This particular PAC raised tens of thousands of dollars from myriad donors, raised money from unions, union officers, PAC's from throughout the industry's special interest, funeral directors, realtors, optometrists, and quite frankly many, many lobbyists. In fact, most of the individuals who gave to this particular PAC were lobbyists. The rest of the individuals who gave were folks from the banking industry. That's who gave the money. Now this legislative PAC then redistributed that money to political committees throughout the state and you know if you would indulge Madam Speaker, I will list them. This particular legislative committee gave money to the democratic town committees of Danbury, Seymour, Torrington, Killingly, Windsor, Cheshire, Windham, Newington, Groton, East Windsor, East Lyme, Essex, Wethersfield, East Haven, Bristol, Newtown, Waterford, Plainville, Windsor Locks and Brooklyn, Connecticut. Now all of those towns have one thing in common. They were all hosts to competitive state representative races in the 2016 cycle. What this legislative PAC did and to be clear this is perfectly permitted within statute, what this legislative PAC did was collect money from special interests, lobbyists, political committees and then redistribute it to local party committees so that that money could be used to impact state legislative races. And if the goal here is transparency, then certainly this loophole within our statute does not promote transparency. In fact, quite frankly I would argue that this process simply launders campaign contributions from special interests and redistributes it to state representative and state senate races. That is what we have before us in statute right now, and Madam Speaker this amendment would eliminate that loophole, would eliminate that ability to launder campaign contributions. And Madam Speaker I think that should explain the position here; however, certainly if there are questions I'm happy to entertain.

ASSISTANT DEPUTY SPEAKER MUSHINSKY (85TH):

Thank sir. Will you remark further on the amendment before us? Representative Fox.

REP. FOX (148TH):

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I stand in opposition of the amendment. I do so for a number of reasons. First off, I'd like to point out that I do appreciate the amendment and the advocacy put forth by the proponent for a number of reasons, one of which he is a very articulate member of this body and also a high school classmate of my own. So, for those reasons and more, I have great admiration for the proponent. In addition, Madam Speaker, I stand in opposition to this amendment because I believe these PAC's that are in question allow for some political activity by legislators and others between election cycles. Since in Connecticut, we must close down candidate committees after a cycle. These types of PAC's allow for some political activity by legislators during that period. Madam Speaker I'm also reluctant to support this amendment because it bars legislators only. I don't believe there's a compelling reason to exclude legislators and it would seem unfair to exclude them from this type of speech and political activity and for those reasons I urge that the amendment be rejected. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

ASSISTANT DEPUTY SPEAKER MUSHINSKY (85TH):

Thank you, sir. Representative Perillo.

REP. PERILLO (113TH):

Madam Speaker, thank you. And I appreciate the gentleman's comments. I do have some responses, but first I would like to state though that the chair, the committee and I did have hair when we were high school, but times indeed have changed. But I want to point out something the gentleman said that I don't think is quite accurate. The gentleman represented that these expenditures are made between election cycles and I just want to be very, very clear that is not the case. We have expenditures being made to local political committees in September and October and even the first days of November in the election cycle. Those local political committees, those local town committees, are then in turn spending money on behalf of the candidate. Now let's be clear, that cannot be coordinated but what these legislative PAC's can also do is contribute to the state party and our legislative leadership PAC's. Those legislative leadership PAC's can in fact coordinate with our legislative campaign committees. So, while maybe the intent of legislation many years ago was to eliminate that kind of coordination to eliminate that impact of special interest dollars on our state legislative races; in fact this loophole continues it and promotes it and it has been utilized significantly and it is not within the spirit of the legislation before us or quite frankly the clean elections laws that have been enacted by this body for many years.

ASSISTANT DEPUTY SPEAKER MUSHINSKY (85TH):

Will you remark further on the amendment before us? Representative Carney, okay you're passing. Will you remark further? Will you remark further on the amendment before us? If not, staff and guests please come to the well of the House? Members take their seats? The machine will be open. (Ringing)

CLERK:

The House of Representatives is voting by roll. Members to the Chamber. The House of Representatives is voting by roll. Members to the Chamber.

ASSISTANT DEPUTY SPEAKER MUSHINSKY (85TH):

Have all the members voted? Have all the members voted? Members please check the board to determine if your vote is properly cast? If all the members have voted, the machine will be locked and the clerk will take a tally. The clerk will announce the tally.

CLERK:

LCO 7836, designed House "E"

Total number Voting 148

Necessary for Adoption 75

Those voting Yea 71

Those voting Nay 77

Those absent and not Voting 3

ASSISTANT DEPUTY SPEAKER MUSHINSKY (85TH):

Amendment fails. (Gavel) Will you remark further on the bill as amended? Representative France of the 42nd.

REP. FRANCE (42ND):

Thank you, Madam Speaker. The clerk is in possession of an amendment LCO 7832. I request the clerk read the amendment and I'd be allowed to summarize.

ASSISTANT DEPUTY SPEAKER MUSHINSKY (85TH):

Will the clerk please call 7832 and you're requested read sir?

REP. FRANCE (42ND):

Yes, Madam Speaker.

ASSISTANT DEPUTY SPEAKER MUSHINSKY (85TH):

It will be designated House "F".

CLERK:

LCO 7832 designated House Amendment Schedule "F" and offered by Representatives Klarides, Candelora, Hoydick, O'Dea and O'Neill.

ASSISTANT DEPUTY SPEAKER MUSHINSKY (85TH):

You asked the amendment be read sir?

REP. FRANCE (42ND):

No, Madam Speaker, I would be allowed to leave to summarize?

ASSISTANT DEPUTY SPEAKER MUSHINSKY (85TH):

Okay, that's better. Representative seeks leave of the chamber to summarize the amendment, is there objection to summarization? Is there objection? Hearing none, Representative you may proceed with summarization.

REP. FRANCE (42ND):

Thank you, Madam Speaker. And as we've been talking today about campaign finance reform as it was originally passed and our CEP Program and have had a robust debate, but for last 12 years that since the enactment of Public Act 05-5, we've had the Citizens Election Program with the provision that the program would provide clean elections, would take out money from external sources and that we would have an equal playing field. And at the time of that passing, the candidate expenditures for state senate were limited to $ 10,000 dollars and for state representative the amount of $ 3500 dollars. In 2013, this body took action to revise that legislation and essentially remove those limits that allowed a state central committee to make unlimited organizational campaign expenditures to benefit candidates within general assembly. Now this amendment restores some sense of limit on those expenditures and in the case of the amendment subsection E sets a limit on the governor's race to $ 250,000 dollars, subsection F sets a limit for all other state-wide offices at $ 75,000 and then by reference in section G it establishes the $ 10,000 dollar limit for state senate and $ 3500 dollars for state representative. In addition, in section H it maintains the CPI adjustments that are currently existent within the Citizens Election Program and by reference back to the state senate and state representative races.

The reason for this amendment is what we saw and it has been talked about during the debate, back in the 2014 race there was a state senate race where money was sent through the state party and then expended on that state senate race to the tune of an additional $ 200,000 dollars on that race. Now the issue with that, we've talked about transparency and if you look at the movement of money or the laundering of the money from one pocket to another through the state party, the state party expends that on one of our races. There is no visibility as to where that money came from. All we know about our expenditures from the state party are that it was made by the state party, not where that money came from.

So, from a transparency standpoint, we have no idea who is trying to advocate one way or the other for a candidate. I think that is something that we tried to enact and have maintained within the Citizens Election Program because as we all know as we run for our races, we get contributions from $ 5-$ 100 dollars but you file that, you know exactly who gives that campaign contribution. You know exactly where it comes from, you know whether they are in your district or you are not in their district, and all that information is filed for public record with the State Elections Enforcement Commission. Now the other part that happened in this and why this is significant is that when the other changes in the law that was enacted in 2013 is the allowing for coordination of campaigns, and so now you don't have independent expenditures which would be absent for the campaign but you have the ability of a candidate to coordinate with the state party, and so it allows a tremendous amount of money beyond what the intent of the Citizens Election Program was meant to be. So, with that, I move adoption of the amendment and when the vote is taken, I ask the vote be taken by roll.

ASSISTANT DEPUTY SPEAKER MUSHINSKY (85TH):

Member has moved adoption and requested vote by taken by roll. All those in favor please signify by saying "Aye".

REPRESENTATIVES:

Aye.

ASSISTANT DEPUTY SPEAKER MUSHINSKY (85TH):

Twenty percent has been met. Roll call will be requested. Will you remark further on the amendment before us? Representative Fox.

REP. FOX (148TH):

Thank you, Madam Speaker, and I thank the proponent for his words in the amendment and fellow committee member with GAE. I highly respect his opinion on these matters, but I must stand in opposition of the underlying amendment and to encourage my colleagues to not support it. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

ASSISTANT DEPUTY SPEAKER MUSHINSKY (85TH):

Thank you, sir. Will you remark further on the amendment before us? Will you remark further? If not, will staff and guests please come to the well of the House? Members take their seats? The machine will be open. (Ringing)

CLERK:

The House of Representatives is voting by roll. Members to the Chamber. The House of Representatives is voting by roll. Members to the Chamber.

