I’M STEVE KOTCHKO.
  WELCOME TO ANOTHER EDITION OF “ON THE RECORD.”
FIRST A LOOK AT THIS WEEK’S STATE HEADLINES.
THE STATE HOUSE VOTES FOR A BILL TO ABOLISH CONNECTICUT’S DEATH PENALTY.
  WILL IT EVER BECOME LAW?  WE’LL ASK TWO KEY LAWMAKERS ABOUT THAT IN OUR NEWSMAKER SEGMENT.
MEMBERS OF THE CONNECTICUT CONGRESSIONAL DELEGATION VOICE SUPPORT FOR LEGISLATION THAT WOULD CREATE A NEW SYSTEM OF PUBLIC FINANCING FOR CONGRESSIONAL CAMPAIGNS.
  WE’LL DISCUSS THAT TOPIC IN OUR REPORTERS ROUNDTABLE.
CHIEF JUSTICE CHASE ROGERS DELIVERS A STATE OF THE JUDICIARY ADDRESS TO THE LEGISLATURE AND SAYS STATE JUDGES ARE “STRONG, MOTIVATED AND OPTIMISTIC ABOUT THE FUTURE.”
BUT THEY NEED ADEQUATE FUNDING SO THE COURTS CAN DELIVER JUSTICE.
AND, SECRETARY OF THE STATE, SUSAN BYSIEWICZ, SAYS AN AUDIT OF CONNECTICUT’S NEW OPTICAL SCAN VOTING MACHINES SHOWS THEY PERFORMED WITH SECURITY AND ACCURACY IN THE 2008 ELECTIONS.
THOSE ARE THE HEADLINES, PLEASE STAY WITH US.
>>> MY GUESTS THIS WEEK IN OUR NEWS MAKER SEGMENT ARE REPRESENTATIVE MIKE LAWLOR, CO-CHAIR OF THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE. 
AND STATE REPRESENTATIVE DAVID LABRIOLA, ASSISTANT HOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADER. 
WE WANT TO TALK ABOUT ABOLISHING THE DEATH PENALTY.
THE HOUSE TOOK A VOTE AND VOTED FOR IT 90-56, REPRESENTATIVE LAWLOR, LET ME ASK YOU UP FRONT, YOU ARE A SUPPORTER OF ABOLISHING THE DEATH PENALTY.
WHY?
>> WELL, THERE'S A LOT OF REASONS, I THINK.
>> GIVE ME A COUPLE.
>> WELL, I WAS GOING TO SAY, I WILL HIGHLIGHT A FEW.
SOME ARE PHILOSOPHICAL.
SOME HAVE STRONG VIEWS THAT THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD NOT BE IN THE BUSINESS OF EXECUTING PEOPLE UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES.
THAT MIGHT REPRESENT A THIRD OF THE STATE.
I THINK A THIRD OF THE STATE IS TOTALLY FOR THE DEATH PENALTY NO MATTER WHAT AND A THIRD IS OKAY WITH THE DEATH PENALTY AS A POSSIBLE PUNISHMENT PHILOSOPHICALLY BUT OVER THE YEARS HAVE GROWN DISENCHANTED.
NO ONE HAS BEEN EXECUTED HERE UNLESS THEY WANT TO BE EXECUTED.
AND THE FRUSTRATION WITH THAT, THE SUGGESTION THAT THERE MIGHT BE INNOCENT PEOPLE ON DEATH ROW OR IT MIGHT BE RACIALLY UNFAIR.
THOSE THINGS HAVE ERODED CONFIDENCE AND TODAY NO ONE IS GOING TO BE EXECUTED ANY TIME SOON, IS IT WORTH IT, SHOULD WE SWITCH TO A SYSTEM WE CAN PROMISE.
A LOT OF PEOPLE LOCK THEM UP FOREVER AND THOUGH AWAY THE KEY.
>> AND I KNOW YOU ARE OF THAT OPINION, YOU DISAGREE WITH LIVE PAROLE, WHY?
>> TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTIONS SPECIFICALLY, THE PROBLEM MOST PEOPLE HAVE WITH THE DEATH PENALTY IS 2459 PEOPLE WHO ARE ON DEATH ROW ARE THERE FOR DECADES.
THERE'S NO EXPECTATION THE EXECUTION WILL BE CARRIED OUT.
WE NEED TO TALK ABOUT STREAMLINING THE APPEALS PROCESS LIKE OTHER STATES.
OTHER STATES HAVE A WORKLOAD DEATH PENALTY AND WE, OF COURSE, COULD DO THE SAME HERE IN CONNECTICUT.
>> YOU INTRODUCED AN AMENDMENT TO MAKE THAT HAPPEN?
>> CORRECT, I DID.
>> HOW DO YOU DO THAT?
