Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Tribal Campaign Finance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee advances bill to exclude recognized tribes from "state contractor" label in campaign finance law
Summary
The Government Administration and Elections Committee voted to send Senate Bill 953 (LCO 6252) to the floor. Sponsors say the change would stop treating leaders of statutorily recognized Indian tribes as state contractors for campaign finance purposes; some members raised conflict-of-interest concerns.
The Government Administration and Elections Committee voted to send Senate Bill 953 (LCO 6252) to the House and Senate for consideration after a committee debate on whether statutorily recognized Indian tribes should be treated as governmental entities for campaign finance rules.
Sponsors said the bill would clarify that tribal leaders are not "state contractors" under campaign finance statutes, a designation that committee members said has limited some tribal leaders' participation in state political activity. Representative Blumenthal moved the committee to JF the bill; Representative Osborne seconded.
The bill's sponsor told the committee the State Elections Enforcement Commission has been treating some tribal leaders as though they were heads of entities that contract with the state; the proposal aims to align the treatment of tribal leaders with how municipal elected leaders are treated under campaign finance law. "The tribes are governmental entities the same way the town of [Wolcott], the town of East Lyme or the city of Hartford are," the sponsor said, arguing that tribal leadership is an elected, public role and should not carry the contracting label for campaign rules.
Senator Sampson asked whether tribal leaders are elected by tribe members and whether tribes enter contracts with Connecticut state government. The sponsor replied that tribe members elect their leaders, tribes maintain public-safety and other governmental structures on the territories they cover, and—while tribes do interact and enter agreements with state government—the bill addresses only campaign finance definitions, not contracting procedures.
Representative Mastro Francesco said he was inclined to oppose the bill, arguing that tribal organizations are not geographically based in the same way municipalities are and that allowing tribal entities or their leaders broader campaign participation could raise conflict-of-interest concerns given frequent policy interactions with the legislature. The bill sponsor and the chair responded that federally recognized tribes are sovereign entities that exercise governmental authority within their territories and therefore are analogous to local governments for the purposes of campaign finance treatment.
The committee then held a roll-call vote on the motion to JF LCO 6252 to the floor. The motion carried. (See actions list for the recorded motion and roll-call outcome.)
The committee proceeded to its remaining agenda items and held the votes open until 3 p.m.