ASSISTANT DEPUTY SPEAKER MUSHINSKY (85TH):

Have all the members voted? Have all the members voted? Please check the board to make sure your vote is properly recorded? If all the members have voted, the machine will be locked and the clerk will take a tally. Clerk please announce the tally.

CLERK:

House Amendment Schedule "F"

Total number Voting 148

Necessary for Adoption 75

Those voting Yea 71

Those voting Nay 77

Those absent and not Voting 3

ASSISTANT DEPUTY SPEAKER MUSHINSKY (85TH):

Amendment fails. (Gavel) Will you remark further on the bill as amended? Representative Piscopo of the 76th.

REP. PISCOPO (76TH):
Thank you Madam Speaker
. Madam Speaker when this first became law, the Connecticut Election Law, I believe it was in 2005. The idea by the proponents and the intention was to create a clean election system, a publically funded clean election system, where we would do away with the private interests and since then it passed in 2005. We came back in 2008, we come back periodically and kind of tweak it as loopholes are exposed and we try and fix that to keep that kind of message clean that it is completely a clean election, totally transparent, no public interests. We came back in 2008, we came back again in 2011 and made some more technical changes, and then we came back in 2013 we made some changes that prohibit expenditures to those that have plead guilty or no contest to some crimes. We listed the crimes and they would not be able to receive campaign expenditures from this fund. And so, we do make common sense changes, although I wasn't for the law to begin with, we have made common sense changes and to that end Madam Speaker the clear is in possession of LCO 6579. Will the clerk please call and I'd be given leave of the chamber to summarize?

ASSISTANT DEPUTY SPEAKER MUSHINSKY (85TH):

Clerk please call LCO 6579, which will be designated House "G".

CLERK:

House Amendment Schedule "G" LCO 6579, offered by Representative Klarides, Representative Candelora, et al.

ASSISTANT DEPUTY SPEAKER MUSHINSKY (85TH):

The question before the chamber is adoption -- Representative seeks leave of the chamber to summarize the amendment. Is there objection? Is there objection? If not, Representative Piscopo please proceed with summarization.

REP. PISCOPO (76TH):

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, all this does is the amendment limits to $ 100,000 dollars payment to any entity owned by any member of the immediate family or any member of the general assembly. I move adoption.

ASSISTANT DEPUTY SPEAKER MUSHINSKY (85TH):

Question before the chamber is adoption of House Amendment Schedule "G". Will you remark?

REP. PISCOPO (76TH):

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I summed it up, I think, when I was bringing out the amendment. All this does is tries to patch up one of the loopholes. I think we've seen over the years that almost 3 or 4 entities are now taking a lot of money running campaigns and it would be a shame if some were associated with the immediate families of some legislatures. It just doesn't seem right to me. I don't think it would seem right to any of us, and so it's my hope that we can pass this amendment. I know my friend and colleague and the good chair of the GAE Committee has been kind of getting up and expressing a desire that we do not pass any amendments but I hope he can see fit to pass this one. This is a glaring loophole in my opinion Madam Speaker, and I hope this chamber would see fit in its passage. Thank you, Madam Speaker. Oh, and when the vote be taken, I would ask that it be taken by roll. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

ASSISTANT DEPUTY SPEAKER MUSHINSKY (85TH):

I expected you would ask that, Representative. Those in favor of a roll call vote please signify by saying "Aye".

REPRESENTATIVES:

Aye.

ASSISTANT DEPUTY SPEAKER MUSHINSKY (85TH):

Roll call will be ordered. Will you remark further? Representative Fox.

REP. FOX (148TH):

Thank you, Madam Speaker, and I thank the gentlemen for the amendment, my former colleague from the finance committee, as he made. Thank you. Although I stand before the chamber today in opposition of the amendment. I believe that the underlying amendment does not directly go to the core of the issue before us. Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to reject it. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

ASSISTANT DEPUTY SPEAKER MUSHINSKY (85TH):

Thank you, sir. Will you remark further on the amendment? Will you remark further on the amendment before us? If not, staff and guests please come to the well. Members take their seats. The machine will be open. (Ringing)

CLERK:

The House of Representatives is voting by roll. Members to the Chamber. The House of Representatives is voting by roll. Members to the Chamber.

ASSISTANT DEPUTY SPEAKER MUSHINSKY (85TH):

Have all the members voted? Have all the members voted? If all the members have voted, the machine will be locked and the clerk will take a tally. The clerk will please announce the tally.

CLERK:

House Amendment Schedule "G"

Total number Voting 147

Necessary for Adoption 74

Those voting Yea 71

Those voting Nay 76

Those absent and not Voting 4

ASSISTANT DEPUTY SPEAKER MUSHINSKY (85TH):

Amendment fails. (Gavel) Will you remark further on the bill as amended? Representative Ziobron of the 34th.

REP. ZIOBRON (34TH):
Thank you very much Madam Speaker
. Madam Speaker, I've been listening to a lot of the debate here and we've talked about the Citizens Election Program. I have a deep respect for of the proponent of this bill and his work on the GAE Committee. I submitted several bills to the GAE Committee earlier this year dealing with CEP. A few of them dealt with getting a grant, AKA taxpayer dollars, when you are unopposed as a candidate strikes me to be the one issue that we could find some commonality on in this chamber. When taxpayers are paying for the things required to run a campaign, I think they do so knowing that there's a battle about to be ensued, but when those same dollars are given to candidates who have no opposition I think it's time for us to take a pause and I would really hope that my colleagues and friends on the other side will listen to what I have to say about the matter, because Madam Speaker I have an amendment, its LCO 7855. I would ask that the clerk call the amendment and I'd be allowed to summarize.

ASSISTANT DEPUTY SPEAKER MUSHINSKY (85TH):

The clerk has an amendment LCO 7855 which will be designated Amendment "H".

CLERK:

House Amendment Schedule "H" LCO 7855 offered by Representative Klarides, Representative Candelora, et al.

ASSISTANT DEPUTY SPEAKER MUSHINSKY (85TH):

The representative seeks leave of the chamber to summarize the amendment. Is there objection? Is there objection? Hearing none, Representative you may proceed with summarization.

REP. ZIOBRON (34TH):
Thank you very much
. So, as I was stating earlier, many of us participate in the CEP program and that begins kinda early at the beginning of the spring. We don't know who may or may not be our opposition, so we file for CEP, but what many legislatures don't know is that you can actually keep fundraising those minimum $ 100 dollar contributions without actually doing the next step in officially enrolling. And if you don't do that, you can actually run unopposed, still collect small contributions of no more than $ 100 dollars and be limited to spending what you raised. As a legislature or as a candidate when you don't have an opponent, what is the reason for you to get 75 percent of the taxpayers allotment, what you may be deemed to get, it's a little over $ 30,000 dollars for a house seat, I think $ 90,000 dollars for a senate seat. This is a common sense amendment. It's the right thing to do. We shouldn't as candidates whether we win or lose, we should be really thoughtful about what we're gonna take or not take and not spend of taxpayer money. So, when you run and you're a candidate and you are not opposed, you can still raise money, you can still have a pretty good campaign. You can still have bumper stickers and ads in your local newspaper, a website or a blog. That can all be done, Madam Speaker, spending far less than then the 75 percent that's currently in statute.

So, this amendment is very simple Madam Speaker, it just says that the State Auctions Enforcement Commission shall establish guidelines to determine whether a participating candidate has an opponent and if they do not have an official opponent then they would not be qualified to avail themselves of taxpayer money for those things. So, Madam Speaker, I would like to move the adoption of the amendment and when that happens I'd ask the vote be taken by roll.

ASSISTANT DEPUTY SPEAKER MUSHINSKY (85TH):

Thank you, madam. The representative has asked that the vote be taken by roll. All in favor please say "Aye".

REPRESENTATIVES:

Aye.

ASSISTANT DEPUTY SPEAKER MUSHINSKY (85TH):

Twenty percent has been met. The vote will be taken by roll. Representative Dubitsky of the 47th.

REP. DUBITSKY (47TH):

Madam Speaker, I pushed my button for the underlying bill, not on this amendment. I apologize.

ASSISTANT DEPUTY SPEAKER MUSHINSKY (85TH):

No problem. Representative Ritter of the 1st.

REP. RITTER (1ST):

Thank you, Madam Speaker, and I appreciate the amendment and I would say that the Speaker of the House to my right, he likes being down here, that we are working on a budget proposal in the House Democrats and we will have something very, very similar to this. I would say that it's hard to look at something five minutes in advance. No one knows the exact wording of this, but, or however long it came in advance, but the ideas and the concepts would be one that, immitry is a great form of flattery and we will probably see something very similar in a house democratic budget. I would urge my colleagues to reject the amendment. Thank you.

ASSISTANT DEPUTY SPEAKER MUSHINSKY (85TH):

Thank you, sir. Will you remark further on the amendment? Representative Fox.

REP. FOX (148TH):

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, I stand in agreement with the majority leader. I urge my colleagues to reject the amendment. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

ASSISTANT DEPUTY SPEAKER MUSHINSKY (85TH):

Thank you. Will you remark further on the amendment? Will you remark further? If not, staff and guests please come to the well of the House. Members please take your seats. The machine will be open. (Ringing)

CLERK:

The House of Representatives is voting by roll. Members to the Chamber. The House of Representatives is voting by roll. Members to the Chamber.