HOW DO YOU REDUCE THE TIME FOR APPEALS AND STILL REMAIN ON GOOD CONSTITUTIONAL GROUND.
>> MANY STATES HAVE CONSTITUTIONALLY SOUND APPEALS PROCESSES WHICH ARE STREAMLINED IN COMPARISON TO CONNECTICUT'S.
THERE REALLY IS NO EXPECTATION THAT THE VICTIM'S FAMILIES CAN COUNT ON THAT THESE PEOPLE WHO COMMITTED THESE HEINOUS CRIMES WITH EVER GOING TO BE ACTUALLY EXECUTED.
AND I JUST BELIEVE THERE ARE SOME CRIMES THAT ARE SO HEINOUS, SO AWFUL, SO TERRIBLE THAT THE ONLY JUST PENALTY IS THE DEATH PENALTY.
>> I REALIZE SOME ARE GOING TO SAY PHILOSOPHICALLY THEY ARE JUST AGAINST THE DEATH PENALTY.
BUT WHAT'S WRONG WITH STREAMLINING THE PROCESS AND MAKING THE DEATH PENALTY USEABLE IF THE STATE STILL DOES BELIEVE IN THAT?
>> IT'S EASIER SAID THAN DONE.
THE DEPARTMENT IS COMING UP WITH SOMETHING THAT ACTUALLY WOULD HAVE THAT EFFECT.
YOU KNOW, THERE'S A FEW STATES, FLORIDA AND TEXAS ARE A FEW EXAMPLES, WHERE THEY DO EXECUTE A LOT OF PEOPLE BUT CERTAINLY DON'T EXECUTE EVERYBODY ON DEATH ROW.
ONLY 25% OF THE PEOPLE SENTENCED TO DEATH ONLY GET EXECUTED IN THOSE STATES.
IT TAKES 12, 14 YEARS ON AVERAGE, BUT THOSE ARE DIFFERENT STATES, THEY HAVE THEIR OWN STATE CONSTITUTION.
WE HAVE A DIFFERENT STATE CONSTITUTION.
WE HAVE A DIFFERENT STATE SUPREME COURT.
AND WHAT HAPPENS IN TEXAS IS NEVER GOING TO HAPPEN IN CONNECTICUT AND WHAT HAPPENS IN FLORIDA IS NEVER GOING TO HAPPEN IN CONNECTICUT.
IF YOU WANTED TO SPEED IT UP, SO TO SPEAK, WHAT COULD YOU DO THAT MIGHT ACTUALLY HAVE THAT IMPACT?
WE REACHED OUT TO THE STATE'S HEAD PROSECUTOR AND SAID BRING IN PROPOSALS THAT YOU THINK WOULD WORK.
HE DID, BUT HE SAID, EVEN IF THESE WERE ENACTED, IT WOULD NOT CHANGE THE REALITY IN ANY OF THE CASES OF THE TEN GUYS CURRENTLY ON DEATH ROW.
MAYBE DOWN THE ROAD TEN YEARS FROM NOW, MORE LIKELY TO GET EXECUTED.
EVEN THAT'S NOT CLEAR BUT THERE'S NO EASY CHANGE WE COULD MAKE THAT WOULD SPEED IT UP.
>> DO YOU WANT TO RESPOND WHETHER OR NOT MAKING IT WORKABLE?
IS THAT MAKING IT WORKABLE IN ITSELF?
>> WE CAN DO IT.
WE HAVE A LOT OF SMART PEOPLE HERE IN THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT.
AND I THINK MOST PEOPLE IN CONNECTICUT NOT ONLY ISN'T THE DEATH PENALTY BUT REALLY, JUST ANECDOTALLY, WE, AS A STATE REPRESENTATIVE, GOING AROUND, THE AVERAGE PERSON COMES UP TO ME A LOT AND SAYS THAT, YOU KNOW, THEY NOT ONLY ISN'T THE DEATH PENALTY BUT WE NEED TO STREAMLINE THE APPEALS PROCESS.
THEY SUBJECT BE SITTING THERE ON DEATH ROW, DECADE UPON DECADE.
THERE'S STRONG MAJORITY IN CONNECTICUT OF THE PEOPLE WHO SUPPORT THE DEATH PENALTY.
OF COURSE, WE HAD THAT HORRIBLE TRAGEDY IN CHESHIRE.
REALLY, IT'S A SLAP IN THE FACE TO THE FAMILIES OF THESE VICTIMS, THESE PEOPLE WHO ARE SITTING ON DEATH ROWS, THESE CRIMINALS WHO COMMITTED THESE HORRIFIC ACTS FOR US TO BE DEBATING WHETHER WE SHOULD BE GETTING RID OF THE DEATH PENALTY.
IT'S JUST NOT RIGHT.
>> WELL, DO YOU THINK THAT THE HOUSE VOTE REPRESENTS WHAT THE PUBLIC BELIEVES, OR REPRESENTS WHAT THE HOUSE BELIEVES.