ASSISTANT DEPUTY SPEAKER MUSHINSKY (85TH):

Have all the members voted? Have all the members voted? Members please check the board to ensure your vote is properly cast. If all the members have voted, the machine will be locked and the clerk will take a tally. Clerk, please announce the tally.

CLERK:

House Amendment Schedule "H"

Total number Voting 147

Necessary for Adoption 74

Those voting Yea 72

Those voting Nay 75

Those absent and not Voting 4

ASSISTANT DEPUTY SPEAKER MUSHINSKY (85TH):

Amendment fails. (Gavel) Will you remark further on the bill as amended? Will you remark further? If not, staff and guests please come to the well. Oh, I'm sorry Representative Dubitsky, I just saw your light. Representative Dubitsky of the 47th.

REP. DUBITSKY (47TH):

Thank you, Madam Speaker. A few questions for the proponent of the bill as amended if I may?

ASSISTANT DEPUTY SPEAKER MUSHINSKY (85TH):

Representative Fox, please prepare yourself. Representative Dubitsky.

REP. DUBITSKY (47TH):

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Through you Madam Speaker, I would ask would this bill as amended prevent friends or family or business associates from donating money to a state central committee and have that state central committee spend that money on organizational expenditures for a state candidate who participates in the Citizens Election Program?

Through you, Madam Speaker.

ASSISTANT DEPUTY SPEAKER MUSHINSKY (85TH):

Representative Fox.

REP. FOX (148TH):
Through you Madam Speaker, I don't believe so, no
.

Through you Madam Speaker.

ASSISTANT DEPUTY SPEAKER MUSHINSKY (85TH):

Representative Dubitsky.

REP. DUBITSKY (47TH):

Thank you, Madam Speaker. So, based on the proponent's answer under this bill, it would be perfectly legal for friends and family to put together all kinds of money, give it to a state central committee and have that state central committee then use that money for organizational expenditures for a candidate who is participating in the Citizens Election Program. So essentially, under this bill, candidates can raise as much money as they want. The whole Clean Elections Program is gone. Where is it? We used to have one where you would raise a certain amount of money, a certain amount of donations of a certain size and then you'd be done, you'd stop. Everybody would be the same, everybody would raise the same amount of money so both candidates or all the candidates running for a given office would be on an equal footing. That's the whole point of the Citizens Election Program. That's the whole point of clean election financing. This bill doesn't provide for that. It allows for essentially unlimited money through the back door. Another question, if I may Madam Speaker?

ASSISTANT DEPUTY SPEAKER MUSHINSKY (85TH):

I didn't hear a question previously, but go ahead, if you have another question representative.

REP. DUBITSKY (47TH):

There was a question and then a statement and now another question if I may? My other question would be; if those friends and family and business associates were state contractors, under this bill would they still be able to donate to a state central committee and have that state central committee spend that money on organizational expenditures for a candidate who is participating in the Citizens Election Program?

Through you, Madam Speaker.

ASSISTANT DEPUTY SPEAKER MUSHINSKY (85TH):

Representative Fox.

REP. FOX (148TH):
Through you Madam Speaker, no
.

ASSISTANT DEPUTY SPEAKER MUSHINSKY (85TH):

Representative Dubitsky.

REP. DUBITSKY (47TH):

Well thank you Madam Speaker, and I would ask the proponent to point to the part of this bill that would address that issue.

Through you, Madam Speaker.

ASSISTANT DEPUTY SPEAKER MUSHINSKY (85TH):

Representative Fox.

REP. FOX (148TH):
Thank you Madam Speaker
. I do not believe that that's in the bill, I believe that's current law.

ASSISTANT DEPUTY SPEAKER MUSHINSKY (85TH):

Representative Dubitsky.

REP. DUBITSKY (47TH):

Thank you, Madam Speaker. So, in interpreting the good representative comments that it would be illegal under state law for a state contractor to contribute money to a state central committee and have that state central committee spend that money on organization expenditures. If that is indeed the case, then I believe that's actually a good thing. But another question if I may? Would this bill prevent the money donated by friends, family and business associates to a state central committee? Would it be legal under this bill for the state central committee to spend that money on a candidate's campaign staff salaries?

Through you Madam Speaker.

ASSISTANT DEPUTY SPEAKER MUSHINSKY (85TH):

Representative Fox.

REP. FOX (148TH):

Madam Speaker, I don't believe this bill addresses that.

Through you Madam Speaker.

ASSISTANT DEPUTY SPEAKER MUSHINSKY (85TH):

Representative Dubitsky.

REP. DUBITSKY (47TH):

Okay. Thank you, Madam Speaker, and that's my entire point. This bill, since its dealing with the issue of campaign finance reform, should address that issue and because having a state central committee spend money that is essentially collected through the back door in an effort to circumvent our clean election laws. Spending that money on a candidate's campaign staff salaries is the very definition of circumventing the clean election laws. If we are enacting campaign finance reform, that's what we should be trying to do is seal up these holes, seal up these loopholes that have been exploited.

Another question, through you Madam Speaker, I would ask under this bill would the state central committee that collected this money from friends and family and business associates; would this bill require that state central committee to disclose documents to the SEEC regarding the committee's fundraising for that candidate?

ASSISTANT DEPUTY SPEAKER MUSHINSKY (85TH):

Representative Fox.

REP. FOX (148TH):

Through you Madam Speaker, I don't believe that that is addressed in this legislation.

Through you Madam Speaker.

ASSISTANT DEPUTY SPEAKER MUSHINSKY (85TH):

Representative Dubitsky.

REP. DUBITSKY (47TH):

Okay, well again there's been a lot in the news recently in the last couple of years about that very issue. Why are we here dealing with campaign finance reform and we're not addressing that issue? That's a glaring loophole in our supposed clean election law that should be in this bill, and its absence is very conspicuous in my eyes.

Another question, through you Madam Speaker?

ASSISTANT DEPUTY SPEAKER MUSHINSKY (85TH):

Representative Dubitsky.

REP. DUBITSKY (47TH):

Does this bill bar the use of money donated by state contractors to pay for state campaigns even if that money is funneled through a central committee or a political candidate committee's federal campaign account?

ASSISTANT DEPUTY SPEAKER MUSHINSKY (85TH):

Representative Fox.

REP. FOX (148TH):

Through you Madam Speaker, I don't believe that is addressed in this legislation.

Through you Madam Speaker.

ASSISTANT DEPUTY SPEAKER MUSHINSKY (85TH):

Representative Dubitsky.

REP. DUBITSKY (47TH):

Thank you, Madam Speaker. It is very disheartening to me that that issue, which everybody knows is a major loophole or a major disputed issue in our campaign finance laws, is not being addressed by this body under a bill that says AN ACT CONCERNING CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM. One would think, Madam Speaker, that an issue like that, an issue which has been in the news for literally years. Funneling money through a federal account into the campaign of somebody who is accepting Citizens Election Program money is not addressed in this campaign finance reform bill. Perhaps it is just me, Madam Speaker, but I would think that every state representative and every senator in this legislature would demand that this bill address this issue, but it does not.

ASSISTANT DEPUTY SPEAKER MUSHINSKY (85TH):

Members of the chamber, the noise is getting too loud. Some of the members cannot hear. Please take the conversations outside. Thank you very much. Representative Dubitsky.

REP. DUBITSKY (47TH):

Thank you, Madam Speaker, I appreciate it. I would also ask, would this bill titled AN ACT CONCERNING CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM, through you Madam Speaker, would this bill prevent a state central committee from sending out campaign mailings on behalf of a candidate and calling those mailings "get out the vote material" which would be exempt from the Citizens Election Program spending limits?

ASSISTANT DEPUTY SPEAKER MUSHINSKY (85TH):

Representative Fox.

REP. FOX (148TH):

Through you Madam Speaker, I don't believe that's addressed in this legislation.

Through you Madam Speaker.

ASSISTANT DEPUTY SPEAKER MUSHINSKY (85TH):

Representative Dubitsky.

REP. DUBITSKY (47TH):

Thank you, Madam Speaker, and again I'm a bit baffled by the absence of that in this bill and if I may ask the proponent, why is it not addressed in this campaign finance reform bill?

Through you Madam Speaker.

ASSISTANT DEPUTY SPEAKER MUSHINSKY (85TH):

Representative Fox.

REP. FOX (148TH):

Madam Speaker, there were a number of issues that came before the GAE Committee, some of which are contained in this, some of which are not. That is one of the issues that was not contained in this bill.

Through you Madam Speaker.

ASSISTANT DEPUTY SPEAKER MUSHINSKY (85TH):

Representative Dubitsky.

REP. DUBITSKY (47TH):

Thank you, Madam Speaker. In this bill titled AN ACT CONCERNING CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM, I would ask through you Madam Speaker, does this bill allow House and Senate candidates to mention the Governor and his policies in their campaign materials in a year that the governor is running for office?

Through you Madam Speaker.

ASSISTANT DEPUTY SPEAKER MUSHINSKY (85TH):

Representative Fox.

REP. FOX (148TH):

Madam Speaker, I thank the individual for the question but again that is not addressed in this legislation.

Through you Madam Speaker.

ASSISTANT DEPUTY SPEAKER MUSHINSKY (85TH):

Representative Dubitsky.

REP. DUBITSKY (47TH):

Again, not addressed in this legislation. The three or four biggest issues that have come across the news and have affected candidates in this state over the last several election cycles, the three or four biggest issues are not addressed in the bill titled AN ACT CONCERNING CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM. It is baffling to me that what we are doing here is we are moving little things around, we're making it easier for certain candidates to get their money and making it easier for certain people in certain parties to get an advantage, but we're not addressing the major issues that we have with campaign finance in this state. Everybody knows which issues have been in the news. They've affected major candidates. They've affected minor candidates. They've affected gubernatorial candidates, senate and house candidates. There are house and senate members right now that are in front of the SEEC based on issues that should be in a bill called AN ACT CONCERNING CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM. So, what does this bill actually do if it doesn't address the three or four biggest issues that we've got in campaign finance reform? Madam Speaker, I'm gonna ask that question. What does this bill do?

Through you Madam Speaker.

ASSISTANT DEPUTY SPEAKER MUSHINSKY (85TH):

Representative Fox.

REP. FOX (148TH):

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, the overall purpose of the bill is to enhance and strengthen our regime for disclosure and regulation of independent expenditures, it provides greater transparency and accountability for IE's and makes all the changes for election laws.

Through you Madam Speaker.

ASSISTANT DEPUTY SPEAKER MUSHINSKY (85TH):

Representative Dubitsky.

REP. DUBITSKY (47TH):

Precisely, precisely. And I talked to my constituents at home and my colleagues in this room and I say that's precisely what this bill does. I didn't understand it. I don't think the people at home understood it. I don't think the people in this room understand it. They do understand the three or four biggest issues that have been in the news and we're not even addressing those. I don't believe I'm the only one that believes that's a problem. I know that there are people back home in my district that thinks it's a big problem. I am sure there are people in this room that think it's a problem on both sides of the aisle and I would hope that at some point we will address those issues as opposed to doing what Representative Fox just indicated we are doing, which I again did not understand. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

ASSISTANT DEPUTY SPEAKER MUSHINSKY (85TH):

Thank you, sir. Representative Skulczyck of the 45th.

REP. SKULCZYCK (45TH):

Thank you, Madam Speaker, and thank you to the proponent hanging in there for a long one again. So, a couple of questions that I might have to the proponent through you Madam Speaker. The CEP Program, so we all know what it is and we've all used it in some way or form. We understand the paperwork. I am confused really, are we fixing a problem or creating a problem?

My first question for the proponent is, first of all let me make a statement. I'd like to take this bill and just carve it. I'd chop it right up. I think it needs to be cut in half or maybe cut up completely and thrown away. I think the bill needs to be cut up and thrown away, and I'll tell you why. I think this bill goes after trying to fix a problem with additional problems being piled on and I think what we're doing here under this long debate today is we're discussing all these amendments and all these opportunities to have us hear each other's side. Good amendments we heard just a moment ago from the gentlemen. We have a bill similar to this. We just got this five minutes ago and boy we're gonna have this soon but I urge everyone to vote against it. Well if you have a similar bill, you should have voted for it, in all fairness. This bill is all about trying to control funding.

So, let me ask first, my good colleague asked the question about the fiscal note. I guess we scrambled around and got some numbers together. Would the proponent be able to offer during the research in developing this bill with all the sponsors with all the experience, maybe we can offer some sort of fiscal note and the change positive or negative that we would see impacted in the budget?

Through you Madam Speaker.

ASSISTANT DEPUTY SPEAKER MUSHINSKY (85TH):

Representative Fox.

REP. FOX (148TH):

Through you Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for the question. In terms of the fiscal impact, I would rely on the fiscal note as provided by OFA earlier today.

Through you Madam Speaker.

ASSISTANT DEPUTY SPEAKER MUSHINSKY (85TH):

Representative Skulczyck.

REP. SKULCZYCK (45TH):

Madam Speaker, if you could repeat the answer through the proponent?

ASSISTANT DEPUTY SPEAKER MUSHINSKY (85TH):

Representative Fox.

REP. FOX (148TH):

By all means. Thank you, Madam Speaker. I thank the representative for his question. In terms of the fiscal impact, I would refer to and rely upon the fiscal note as provided by OFA earlier today.

Through you Madam Speaker.

ASSISTANT DEPUTY SPEAKER MUSHINSKY (85TH):

Representative Skulczyck.

REP. SKULCZYCK (45TH):

Thank you, Madam Speaker, from the proponent. So, could the good proponent please reiterate the number for me today that was provided?

Through you Madam Speaker.

ASSISTANT DEPUTY SPEAKER MUSHINSKY (85TH):

Representative Fox.

REP. FOX (148TH):

Through you Madam Speaker, I believe, I don't have it in front of me, but I believe the fiscal note indicated there'd be no fiscal impact. Through you Madam Speaker.

ASSISTANT DEPUTY SPEAKER MUSHINSKY (85TH):

Representative Skulczyck.

REP. SKULCZYCK (45TH):

So, we are here now at the eleventh hour in the midst of a great discussion about great change and opportunity to clean up a system that we all know is flawed and we are also debating, not debating but deliberating, over a budget issue. And so if we're gonna make such a change, would the good proponent know is there over the governor's proposal for his budget, was there a $ 10 million asked to increase go toward this account with the CEP Program? Does the proponent know that answer?

Through you Madam Speaker.

ASSISTANT DEPUTY SPEAKER MUSHINSKY (85TH):

Representative Fox.

REP. FOX (148TH):

Through you Madam Speaker. I am not aware.

Through you Madam Speaker.

ASSISTANT DEPUTY SPEAKER MUSHINSKY (85TH):

Representative Skulczyck.

REP. SKULCZYCK (45TH):

So, does the good proponent know what the budget was for this fiscal year for the CEP Program?

Through you Madam Speaker.

ASSISTANT DEPUTY SPEAKER MUSHINSKY (85TH):

Representative Fox.

REP. FOX (148TH):

Through you Madam Speaker. At this moment, I do not.

Through you Madam Speaker.

ASSISTANT DEPUTY SPEAKER MUSHINSKY (85TH):

Representative Skulczyck.

REP. SKULCZYCK (45TH):

And through you Madam Speaker, does the good proponent have any thought of maybe we go back to the drawing board and form a study and maybe look at the best practices to really fix this once and for all, cause I think there's a lot of discussion here in this room today that this might not be the direction we should go in. Has that been considered?

Through you Madam Speaker.

ASSISTANT DEPUTY SPEAKER MUSHINSKY (85TH):

Representative Fox.

REP. FOX (148TH):

Through you Madam Speaker. Is the question from the fine representative whether we create a study to look at this issue as opposed to passing legislation?

Through you Madam Speaker.

ASSISTANT DEPUTY SPEAKER MUSHINSKY (85TH):

Representative Skulczyck.

REP. SKULCZYCK (45TH):

That would be the question, cause I'm hearing a lot of good conversation and I'm sure the intent here is to go in the right direction, but are we fixing the problem with a problem; and so yes the question through you Madam Speaker to the proponent would there be a consideration to form a study going forward?

ASSISTANT DEPUTY SPEAKER MUSHINSKY (85TH):

Representative Fox.

REP. FOX (148TH):

Through you Madam Speaker. I have not been involved in any such discussions.

Through you Madam Speaker.

ASSISTANT DEPUTY SPEAKER MUSHINSKY (85TH):

Representative Skulczyck.

REP. SKULCZYCK (45TH):

Okay, so I guess we'd ask a couple of other questions through you Madam Speaker, if it's okay. If the proponent can inform me if he knows how many violations in the CEP Program for this calendar year?

Through you Madam Speaker.

ASSISTANT DEPUTY SPEAKER MUSHINSKY (85TH):

Representative Fox.

REP. FOX (148TH):

Through you Madam Speaker. I believe that there have been about 150 violations filed per calendar year, I believe that's approximate.

Through you Madam Speaker.

ASSISTANT DEPUTY SPEAKER MUSHINSKY (85TH):

Representative Skulczyck.

REP. SKULCZYCK (45TH):

Thank you for that response. And through that response, if I could go further, if the proponent could break that down, do we know was there state central parties included in those violations, federal parties or can he indicate what they broke down within the 150 violations? Through you Madam Speaker.

ASSISTANT DEPUTY SPEAKER MUSHINSKY (85TH):

Representative Fox.

REP. FOX (148TH):

Through you Madam Speaker. Again, I thank the individual for the question. I do not have that information on hand.

Through you Madam Speaker.

ASSISTANT DEPUTY SPEAKER MUSHINSKY (85TH):

Representative Skulczyck.

REP. SKULCZYCK (45TH):

You know at this point what I'm gonna do is wrap up with a final thought, and my thought is this. I think we're here having this great debate but the simple fact is this, we have an opportunity to fix something. We shouldn't fix it by rushing into change it to benefit one or the other, and I believe this thing needs to be cut up into pieces, thrown in the garbage and started over. I respect the proponent of this bill, I strongly disagree and urge my colleagues not to vote in favor of it. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

ASSISTANT DEPUTY SPEAKER MUSHINSKY (85TH):

Thank you, sir. Representative Carney of the 23rd.