>> THAT VOTE WAS A SURPRISE TO ME.
WE HAD A BEST CASE ANALYSIS WITH ABOUT 80 VOTES TO ABOLISH THE DEATH PENALTY AND ENDED UP WITH 90.
>> WHAT DOES THAT INDICATE.
>> LOOK AT THE FRESHMAN MEMBERS.
THERE'S 28 MEMBER HE THAT HAVE BEEN ELECTED THIS TIME AROUND, OF THAT, 22 OF THEM VOTED TO ABOLISH THE DEATH PENALTY.
INCLUDING THREE OF THE SEVEN REPUBLICANS.
CLEARLY SOMETHING HAS CHANGED.
YOU KNOW, FRESHMAN LEGISLATOR IS TEND TO BE THE MOST SKITTISH, NERVOUS.
ALSO TEND TO BE CLOSEST TO THE GROUND.
THEY JUST WENT THROUGH A PROCESS OF HAVING TO INTRODUCE THEMSELVES TO THEIR CONSTITUENTS.
SO THERE'S SOMETHING ABOUT THIS NEW GROUP IS A GOOD BAROMETER OF PUBLIC OPINION.
NOT THAT PEOPLE ARE PHILOSOPHICALLY TO THIS.
>> PRIOR TO THE DEBATE, YOU AND SOME OTHER LAWMAKERS, ISN'T IT, AND I BELIEVE A FEW IN AND I BELIEVE THESE FRESHMAN THAT REPRESENTATIVE LAWLOR WAS TALKING ABOUT, SAID WE WOULD LIKE A DEBATE.
SO IS IT ALTRUISTIC OR SOME OF THE OTHER REASONS IT PLAYED.
>> ONE THE REASONS WE ARE UPSET WE EVEN HAD THIS DEBATE, WE ARE IN THE MIDDLE OF A FISCAL CRISIS HERE IN CONNECTICUT WITH TWO AND A HALF WEEKS TO GO IN THIS SESSION.
THIS IS AN EXERCISE IN FUTILITY.
THE GOVERNOR MADE IT CLEAR THAT SHE WILL VETO THIS BILL.
SHE BELIEVED SOME CRIMES WITH SO HEINOUS THAT THEY ONLY JUST RESULTED IN THE DEATH PENALTY.
SO EVEN THIS IS PASSED IN THE STATE SENATE, THE GOVERNOR WILL VETO IT AND HERE WE WILL HAVE WAITED HOW MANY DAYS IN AN EXERCISE OF FUTILITY?
>> WHY SHOULDN'T THE HOUSE HAVE A RIGHT TO DEBATE SOMETHING JUST BECAUSE THE GOVERNOR IS OPPOSED TO IT?
MAYBE THERE ARE OTHER REASONS TO HAVE A DEBATE, PHILOSOPHICAL OR WHATEVER.
PUSH HER IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION.
SHE'S THE ONE WHENEVER WE ASK HER ABOUT VETOES ALWAYS SAYS I WILL WAIT UNTIL I SEE THE BILL OR WAIT FOR THE DEBATE.
MAYBE HER MIND CAN BE CHANGED.
>> BECAUSE WE ARE IN THE MIDDLE OF THIS RECORD FISCAL CRISIS.
PEOPLE ARE HURTING ON IT THERE.
WE NEED TO ADDRESS THAT ISSUE.
AS FOR PUBLIC OPINION, I THINK YOU WILL FIND IF WE WERE TO STREAMLINE THE APPEALS PROCESS, THE SUPPORT OF THE DEATH PENALTY WOULD GO DRAMATICALLY UP.
WAIT UNTIL THESE TRIALS BEGIN OF THE HORRIBLE CASE IN CHESHIRE.
WAIT UNTIL YOU SEE WHAT THE PUBLIC FEELS ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT WE SHOULD HAVE A DEATH PENALTY OR GET RID OF THE DEATH PENALTY WHENEVER THE TRIALS HAPPEN NEXT YEAR.
>> YOU WANT TO RESPOND TO ALL THAT?
>> LET ME BE CLEAR AND I THINK I SPEAK FOR ALMOST EVERYBODY WHO SUPPORTS ABOLISHING THE DEATH PENALTY.
THESE GUYS DESERVE WHATEVER IS THE MAXIMUM PUNISHMENT.
IN FACT THEY DESERVE WORSE.
THEY DESERVE TO BE TORTURED.
BUT IN OUR COUNTRY, WE DON'T DO THAT KIND OF ANYONE.
IN TERMS OF THE VETO, THIS IS AN INTERESTING PHENOMENON.
IN NEW MEXICO A COUPLE OF MONTHS AGO THEY APPEALED THE DEATH PENALTY.