REP. CARNEY (23RD):

So earlier I addressed something that concerned me and that's not in this bill and that has to do with campaign spending. One of the things I think we've all seen, at least I believe that there's too much money in politics and you know one of the reasons I know that the Citizens Election Program was created was sorta to give the Average Joe the opportunity to run for office. You didn't have to be a multimillionaire to run for office, you could raise small donations from a certain amount of people and be on a level playing field, but what's happening now is people are finding ways around the Citizens Election Program limits and using personal funds to increase their campaign bank account sort of indirectly. Right now, a person is able to give $ 2,000 to a political town committee and $ 10,000 to a state central committee and we've seen on various instances that those funds are then funneled back into contributions in the form of mailers or campaign consultants for that particular candidate. And now I am not a wealthy person and I know not everyone in this chamber is wealthy, but if you're able to use thousands of dollars of your own personal funds, which I've said has been done in several races over the past couple of years, thousands of dollars and get it funneled back into your campaign. That is wrong. I believe that is wrong, and I'd hope everyone would agree with me that that is wrong.

So, Madam Speaker the clerk has an amendment. It is LCO 7889. Would you please ask the clerk to call it and I would be allowed to summarize.

ASSISTANT DEPUTY SPEAKER MUSHINSKY (85TH):

Will the clerk please call LCO 7889, which will be designated House Amendment "I"?

CLERK:

LCO 7889, House Amendment Scheulde "I" offered by Representative Carney.

ASSISTANT DEPUTY SPEAKER MUSHINSKY (85TH):

The Representative seeks leave of the chamber to summarize the amendment. Is there objection? Is there objection? If not, Representative Carney may proceed with summarization.

REP. CARNEY (23RD):

Thank you very much Madam Speaker, so basically what this amendment does is it limits a declared candidate from giving more than $ 250 of their personal dollars as their candidate to a party committee so to a town committee or to a state central committee and it also says that if said candidate does not want to abide by those limits they will be unable to get the Citizens Election Program dollars.

So, as I said, I believe that there is too much money in politics and people are using this as a backdoor to funnel more campaign dollars above and beyond, well above and beyond, the very generous campaign dollars we receive in the Citizens Election Program to go into their campaign to try to get what I believe is an unfair advantage.

And Madam Speaker, I move for the adoption of the amendment and I would ask that when the vote is taken, it be taken by roll. Thank you very much.

ASSISTANT DEPUTY SPEAKER MUSHINSKY (85TH):

Question is adoption and the Representative asked that the vote by taken by roll. All in favor please say "Aye".

REPRESENTATIVES:

Aye

ASSISTANT DEPUTY SPEAKER MUSHINSKY (85TH):

Twenty percent has been met and the vote will be taken by roll. Will you remark on the amendment? I'm not sure is Representative Devlin is wishing to speak on the amendment or the bill. Representative Fox.

REP. FOX (148TH):
Thank you Madam Speaker, and I rise in opposition to the underlying amendment although I appreciate the efforts of the proponent
. I must stand in opposition of this amendment and ask my colleagues to reject it as well. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

ASSISTANT DEPUTY SPEAKER MUSHINSKY (85TH):

Thank you, sir. Will you remark on the amendment? Representative Tercyak, are you speaking on the amendment? Representative Carney.

REP. CARNEY (23RD):
Okay, thank you very much Madam Speaker
. Through you, just a quick question to the good chairman of the GAE Committee through you. I'm just curious as to why the chairman is opposed to the amendment. Thank you very much Madam Speaker.

ASSISTANT DEPUTY SPEAKER MUSHINSKY (85TH):

Representative Fox.

REP. FOX (148TH):

That was a question to me, Madam Chair?

ASSISTANT DEPUTY SPEAKER MUSHINSKY (85TH):

Would you repeat the question Representative Carney?

REP. CARNEY (23RD):
Yes, absolutely Madam Speaker
. I'm just curious as to why the chairman of GAE is opposed to the amendment.

Through you.

ASSISTANT DEPUTY SPEAKER MUSHINSKY (85TH):

Chamber please stands at ease. Representative Fox.

REP. FOX (148TH):
Thank you Madam Speaker
. Madam Speaker I stand in opposition to the underlying amendment. I believe that I support the committee process in the manner by which bills come through the committee process, as such I do not agree with the underlying amendment.

Through you Madam Speaker.

ASSISTANT DEPUTY SPEAKER MUSHINSKY (85TH):

Representative Carney.

REP. CARNEY (23RD):
Ok, thank you very much to the chairman of GAE for that response, although I am a little confused because the underlying amended bill that we're debating here was a strike all amendment and one could argue that that particular amendment, which I might add was 35 pages long, that we got you know I didn't have time to read it until it was sitting on my desk and we started debating it
. It was 35 pages long and one would argue that bill in itself did not go through the committee process either. So, I'm not really sure why that's really a sticking point for opposition to this particular amendment.

You know, this amendment, we all -- I've seen folks on both sides of the aisle talk about how there's too much money in politics. This simply removes too much money from politics to a degree. You know, we all want to have a level playing field when we run for office. We don't have to worry about all this money, especially money from somebody's personal account that's just being funneled back into their campaign. That is wrong. Taking Citizens Election Program dollars, which are taxpayer dollars, and then spending thousands of your own dollars above and beyond that is wrong and goes against exactly why we have the Citizens Election Program to begin with.

So, I urge everyone, if you believe there's too much money in politics, this is a no-brainer. And I urge folks on both sides of the aisle to support this amendment. Thank you very much Madam Speaker.

ASSISTANT DEPUTY SPEAKER MUSHINSKY (85TH):

Thank you, sir. Will you remark further on the amendment before us? Will you remark further? Will you remark further on this bill? Will you remark further on this bill? If not, staff and guests please come to the well of the House. Members please take your seats. The machine will be open. (Ringing)

CLERK:

The House of Representatives is voting by roll. Members to the Chamber. The House of Representatives is voting by roll. Members to the Chamber.

ASSISTANT DEPUTY SPEAKER MUSHINSKY (85TH):

Have all the members voted? Have all the members voted? Members please check the board to determine if your vote is properly cast. If all the members have voted, the machine will be locked and the clerk will take a tally. The clerk will please announce the tally.

CLERK:

House Amendment Schedule "I"

Total number Voting 145

Necessary for Adoption 73

Those voting Yea 71

Those voting Nay 74

Those absent and not Voting 6

ASSISTANT DEPUTY SPEAKER MUSHINSKY (85TH):

Amendment fails. (Gavel) Will you remark further on the bill as amended? Representative Cummings of the 74th.

REP. CUMMINGS (74TH):

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, earlier I heard that the legal authority for this amendment was a case SpeechNOW. org versus FEC; however, upon investigation of this case, a little bit of quick legal research. The case indicates, in light of the court's holding as a matter of law that the independent expenditures do not corrupt or create the appearance of quid pro quo corruption, contributions to groups that only make independent expenditures also cannot corrupt or create the appearance of corruption and held that any sort of cap on this type of group to be completely unconstitutional. It is very discouraging to me that the legal authority cited for this amendment, particularly holds any sort of cap like our $ 70,000 dollar cap to be unconstitutional. Therefore, I will not be supporting this amendment. Thank you.

ASSISTANT DEPUTY SPEAKER MUSHINSKY (85TH):

This is the bill as amended madam. Representative Srinivasan of the 31st.

REP. SRINIVASAN (31ST):

Good afternoon Madam Speaker.

ASSISTANT DEPUTY SPEAKER MUSHINSKY (85TH):

Good afternoon.

REP. SRINIVASAN (31ST):

Through you Madam Speaker, just a few questions to the proponent of the bill as amended.

ASSISTANT DEPUTY SPEAKER MUSHINSKY (85TH):

Representative Fox, please prepare yourself.

REP. SRINIVASAN (31ST):

Through you Madam Speaker, if the good representative can just outline briefly; I have been listening to the debate which obviously has been going on for a good few hours, through you Madam Speaker if the good representative can outline for us briefly as to what is it that is deficient, lacking, or what is it that is wrong with our current system? Through you Madam Speaker.

ASSISTANT DEPUTY SPEAKER MUSHINSKY (85TH):

Representative Fox.

REP. FOX (148TH):
Thank you Madam Speaker
. Madam Speaker as I indicated in my opening comments, the state of Connecticut should be very proud of its Citizens Election Program and then in the strength of the program. This underlying legislation goes to make that program stronger I believe. Promoting discrepancy and promoting transparency and greater disclosure for the underlying bill.

Through you Madam Speaker.

ASSISTANT DEPUTY SPEAKER MUSHINSKY (85TH):

Representative Srinivasan.

REP. SRINIVASAN (31ST):

Through you Madam Speaker, I get that that we are trying to get it better, but to me Madam Speaker through you what I still don't understand in spite of being listening to this debate for this length of time, what is it that we are trying to correct here? What is it that is not available through the current program that we are trying to fix?

Through you Madam Speaker.

ASSISTANT DEPUTY SPEAKER MUSHINSKY (85TH):

Representative Fox.

REP. FOX (148TH):
Thank you Madam Speaker
. We are trying to bring greater transparency to the process of independent expenditure committees and the disclosure that these committees make.

Through you Madam Speaker.

ASSISTANT DEPUTY SPEAKER MUSHINSKY (85TH):

Representative Srinivasan.

REP. SRINIVASAN (31ST):

Through you Madam Speaker, a good number of us here sitting in the chamber have used this program, so what is it that transparency is lacking? Through you Madam Speaker, I've used the program myself, I find that it is pretty transparent, it's pretty obvious as to what goes in, what comes out. Through you Madam Speaker, what is this transparency that the good representative is looking for?

Through you Madam Speaker.

ASSISTANT DEPUTY SPEAKER MUSHINSKY (85TH):

Representative Fox.

REP. FOX (148TH):
Thank you Madam Speaker, and I thank the individual for the question
. In terms of transparency, we are getting at the disclosures that are being made by independent expenditure committees.

Through you Madam Speaker.

ASSISTANT DEPUTY SPEAKER MUSHINSKY (85TH):

Representative Srinivasan.

REP. SRINIVASAN (31ST):

So, through you Madam Speaker, what we are looking at is the expenditures that we feel are not transparent enough through the programs that we've been using. Is that where the cracks of the problem is? In the expenditures?

Through you, Madam Speaker.

ASSISTANT DEPUTY SPEAKER MUSHINSKY (85TH):

Representative Fox.

REP. FOX (148TH):
Thank you Madam Speaker
. I thank the gentleman for the question. The expenditures that we are trying to get at are the independent expenditures being made by the IE committees that are now codified and that will be codified in law should this legislation pass.

Through you Madam Speaker.

ASSISTANT DEPUTY SPEAKER MUSHINSKY (85TH):

Representative Srinivasan.

REP. SRINIVASAN (31ST):

So, through you Madam Speaker, what is it that this bill does that makes it a stronger, a better, a cleaner bill?

Through you Madam Speaker.

ASSISTANT DEPUTY SPEAKER MUSHINSKY (85TH):

Representative Fox.

REP. FOX (148TH):

Thank you, Madam Speaker. The bill requires disclosure of persons and entities that make cover transfers to organizations that make political expenditures and choose not to utilize a segregated account. It shines light on election-related spending and on donations more than $ 5,000 dollars.

Through you Madam Speaker.

ASSISTANT DEPUTY SPEAKER MUSHINSKY (85TH):

Representative Srinivasan.

REP. SRINIVASAN (31ST):

Through you Madam Speaker, so these donations of $ 5,000 dollars that I'm hearing about, is it to the individual campaign or is it to the state party which then can turn around and use it for organizational purposes? What is this $ 5,000 dollars that has to be reported?

Through you Madam Speaker.

ASSISTANT DEPUTY SPEAKER MUSHINSKY (85TH):

Representative Fox.

REP. FOX (148TH):

Through you Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for the question. The expenditure is being made to the IE committees.

Through you Madam Speaker.

ASSISTANT DEPUTY SPEAKER MUSHINSKY (85TH):

Representative Srinivasan.

REP. SRINIVASAN (31ST):

Through you Madam Speaker, so if a contribution has been made to any amount is there a limit that is made to the state central party and the state central party then in turn uses that funding for organizational purposes. In this legislation that is moving forward, if it were to, does that have any impact on the amount that can be contributed by an individual, by a business, by a state contractor to the state party fund?

Through you Madam Speaker.

ASSISTANT DEPUTY SPEAKER MUSHINSKY (85TH):

Representative Fox.

REP. FOX (148TH):

Thank you, Madam Speaker, and I thank the gentleman for the question. I don't believe this legislation addresses that. I believe that would be current statute. Through you Madam Speaker.

ASSISTANT DEPUTY SPEAKER MUSHINSKY (85TH):

Representative Srinivasan.

REP. SRINIVASAN (31ST):

And my final question through you Madam Speaker is there any need to declare a report, what was the money, the amount of money that was given by a state central party to an individual campaign for organizational purposes in this legislation?

Through you Madam Speaker.

ASSISTANT DEPUTY SPEAKER MUSHINSKY (85TH):

Representative Fox.

REP. FOX (148TH):

Through you Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for the question. The answer is not in this legislation.

Through you Madam Speaker.

ASSISTANT DEPUTY SPEAKER MUSHINSKY (85TH):

Representative Srinivasan.

REP. SRINIVASAN (31ST):

I did say it was the last question, but because of this answer I just gotta ask one more question through you Madam Speaker. So, then I'm at a total loss as to where this becomes a cleaner, a better election process. Through you Madam Speaker and if the good representative could just express to me clearly, as I understand that, as I'm sure most of us in the chamber would want to as to by doing what is this bill making it a cleaner, a better election process?

Through you Madam Speaker.

ASSISTANT DEPUTY SPEAKER MUSHINSKY (85TH):

Representative Fox.

REP. FOX (148TH):

Thank you, Madam Speaker, and I apologize to the gentleman for any confusion that I may have caused earlier. The bill codifies IE committees, also known as super PAC's. The statutes that are currently recognized to super PAC's, they are currently allowed by an SEEC administrative ruling. The bill conforms super PAC's whether to existing types of PAC's and political spenders.

Through you Madam Speaker.

ASSISTANT DEPUTY SPEAKER MUSHINSKY (85TH):

Representative Srinivasan.

REP. SRINIVASAN (31ST):

Through you Madam Speaker, then what this bill basically does is codify the super PAC's? Is that what we are trying to accomplish in this legislation?

Through you Madam Speaker.

ASSISTANT DEPUTY SPEAKER MUSHINSKY (85TH):

Representative Fox.

REP. FOX (148TH):

Thank you, Madam Speaker. That's one of the things the bill does, yes.

Through you Madam Speaker.

ASSISTANT DEPUTY SPEAKER MUSHINSKY (85TH):

Representative Srinivasan.

REP. SRINIVASAN (31ST):

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the good representative for his tenacity and for being up there answering all our questions that we've raised and the multiple, multiple amendments that we've discussed in the floor in this debate, but I'm extremely concerned Madam Speaker that we have a system. Most of us have used this system and have participated in this system, and I do agree that there are flaws there. No question about that at all. Nothing is perfect. Nothing ever is. But what we're trying to accomplish here in this legislation does not add any value at all. In fact, in my opinion it takes it a step further in the negative direction. And for that reason, Madam Speaker, I will not be able to support this legislation today. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

ASSISTANT DEPUTY SPEAKER MUSHINSKY (85TH):

Thank you, sir. Representative Ohler of the 64th.

REP. OHLER (64TH):
Thank you Madam Speaker
. Madam Speaker if I may, I want to thank the good chair of the GAE Committee for all of his hard work that's he done this afternoon. I think we are going on hour five of this debate, and if you could to have this body just indulge me for a few minutes I don't speak that often but when I do I hope it has some substance. Being a freshman legislator and having the honor of sitting on the Appropriations Committee, it's been truly an eye-opening experience these last four, four and a half, five months and you know we've tossed around numbers that are really shocking. When I go back to my district and they ask, "Hey, what's going on up in Hartford", "What's it like in the big city" -- I represent nine very small towns. My home town, our cow population triples the human population, so it's exciting any time I can give them some news about Hartford, but I must say the process that I've seen play out today is demoralizing. I think what has played out today has done a complete disservice to the residents of this great state. Now we all know the Memorial Day honor observance is coming up this weekend, and it's an emotional time for a lot of us, me in particular. I was looking forward to going downstairs and being with the Lieutenant Governor today at 4: 00 o'clock because one of my battle buddies is on that wall. Actually, today is the day he was killed in Afghanistan; May 25, 2010. I wanted nothing more than to be a legislator and get down there and give him that honor to hear his name read, but with almost a dozen amendments being tossed around, ideas that we had no time to really talk about, but with the underlying bill with the big heading, right it's eye catching; AN ACT CONCERNING CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM. This is an opportunity to save the residents and businesses, everyone who has a stake in this state, millions of dollars, millions. That was our opportunity here today, to entertain at least a handful of the amendments that were proposed, but what do I see? I am kinda up in the eagle's nest up here, I can see a lot. I like the high ground. I guess that's a military tactic. I see people having sidebar conversations, people with their headphones in, some people who weren't even around for the entire debate and they just come running in and they hit the wrong button and then their colleagues "Hey that's the wrong one" because their particular party didn't want them to vote that way. If I went back, and I intend to, go back to my constituents and tell them what this process has done today, everything that played out and how these amendments that could've saved the state of Connecticut and the residents millions of dollars didn't even get a breath. That's what's sad. And because I had to sit up here and be ready to hit that button and try to thumb through every amendment that was up here, I didn't get that chance to give my battle buddy that honor of hearing his name read downstairs. I hope all of us can do a gut-check over this weekend because the next two weeks are very, very important and very impactful and it will play out for generations for our families and for our kids. Ninety percent of what I've seen during these sessions is pretty bipartisan, but darn it when we're split party line it's always the things that affect us the most. Philosophical or monetary related. I'm not gonna support this legislation as amended because there's constitutionality issues that hasn't been vetted by the GAE. We didn't even have an OFA analysis when it first was rolled out. Again, a flawed process and that's what I wasn't elected here to come here to represent. I want to see a process that works for everybody and I don't believe this bill does it. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

ASSISTANT DEPUTY SPEAKER MUSHINSKY (85TH):

Thank you, sir. Representative Wilson of the 66th.