THEIR GOVERNOR, GOVERNOR RICHARDSON WAS A SUPPORTER OF THE DEATH PENALTY.
AND WHEN THE LEGISLATURE PASSED THE BILL AND PUT IT ON HIS DESK, HE LISTENED CAREFULLY TO WHAT PEOPLE HAD TO SAY AND CONCLUDED WHAT GOVERNOR CORZINE CONCLUDED, IF IT'S NOT GOING TO EVER HAPPEN, IF THIS IS A FALSE PROMISE THEN THE ONLY JUST THING TO DO IS TO GET RID OF IT AND PUT IN PLACE A PENALTY.
>> BUT IT DID HAPPEN.
WE EXECUTED MICHAEL ROSS IN THAT STATE.
>> BECAUSE HE WANTED TO BE.
HE SPENT TEN YEARS BEGGING TO BE EXECUTED, WORKING WITH THE PROSECUTOR.
IF YOU ASKED ANY OF THE PROSECUTORS, AND IF HE HAD CONTINUED WITH HIS APPEAL, WOULD HE BE ALIVE TODAY, OF COURSE HE WILL.
>> DOES YOUR CO-CHAIR WANT TO BRING THE BILL UP IN THE SENATE AND WILL IT BE PASSED THERE.
>> IT'S GOING TO BE TAKEN UP AND THE VOTE IN THE HOUSE WAS A BIG SURPRISE INCLUDING TO A LOT OF SENATORS.
THERE'S A BETTER THAN EVEN CHANCE IT WILL PASS THE SENATE.
I THINK GOVERNOR RELL HAS A GOOD TRACK RECORD OF LISTENING VERY CAREFULLY.
FOR EXAMPLE, SHE SAID SHE SUPPORTED A TRADITIONAL DEFINITION OF MARRIAGE, BUT WHEN A BILL WAS PUT ON HER DESK TO REWRITE THAT, SHE SAID I HAVE NO PROBLEM.
>> AND GOVERNOR LYNCH SAYS HE'S GOING TO SIGN AN AMENDMENT.
>> DO YOU THINK GOVERNOR RELL WOULD CHANGE HER VIEW IF IT PASSED THE SENATE.
>> SHE TOLD ME IN THE CAPITOL THE OTHER DAY, SHE SUPPORTS THE DEATH PENALTY.
OF COURSE, EITHER ONE OF US COULD SPEAK FOR THE GOVERNOR BUT I WOULD BE SHOCKED IF SHE DOESN'T VETO IT.
THE DEATH PENALTY IN CONNECTICUT, IT'S VERY HARD TO OBTAIN A CONVICTION.
WE HAVE SOME OF THE BEST PUBLIC DEFENDERS IN THE CAPITOL UNIT HERE IN CONNECTICUT, BEST IN THE COUNTRY, IN THE WORLD.
SO THERE'S NO QUESTION THAT ALL THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS TO A DEFENDANT ARE THERE.
SO NO ONE IS TALKING ABOUT ABRIDGING ANYBODY'S RIGHTS.
WE ARE TALKING ABOUT STREAMLINING THE APPEALS PROCESS SO THERE IS REASONABLE EXPECTATION THAT THE EXECUTION WILL BE CARRIED OUT.
>> YOU SAID A MINUTE AGO THAT THE PEOPLE WHO HAVE COMMITTED THESE CRIMES THAT THEY ARE ON DEATH ROW FOR DESERVE HARSH PUNISHMENT, MAYBE EVEN TO BE TORTURED, EVEN THOUGH WE DON'T DO THAT IN THIS COUNTRY.
YOUR ALTERNATIVE FOR ABOLISHING THE DEATH PENALTY WOULD BE LIFE IN PRISON WITHOUT PAROLE, IS THAT ENOUGH PUNISHMENT, THREE SQUARES A DAY, WATER, THE WHOLE NINE YARDS.
>> I THINK IT'S WORSE.
THE BEST EVIDENCE, THIS GUY EXECUTED FOUR YEARS AGO, THE PENALTY HE FEARED THE MOST WAS TO SPEND HIS LIFE IN PRISON ANONYMOUSLY.
THESE GUYS ON DEATH ROW HAVE BECOME CELEBRITIES.
THEY HAVE WEBSITES DEDICATED TO THEM AND FAN CLUBS.
AND THE ONE WHO GOT THE OTHER SENTENCE FOR CAPITOL MURDER, AND THERE'S A LOT OF THEM IN PRISON SINCE THE 70S, TOTALLY ANONYMOUS, THEY ARE NEVER GETTING OUT.
AND I THINK LOCKING THEM UP AND THROWING AWAY THE KEY IS THE ONE PENALTY WE CAN DELIVER AND I ACTUALLY THINK IT'S WORSE.
BUT THE DEATH PENALTY IS A FALSE PROMISE.
IT'S NEVER GOING TO HAPPEN.