REP. WILSON (66TH):

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I'm almost speechless. Thank you Representative Ohler and we're sorry for the loss of your dear friend. So, like everyone else I've sat here this afternoon and listened as a freshmen trying to discern. I know I know where I stand, but I'm gonna share a little story with you that are still in the room, it's a shame that everyone else isn't here. And it goes like this, the seat that I'm filling today as many of you know was filled by Representative Miner, now Senator Miner. What many of you probably don't know is that I was his campaign treasurer since 2000. Sixteen years serving every two years as his campaign treasurer. During that time as his treasurer, I took no treasurer's allocation. I believe the rules say that we can pay our treasurers $ 1,000 dollars. We did that to try to frugally spend the money, wisely spend the money, and I'm guessing as I look around this chamber that there's probably a few others of us who had treasurers who did the same thing. There are others who paid their treasurer's something up to that $ 1,000 dollar limit. The question that comes to my mind is this; as we layer on and we layer on and we layer on more and more rules for a program that probably never should have been originally created, how much work can we ask those treasurers to do? To learn the new rules, the changes in the rules every time we pass more along the way. And so, I'd just like, as an unintended consequence thought for all of us to think about another reason why we shouldn't be doing this and I certainly will not be supporting this bill as amended today. Thank you, Madam Chairman.

ASSISTANT DEPUTY SPEAKER MUSHINSKY (85TH):

Thank you, sir. Representative Devlin of the 134th.

REP. DEVLIN (134TH):

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise not with some further questions for my good partner in GAE, Representative Fox. But I do have some comments that I'd like to make regarding this bill, which as we've heard and as we see is called AN ACT CONCERNING FINANCE REFORM. For years, for years, the majority party has felt so strongly about instituting a taxpayer-funded campaign finance program and over 10 years ago that program was put in place. It was the strongest program in the nation. It was designed to make elections cleaner. It was designed to make them more fair and it was designed to increase participation in elections. But since that time, there have been repeated actions taken to weaken the program and advantage the majority party. Let's just start with a few years ago when the legislature was called to a special section for a bill that was fondly called "Get more money for the Governor's Campaign", happened to be during an election cycle.

We can look at ad books. Ad books were banned, oh my goodness, but then we found out shoot those contributions add some value, what do you know. Ad books are back in. How about state party contributions? Those were prohibited too. Those were limited, but just recently we had a state senator that benefited from over $ 200,000 dollars in state party contributions even while they were receiving a Citizens Election Program grant. Over time, there have been so many holes pushed in, pushed through our campaign finance laws, it looks more like Swiss cheese, and if there's not a loophole to be found another hole will be just pushed through anyway. The good chairman and my friend said that this bill would increase transparency, but not completely, not nearly at all. We talked about contributions to Labor United, yeah sure there's PAC contributions and those PAC contributions fall under the required reporting requirements. How about treasury sweeps? How about treasury contributions from unions to organizations like Labor United that provided extraordinary aggressive campaign tactics against my colleague, our colleague, Dr. Petit and others.

You know for the first time probably in the history that we can recall, new organizations did get involved in the past election and you can bet that they did because the people of this state are sick and tired of the policies that keep being pushed on our residents and businesses that are pushing them out of our state. The shift in the election results that have resulted in 72 seats on this side of the chamber didn't result because there was more money put into campaigns. It resulted because people have had it. The only thing that this is AN ACT CONCERNING CAMPAIGN FINANCE; it's not campaign finance reform we have the opportunity to do that and we're missing it.

So, I will not be supporting this bill and I encourage everybody in this chamber to think long and hard and deep and to do the same. Thank you, Madam Chairman.

ASSISTANT DEPUTY SPEAKER MUSHINSKY (85TH):

Thank you, madam. The distinguished minority leader, Representative Klarides.

REP. KLARIDES (114TH):

Good afternoon Madam Speaker.

ASSISTANT DEPUTY SPEAKER MUSHINSKY (85TH):

Good afternoon.

REP. KLARIDES (114TH):

Madam Speaker, I am gonna say something now that I get angry every time somebody in this chamber says. I didn't plan on speaking. I really didn't though. I am very proud of the work that my colleagues have done today in this debate, but I'm standing here today because like my colleague Representative Ohler, Representative Wilson, these are new members to this chamber. They ran for office like, I assume, all of us do because they want to do something good for their district, for the state of Connecticut. They haven't been tainted like the rest of us yet. Now we understand we hear this saying that laws and legislations are like sausage, you don't want to see how they're made and we all understand that there's negotiations and conversations and arguments and discussions and there's compromise and we all walk away saying we like this, we don't like that, that's part of it, we understand that. But I guess the sad part for me is I have now been here 18 years and I've been fortunate and unfortunate to see a lot of things happen, some good, some bad, and to the good representative from Fairfield's comments. I spent the first part of my career sitting in this chamber hearing a debate year after year after year about the problem in Connecticut politics is that we don't have transparency. We don't have enough transparency. We don't have enough sunshine shed on our campaigns. There's too much special interest money in campaigns. People are not able to run for office as they otherwise would because they are at a disadvantage running against a long-time incumbent. They are at a disadvantage because those incumbents have relationships with lobbyists and with other people throughout the state and they can't keep up. A regular Joe from your district can't keep up with one of us that's been here for a while, and we heard that refrain year after year after year and the response and the solution to that problem was what we now know as CEP, the Citizens Election Program, and what that program did was it took out all of that money; special interests, lobbyists, PAC money, etc. , and it said if you can raise "X" amount of dollars from your district in small quantities then you can run. And the idea was then anybody can do it. Nobody was at an advantage or a disadvantage. That sounds nice. It sounds nice. Part of our problem was its taxpayer funded and we didn't agree with that philosophically but we had the debate in here like we do and that's what the democratic process is about. Eventually after many years of hearing for those of us who didn't support it, that we don't believe strongly enough in the democratic process that we don't believe in transparency, that we don't believe that there are too many special interests involved. The bill became law, and that has been the law of the land for many years now.

Funny thing happened though after that. After the advocates in this building in this chamber and the senate chamber and out there, after those advocates went on and on and on for many years until the bill passed that this was the problem. It was the special interests, it was the PAC's, it was ad books, it was state parties, it was RTC's, it was DTC's, it was all this stuff was a problem and if we could just get rid of all of that then we'd be good. Then it would be pure. Then anybody who wanted to run could run and that's what the democratic process is about. Funny thing though, funny thing, after 20 years of republican governor in this state there was an open seat and that year the republicans had somebody running who we referred to as a self-funder, raised his own money, put a lot of his own money in, whether you like that person or not that's what he chose to do and it was his prerogative; however, then we saw the other candidates said you know what maybe it wasn't the greatest idea that we changed these laws cause now I can't compete. So, what did we do? We came back in here. I think it was summertime, special session, and we said we have to now increase that money. The same money that we swore for years we had to decrease because it wasn't fair and it wasn't right and democracy could not flourish because the same people that wanted those laws changed now thought maybe they're not working for them so much. That was the first thing.

I won't repeat and go into detail what the good representative from Fairfield said but the same thing happened with ad books, the same thing happened with state party contributions, the same thing happened with RTC's, and now we stand here today with a lovely bill called AN ACT CONCERNING CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM. We love these titles, because if you put reform it doesn't matter what's before or after it. Who doesn't support reform. Reform's a good thing.

But what I don't get is, now listen I get we are in the minority albeit just barely and I get that we put these amendments up on a board and a lot of times they are party line votes. I understand it. But what I don't understand is when we stand up here for years and years swearing there's a problem with our process, we change that process after many years of debate and then we come back with a list of things that could actually, actually fix in fact that process, and we don't think those are good ideas. Now I know the majority leaders stood up before and said about one of our amendments that they are in the works with that and they are working on that as part of the budget. Well then if you're working on it why didn't you vote for it here? Because it's ours? Alright. It's almost like there's a Chinese menu of things we can do and you close your eyes and you pin the tail on the donkey and you say this is the one we're gonna do today because it's our thing. It may or may not be your thing because it may or may not help you more than it helps us.

Let me tell you something. You've heard me say time after time, we do good things in this building, we do bad things. Some things work in our favor, some things don't work in our favor, but to stand here today look at a bill on that board that says CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM and hear four or five ideas that will get us to actual reform, the things that were part of this in the first place and then were changed because they didn't work in your favor; that's not democracy, that's not sunshine, that is not allowing people the opportunity to run for office. That is not what we are elected to do. That is not what our constituents want us to do, and it is very self-serving Mr. Speaker. Thank you.

SPEAKER ARESIMOWICZ (30TH):

Thank you very much madam. Representative Ritter of the 1st district, you have the floor sir.