IT'S JUST NOT GOING TO HAPPEN.
ALMOST EVERYBODY INVOLVED IN THE SYSTEM SAYS NO MATTER HOW YOU CHANGE THE APPELLATE PROCESS, THAT'S THE REALITY IN CONNECTICUT.
ALL THE STATES AROUND US HAVE GOTTEN RID OF IT.
>> WHAT IS WRONG WITH LIFE IN PRISON AS AN ALTERNATIVE TO THE DEATH PENALTY.
>> THERE ARE SOME WHO HAVE RELIGIOUS OR MORAL REASONS, BEING AGAINST THE DEATH PENALTY, PERIOD.
I HAVE GREAT RESPECT FOR THAT OPINION.
THERE'S REALLY NO LOGICAL ARGUMENT WE COULD MAKE TO CONVINCE THAT PERSON.
THEY JUST DON'T BELIEVE IN THE DEATH PENALTY.
I, HOWEVER, THINK, AND MOST PEOPLE IN CONNECTICUT BELIEVE, CERTAINLY MOST PEOPLE IN MY DISTRICT, I KNOW, BELIEVE THERE ARE CRIMES SO HEINOUS THAT THE ONLY JUST RESULT IS THE DEATH PENALTY.
AND AS FOR WHETHER OR NOT IT WOULD SAVE MONEY, I BELIEVE THAT'S A FALSE ARGUMENT.
IF ALL OF A SUDDEN LIFE IN PRISON WITHOUT PAROLE WAS THE HIGHEST PENALTY THAT A PERSON COULD RECEIVE AND WE GOT RID OF THE DEATH PENALTY, THOSE CASES WOULD BE JUST AS VIGOROUSLY DEFENDED AS THE DEATH PENALTY CASES ARE BEING DEFENDED NOW.
SO THERE LITERALLY WOULD BE NO COST SAVINGS.
>> A NEW GROUP SAID ONCE LIFE IN PRISON WITHOUT THE BENEFIT OF PAROLE WAS THE MAXIMUM PENALTY, THAT SOME IN THE LEGISLATURE MIGHT TALK ABOUT LOOKING FOR SOMETHING LESS AND SAYING THAT THAT WAS A HARSH PUNISHMENT, WOULD THAT HAPPEN?
>> I THINK IT COULD.
THERE'S NO GUARANTEE.
WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THE VICTIMS, TOO.
THERE'S NOT ENOUGH EMPHASIS UPON THE VICTIMS' FAMILIES.
WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THE WORST OF THE WORST CRIMES.
HORRIFIC MURDERS.
I BELIEVE THOSE PEOPLE HAVE FOR FITTED THEIR RIGHT TO LIVE, PERIOD.
WE CAN DO IT.
OTHER STATES DO IT.
WE ODD TO DO IT HERE.
>> DO YOU THINK IF LIFE IN PRISON WITHOUT BENEFIT OF PAROLE WAS THE MAXIMUM PENALTY.
THERE WOULD BE A CAMPAIGN TO LOWER THAT.
>> NO, I THINK THAT'S THE REALITY IN 15 STATES AND NO ONE IS CAMPAIGNING THERE TO GET RID OF IT.
IN CONNECTICUT OVER THE LAST 15 YEARS THEY HAVE TOUGHENED UP THESE LIFE SENTENCES, NO PAROLE FOR MURDER, HASN'T BEEN PAROLE FOR MURDER SINCE THE 70S.
AND THERE'S NO GOOD TIME CREDIT SINCE 1993.
ALL THAT HAS BEEN DONE UNDER DEMOCRATIC LEGISLATURES.
THIS IS A PARTISAN ISSUE.
BUT THE POINT IS THAT EVERYBODY BELIEVES THAT VIOLENT OFFENDERS SHOULD GET THE MAXIMUM SENTENCE AND SHOULDN'T GET ON IT EARLY.
OTHER PEOPLE IN THE PRISON POPULATION ARE NONVIOLENT AND OTHER DISCUSSION ABOUT THAT CATEGORY.
THERE'S NO EVIDENCE THAT PEOPLE WOULD TRY TO UNDERMINE THESE LIFE SENTENCES AND WE HAVE PEOPLE SERVING THOSE SENTENCES RIGHT NOW.
LIFE WITHOUT THE POSSIBILITY OF RELEASE, THE DEFAULT SENTENCE IF YOU DON'T GET SENTENCED TO DEATH.
>> SOME PEOPLE SAY, AND OUR TIME IS RUNNING, BUT IF YOU DO AWAY WITH THE DEATH PENALTY AT LEAST YOU ARE DOING AWAY WITH THE POSSIBILITY OF EXECUTING AN INNOCENT MAN, IF SOMEWHERE DOWN THE LINE, SOMEONE CONVICTED OF A CRIME IS PUT TO DEATH AND LATER FOUND TO BE INNOCENT.