REP. RITTER (1ST):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and thank you for the good minority leader for her remarks and I want to thank Chairman Fox for being on his feet for a few hours here. Before I even get to my remarks, I also want to talk about across the aisle and how we cooperate I believe very well. Representative Ziobron was very right on a Point of Order earlier today on a fiscal note and we immediately rectified that with the speaker's leadership, and that is a thing that should never end in this chamber when it doesn't matter which side of the aisle you're on, what party you're on, when you're right you're right and our caucus quickly rectified that. So, I want to thank Representative Ziobron for bringing that to our attention.

I had a professor in college named Tony Corrado. If you Google him, he probably comes up but no one's ever heard of him and he's probably one of the leading experts in the United States of America on campaign finance reform and this was back well before I think a lot of these issues in these court cases came to light, so 2001, 2003, and 2004. And Tony had me as -- I think I was a sophomore, and he said one of the papers we had to write was how would you change campaign financing in America. I forget exactly what I wrote. There was ideas out there. There were hybrid systems at the time, and he finally sort of critized all of us and said, "money and politics is like water, there is nothing you can do to keep it out, it will always flow; it will find a way, it is relentless. Like the ocean wave after wave you will never stop it, but there's something we can do, you can find out who is donating money, you can find out who is contributing money". Cause I agree with what everyone said here today. If you voted on the Citizens Election Program, I was up here, I think it was 2008. Would you still vote for it today if you knew the rules that are existing today based on U. S. Supreme Court decisions, based upon the changes we've made. I don't know. Was that the bargain people signed up for? Maybe, but the world from 2008 to 2017 is from Earth to Mars different, but you'll never stop money and nothing what we are doing today challenges the U. S. Supreme Court saying you have the right, it's free speech. I may not agree with that but they are the United State's Supreme Court and you have to live by that law. So, we said, is there another way to go about this which is not about limiting how much you can give but making sure the public knows. My entire life I've lived in one zip code; 06105, you got something to say about me in a campaign, let me know. You want to spend money on my behalf, say it. You want to spend money against me, say it. I just wanna know who you are. That's all I can ask in politics. It's a tough business. Just tell us who you are.

Talk about PAC's and things like that, see even the PAC's in Connecticut you can find out who is donating to whom. It's all transparent. Now you might not like how it kinda flows but you know where every donation is. The trouble with super PAC's is you have no idea who is donating. You don't really know. That is so scary in a democracy that someone can dump millions and millions of dollars to target somebody. It's not right when it happens to you and it's not right when it happens to us, and I forget which Representative said it she alluded to something that happened last fall that was an attack on one of your members, no it was an attack on every single person in this chamber and it was disgusting and nasty. It was disgusting, and we all stood up for it 'cause that's all of us in this room when that happened, and I'm very, very sorry to my friend Dr. Petit for what happened that day in that mailer.

But I'm still trying to understand why there's concern about regulating not how much you can give but simply about regulating what we know about who gives. So, let me go to the national election. Let me talk about something that no one mentioned in this bill that came up today. Right now there is nothing that bars a foreign entity from independent expenditure spending, or for an interference if you want to call it. Think about that. We put that in this bill. Now five years ago, I would have said you guys picked that one out of thin air. You need to regulate and amend state statute to clarify that we don't want foreign interference in our elections. Democracy in America is under assault and it's under attack by Russian's, by billionaires, by people who have uneven access to money. Some of them are liberal I get it, some of them are conservative, but it's not right and it's really messing up what we all got into this business for.

So again, nobody here wants to regulate or go back to how much people are allowed to spend. We want to regulate the size of the donation, but they can give to unlimited super PAC's, we just want to know who they are. And at the end of the day, transparency is probably the best we can do. We are limited to what congress tells us we can do and what the courts tell us we can do, and some of this bill may get litigated. So, they may listen to what we said. They may read what we said.

So, let me be very clear. All we are trying to say to the courts is that we are putting a limit on contributions to super PAC's. It has not been ruled on by the Supreme Court and we just have a legitimate interest in regulating contributions. Now Connecticut is a state. All of us love Connecticut. We have different ideas about how to move it forward. Maybe some would say, why do you guys need campaign finance, you got a great system. Now what bad has happened in Connecticut? You got people who have made some bad decisions in all parties and have given Connecticut a very bad reputation. So, I take very seriously when we talk about campaign finance reform because of our history here in the state of Connecticut. It's not good. It's not.

At the end of the day this bill promotes transparency and disclosure. That's it. It talks about changing the way people who wanna give have to communicate to the individuals who they are trying to affect their votes and their opinions. What's wrong with that? You put a mailer in and you say that you're terrible, you're terrible or you're great and you're great and you say your name, and you can't hide behind things. These super PAC shell games is like money laundering in the 1970's in Cypress, out of control, no regulation, the wild, wild west. This is a really good step in the right direction. Probably not a perfect bill, hard bill to draft, hard to be a lawyer drafting this bill, no question, and there's gonna be some opinions that split. Good lawyers, good legal scholars may disagree on certain provisions. The judges may have to deal with some of these provisions, but we stood up today and said we just want to know who you are. I don't care how much you give. I don't care how wealthy you are. Just tell us you who you are. If you wanna come after someone in this chamber on either side of the aisle and particularly you wanna say something negative, we all want to know, because when something like that happens to one of our members on either side of the aisle we know who to hold accountable for that. But when we don't have disclosure, we don't know. Our elections go down in flames and if we don't do something in eight years, CEP will be gone.

To all the advocates out there, if you believe in the system and we don't change it in eight years someone is gonna wake up and say why am I supporting a system that leaves me with my hands tied behind my back. Why? You just dumped $ 200,000, you live in North Carolina, you don't know who I am, you got mad cause your friend told me I voted on the wrong issue; I'm not gonna keep up with that system cause I can't compete anymore. And then when we try to adjust for that reality as the good minority leader said we create new weapons, new weapons of money, leadership PAC's, town committees can give because you're reacting to outside spending. If we don't draw a line somewhere and start doing things, we will lose CEP, we will lose what people wanted in this system and all of us will have to go back to the old days of fundraising and we're gonna hate it, absolutely hate it.

So again, you can never stop money in politics, ever, and we're not trying to and we're not ignoring Supreme Court precedent, we just want to know who you are. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SPEAKER ARESIMOWICZ (30TH):

Members, staff and guests please come to the well of the house. Members take your seats. The machine will be open. (Ringing)

CLERK:

The House of Representatives is voting by roll. Members to the Chamber. The House of Representatives is voting by roll. Members to the Chamber.

SPEAKER ARESIMOWICZ (30TH):

Have all the members voted? If all the members have voted, please check the board to ensure your vote has been properly cast? If all the members have voted, the machine will be locked and the clerk will take a tally. The clerk will announce the tally.

CLERK:

House Bill 5589 as amended by House "B"

Total number Voting 149

Necessary for Passage 75

Those voting Yea 79

Those voting Nay 70

Those absent and not Voting 2

SPEAKER ARESIMOWICZ (30TH):

The bill passes as amended. (Gavel) Are there any announcements or introductions. Representative Zupkus of the 89th, you have the floor madam.

REP. ZUPKUS (89TH):
Thank you Mr
. Speaker. I rise to make an introduction.

SPEAKER ARESIMOWICZ (30TH):

Please proceed madam, you have a couple of very nicely dressed people next to you.

REP. ZUPKUS (89TH):

I do, I'm sure you can tell by the smile on my face. I am very excited. You know family does come first here even though we debate all these bills and it just so happens my husband is away and we would not be able to see her daughter and her date for prom. So, I am very blessed that my daughter, Aizlyn, who I'm sure can agree is the most beautiful girl in the world right here.

SPEAKER ARESIMOWICZ (30TH):

And maybe the most slightly embarrassed.

REP. ZUPKUS (89TH):

And her handsome date Trey, but his parents brought them up so I could at least get to see them and take pictures. So, thank you to Rich and Mary for bringing them up.

SPEAKER ARESIMOWICZ (30TH):

Thank you very much madam. Thank you for coming up, and I would agree with your mother. Are there any other announcements or introductions? Is there business on the clerk's desk?

CLERK
Yes, Mr
. Speaker. Favorable Reports Senate Joint Resolutions to be tabled for the calendar.

SPEAKER ARESIMOWICZ (30TH):

Representative Albis.

REP. ALBIS (99TH):
Thank you Mr
. Speaker. I move that we waive the reading of the list of resolutions and that the resolutions be tabled for the calendar.

SPEAKER ARESIMOWICZ (30TH):

So ordered. (Gavel) Representative Albis of the 99th, you have the floor sir.

REP. ALBIS (99TH):
Thank you Mr
. Speaker. Mr. Speaker I move for the suspension of House Rule 11B to immediately consider emergency certified bill 7323.

SPEAKER ARESIMOWICZ (30TH):

Is there objection to the suspension? Is there objection to the suspension? Hearing none, so ordered. (Gavel) Will the clerk please call Emergency Certified Bill 7323?

CLERK:

Emergency Certification Bill No. 7323, AN ACT MAKING DEFICIENCY APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING JUNE 30, 2017 introduced by Representative