>> AGAIN, VERY DIFFICULT TO OBTAIN A CONVICTION HERE IN CONNECTICUT.
THERE ARE A SERIES OF PROTOCOLS AND CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTIONS THAT, AT THE TRIAL LEVEL AND THE APPELLATE LEVEL, THAT THESE PEOPLE HAVE AS THEIR CASES WIND THROUGH COURT.
ALSO, MOST OF THESE STREAMLINED APPEALS PROCESSES HAVE PROTECTION FOR ANY DNA EVIDENCE THAT, YOU KNOW, CERTAINLY WITH THE STATE OF SCIENCE NOW AND DNA TECHNOLOGY.
SO THE PROTECTIONS ARE THERE.
>> 30 SECONDS LEFT.
I WANT YOU TO ANSWER THE SAME THING.
>> A GUY JUST GOT OFF DEATH ROW IN TENNESSEE, 22 YEARS ON DEATH ROW, TURNS OUT HE WAS INNOCENT.
BUT THE POINT IS THIS IS A GREAT PHILOSOPHICAL DISCUSSION BUT NO ONE HAS BEEN EXECUTED AND NO ONE IS GOING TO BE EXECUTED IN CONNECTICUT.
WHATEVER PEOPLE THINK, I THINK THIS IS NEVER GOING TO HAPPEN IN THIS STATE, SO WHY NOTE JUST CHANGE THE LAW TO REFLECT THAT REALITY.
>> AND WOULD YOU, DO YOU THINK, ULTIMATELY, YES, OR, NO, THAT THIS BILL IS PROBABLY DEAD FOR THIS YEAR?
>> I DON'T THINK SO.
I THINK IT'S GOING TO PASS THE SENATE AND I THINK THE GOVERNOR WILL KEEP AN OPEN MIND.
>> I THINK IT WILL PROBABLY PASS THE SENATE AND THE GOVERNOR WILL VETO IT, BUT LET THE SENATORS AND GOVERNOR NOW.
>> THAT'S GOING TO HAVE TO DO IT.
WE WILL BE BACK WITH OUR REPORTERS ROUND TABLE.
>> MY GUESTS THIS WEEK IN OUR REPORTERS ROUND TABLE ARE PAUL HUES OF THE "WATER BURY REPUBLICAN-AMERICAN" NEWSPAPER.
I WANT TO SAY NEWSPAPER BECAUSE THERE ARE SO FEW LEFT OUT THERE AND ANNA SALE FROM WNPR RADIO.
WE WANT TO TALK ABOUT PUBLIC FINANCING AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL.
CONNECTICUT HAS A PUBLIC FINANCING LAW ON THE BOOKS FOR A COUPLE OF YEARS WEEKS ARE GROWING TO USE IT NEXT YEAR IN THE STATEWIDE ELECTIONS FOR GOVERNOR FOR THE FIRST TIME.
NOW IT APPEARS IN CONGRESS THERE'S A MOVE AFOOT TO TRY THE PUBLIC FINANCING CONCEPT.
REPRESENTATIVE LARSON BACKED UP BY SOME OTHER DEMOCRATIC MEMBERS OF THE CONNECTICUT DELEGATION SAID THEY ARE ALL IN FAVOR OF THE FAIR ELECTIONS NOW ACT.
PAUL, HOW WOULD THIS WORK, BASICALLY?
>> IT SEEMS COMPLICATED AND FROM'S TWO VERSIONS, THE SENATE AND HOUSE VERSION THAT THEY HAVE TO RECONCILE.
>> BUT, BASICALLY, CANDIDATES WOULD HAVE TO RAISE, LIKE, $50,000 OF THE HOUSE VERSION TO QUALIFY FOR FUNDING.
YOU HAVE TO RAISE, I THINK, 1,500 CONTRIBUTIONS OF $100 OR LESS, TO QUALIFY TO RAISE $50,000.
AFTER THAT, YOU WOULD GET A MATCHING CAMPAIGN GRANT, IF YOU HAVE LIKE $900,000, 40% WOULD GO FOR PRIMARY, AND 610% WOULD GO FOR A GENERAL ELECTION.
THERE WOULD BE NO SPENDING CAPS.
YOU CAN CONTINUE TO RAISE MONEY AFTER YOU REACH YOUR MATCH.
THERE WOULD BE RESTRICTIONS ON PAC CONTRIBUTIONS, HOWEVER, PACS, COULD CONTRIBUTE TO PARTIES AND PARTIES COULD COORDINATE EXPENDITURES TO CANDIDATES AND THERE WOULD BE REDUCTIONS IN TERMS OF MEDIA BIAS.
THEY WOULD GET A 20% BREAK OFF THE LOWEST BROADCAST PRICE.
>> ANNA, HERE IN CONNECTICUT, THE MONEY FOR THAT PUBLIC FINANCING POOL COMES FROM THE STATE'S UNCLAIMED PROPERTY FUND.
WHAT WOULD THEY DO IN WASHINGTON, D.C. ON THAT BILL TO GET THAT MONEY.
>> A COUPLE OF DIFFERENT THINGS, PROPOSING USING 10% OF THE PROCEEDS OF THE SALE OF THE UNUSED ANALOG SPECTRUM.
WE HAVE ALL GONE TO DIGITAL.
>> WE ARE GOING TO DIGITAL TV NEXT MONTH, SO THESE OLD FREQUENCIES ARE VALUABLE.
>> THEY COULD CREATE BILLIONS OF DOLLARS, SOME OF WHICH COULD CREATE THIS PUBLIC FUND ON CAMPAIGN FINANCING.
I TRIED TO PIN THEM DOWN BUT THEY DIDN'T HAVE THE ESTIMATES READY.
COMMON CAUSE A GROUP PUSHING THIS SAYS IT COULD COST 700 MILLION TO $850 MILLION A YEAR.
>> NOW, THE IMPETUS FOR THIS IS SPECIAL INTEREST, TOO MUCH INFLUENCE IN WASHINGTON, IS THAT RIGHT?
>> BASICALLY.
YEAH, GET SPECIAL INTEREST MONEY OUT OF POLITICS.
>> AND WOULD THESE ALWAYS BE BANNED FROM CONTRIBUTING LIKE THEY ARE HERE.
>> NO, THEY WOULDN'T.
BUT THE IDEA IS CANDIDATES WOULDN'T HAVE TO SPEND AS MUCH TIME RAISING MONEY ON THE PHONE, CALLING DONORS, THERE FOR, THEY WOULD BE OUT POLITICKING, CAMPAIGNING, DOING RETAIL POLITICS, YOU KNOW, TALKING TO PEOPLE.
>> MAYBE I AM TOO FOCUSED ON STATE ISSUES HERE, BUT I HAVEN'T HEARD MUCH ABOUT THIS BILL PRIOR TO THIS NEWS CONFERENCE, HAVE YOU?
>> NO.
THERE'S A LOT OF COMPETITION FOR BIG DOLLAR PROJECTS IN WASHINGTON RIGHT NOW, SO THEY REALLY GOT TO MAKE THE CASE THAT NOW IS THE TIME TO MAKE THE INVESTMENT.
>> AND CONGRESSMAN LARSON SAID WHEN WE GET 218 CO-SPONSORS.
THAT'S 9 NUMBER WE NEED AND THAT'S WHEN WE WILL BRING IT OUT.
I CHECKED AND THERE ARE 26 CO-SPONSORS.
THEY HAVE ABOUT 192 DO GO.
>> DIDN'T HE SAY, SOMEBODY ASKED HIM WHEN CAN YOU BRING THIS UP AND HE SAID, MAYBE AUGUST OR SEPTEMBER?
>> YEAH, HE DID SAY THAT.
WE WILL SEE IF BETWEEN HEALTH CARE REFORM, CLIMATE CHANGE LEGISLATION, IF HE DOESN'T MAKE THE CASE THAT THIS IS THE TIME TO DO THIS.
>> AND YOU ARE GOING TO GET THE SAME THING WE HEARD IN THE FIRST SEGMENT, WE CAN'T TALK ABOUT THE DEATH PENALTY BECAUSE WE HAVE THIS GIANT DEFICIT.
ARE MEMBERS OF CONGRESS GOING TO TURN AROUND AND SAY, WELL, WE ARE GOING TO TAKE THIS MONEY AND SPEND IT ON OUR CAMPAIGNS?
THAT COULD BE A HARD SELL.
I COULD IMAGINE OPPONENTS TALKING ABOUT TAXPAYER FUNDED ELECTIONS, THOSE KINDS OF THINGS.
>> WE SHOULD SAY LARSON IS JUST NO LONGER CONGRESSMAN OUT OF THE LOOP.
HE'S THE FOURTH RANKING MEMBER.
IF HE SENDS TO GO OUGHT AND SIGNATURES FOR SOMETHING HE WANTS, CONGRESS MAY LINE UP FOR THIS.
>> IT'S QUITE A STATEMENT.
BUT IN THE MEANTIME HE ALSO SAID I AM TELLING MY COLLEAGUE HE, THE SYSTEM IS AS IT IS NOW, AND WE HAVE TO PLAY BY THE RULES, SO KEEP RAISING THE MONEY WE NEED TO WIN THE RACES.
>> WE HAD A CHALLENGER TO CHRIS MURPHY, ISSUED A CHALLENGE, WELL, LET'S AGREE TO A $900,000 ARE, OR A $1 MILLION EXPENDITURE CAP, LET'S NOT TAKE CONTRIBUTIONS FROM ANYBODY OUTSIDE OF THE STATE.
IT'S STILL THE THING A CHALLENGER WILL DO UNDER THE CURRENT SYSTEM BECAUSE THEY ARE SO DISADVANTAGED.
>> IT IS CLEAR THAT WHAT GOES A IN WASHINGTON IN TERMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST LOBBYING IS MUCH MORE INTENSE THAN ON A STATE BY STATE BASIS.
SOMEWHERE FROM COMMON CAUSE SAID AT THAT PRESS CONFERENCE, THAT ALL THE RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES AROUND THE U.S. CAPITAL BUILDING HAVE BEEN BROUGHT UP BY SPECIAL INTERESTS, SO CONGRESS CAN CONVENIENTLY COME OUT OF THEIR OFFICE AND GO ACROSS THE STREET TO THESE FUND RAISER, NIGHT AFTER NIGHT AFTER NIGHT.
>> I THOUGHT THAT WAS INTERESTING, THEY WERE CAREFUL TO SAY LOBBYISTS AREN'T BAD, SPECIAL INTEREST ISN'T BAD, IT'S THE INFLUENCE OF MONEY WE WANT TO CHANGE.
AND IF WE CAN GET AWAY FROM THE RELINES ON THAT MONEY, MAYBE CONSTITUENTS WILL HAVE MORE OF A VOICE.
>> YOU CAN TAKE MONEY OUT OF THE EQUATION, BUT WHEN YOU STILL HAVE DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS DRAWING DISTRICTS TO PROTECT DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS, HOW MUCH IS IT GOING TO CHANGE?
ALSO INSIDE TERMS OF MONEY, PEOPLE COME TO CONGRESS AND THE STATE LEGISLATURE WITH BELIEFS AND PREDISPOSITIONS, SO IF SOMEBODY IS SO INCLINED TO BE SUPPORTIVE OF THE INSURANCE INDUSTRY, OR THE ENVIRONMENT, THEY ARE GOING TO -- THEIR BELIEFS AREN'T GOING TO CHANGE BECAUSE MONEY IS OR ISN'T THERE.
THAT'S A FACT.
>> IF YOU WERE A CONGRESSMAN OR CONGRESSWOMAN, WOULD YOU WANT TO SPEND YOUR EVERY WAKING MOMENT EVERY TWO YEARS, REALLY EVERYBODY YEAR, RAISING MONEY FOR YOUR NEXT CAMPAIGN?
THAT'S PRETTY MUCH WHAT THEY HAVE TO DO RIGHT NOW.
>> WELL, I MEAN, I GUESS THAT --
>> IS THIS THE BEST WAY TO BE A MEMBER OF CONGRESS?
>> PERHAPS NOT, BUT IT'S THE WAY THE SYSTEM IS SET UP.
>> WHY NOT VOTE FOR CHANGE.
>> THE CASE THAT YOU MADE THAT THE WAY TO CHANGE THE SYSTEM, THEN, IS TO USE PUBLIC DOLLARS, TAXPAYER DOLLARS TO FUND THESE CAMPAIGNS.
THAT'S WHAT I THINK THE REAL TEST IS GOING TO BE, IF THEY CAN GET THE AMERICAN PUBLIC BEHIND THAT IDEA.
>> AND YOU ARE NOT ADDING A TAX OR SOMETHING TO COME UP WITH THIS MONEY.
>> NO, WE ARE NOT TAXING COCA-COLA FOR THAT.
THE OTHER THING IS WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE STATE SYSTEM, WE JUST WENT THROUGH STATE LEGISLATIVE ELECTIONS WITH IT, AND COMPARE 2006, AND THIS YEAR, THEY ARE BASICALLY THE SAME NUMBER OF INCUMBENTS LEFT, LIKE 6 OR 7.
SO I THINK THAT THE JURY IS STILL OUT ON THAT.
BUT THAT'S ANOTHER ISSUE.
>> WE HAVE ABOUT 30 SECONDS LEFT.
BOTH OF YOU QUICKLY, DO YOU THINK THIS BILL WILL PASS CONGRESS WITHIN THE NEXT YEAR, OR DO YOU THINK IT'S WINDOW DRESSING?
>> I THINK IT'S A VERY TALL, TALL THRESHOLD THEY'VE GOT TO GET THROUGH AND MAKE THE CASE STRONGLY THIS IS WHERE WE NEED TO SPEND THE MONEY.
>> SO OVER TIME, MAYBE, BUT NOT QUICKLY.
>> THAT'S MY SENSE.
>> YEAH, I THINK YOU HAVE TO MAKE THE CASE TO PEOPLE AND YOU START BY DOING WHAT CONGRESSMAN LARSON DID EARLIER THIS WEEK.
>> VERY GOOD.
WE WILL SEE YOU NEXT WEEK "ON THE RECORD."
¶¶