State Elections Enforcement Commission representatives told the Government Oversight Committee that proposed changes to the Citizens' Election Program (CEP) and related campaign finance statutes would reduce confusion for treasurers, protect public funds and close loopholes in how publicly funded campaigns are administered.

Shannon Keith, speaking for the commission, said the agency had distributed about $14,000,000 to General Assembly candidates in the 2024 cycle and that treasurers perform “the absolutely critical oversight function with respect to public funds.” Keith urged lawmakers to adopt House Bill 7,089-style fixes that would (1) rename the defined term “solicitor” to “collector” to reduce ambiguity; (2) create limited accountability for consultants who receive a sizeable share of CEP funds but do not produce documentation required for treasurers; (3) restore a longstanding “organization expenditure” allowance that lets party committees support candidates while requiring candidates to demonstrate their own fundraising; and (4) change the timing for applying Consumer Price Index (CPI) adjustments to qualifying contribution amounts and qualifying thresholds so candidates and treasurers know fundraising targets at the start of a two‑year cycle rather than partway through it.

The commission said the CPI timing issue creates a practical problem: a candidate who begins raising before the January adjustment may be required to refund contributions if the statutory numbers change in January. SEEK recommended making the CPI adjustment at the beginning of the cycle so candidates know the amounts they must reach and treasurers do not have to “fundraise in waves.” The commission clarified the proposed change would adjust the timing for what candidates must raise and for the qualifying contribution amount, but not for the amount of the grant that is ultimately paid.

Agency staff also urged changes to the statutory trigger for filing certain CEP forms so campaigns can declare intent at a point when they actually know how they will appear on the ballot. That change, the commission said, would reduce the risk that a candidate’s early filing could later prevent grant eligibility if the candidate’s path to ballot access changes.

Separately, commission witnesses opposed several bills (notably House bills 1405, 1406 and 1407 as discussed in testimony) that they said would weaken oversight. Joshua Foley, an attorney with the commission, testified that one proposal would allow outside committees or commercial platforms to produce content and solicit funds for CEP candidates in a way that could functionally coordinate fundraising and reduce the program’s demonstration-of-public-support requirement. Foley also said some bills would cut mandatory audits from 50% of candidate committees to 20%, limit the commission’s ability to give guidance during election cycles, permit questionable contributions to count toward grant qualification, and remove the commission’s bipartisan authority to hire and fire its executive director. The commission described those changes as reducing transparency and independence and said it opposed them in written and oral testimony.

Audits, staffing and timing drew sustained questioning from committee members. Commission witnesses described the audit selection process (a weighted random lottery by district), the range of documentation auditors review and common audit findings — from missing invoices to personal use or improperly documented consultant work. The commission said audit workload and timeliness had been affected in part by a statutory change that extended candidate committees’ termination date into July, which reduces available months for auditors to review records; they urged restoring the earlier January 31 termination date to give auditors more time.

On staffing, witnesses said the commission’s workload has increased since 2011 while staff levels have been reduced, and they asked for modest additional positions and for protection of current staffing levels. They said technological improvements (ECRIS uploads, improved reporting and tools that let treasurers validate contributors and invoices before submission) could reduce staff burden and improve timeliness, but that those tools require funding and an IT hire to implement.

The commission also addressed the role of online fundraising platforms. It said limited, narrowly framed fixes could allow platforms to operate in Connecticut without harming the CEP (for example, permitting a platform to receive tips for itself), but it opposed broader changes that would allow for algorithmic solicitation and automatic solicitation of CEP candidates by platform operators (e.g., features that recommend CEP candidates to donors or actively solicit for them), because those functions would let private businesses materially assist fundraising in ways the commission said undermine the purpose of public financing.

Other stakeholders echoed the need to protect the CEP’s integrity. Tom Swan, executive director of Connecticut Citizen Action Group, told the committee he opposed provisions that would weaken the commission’s oversight authority or permit third‑party platforms to substitute for candidate fundraising. Swan and the commission both urged lawmakers to be cautious about statutory changes that reduce audits, curtail independent enforcement or alter the commission’s hiring authority.

The committee heard technical questions from members about how CPI adjustments are calculated, the mechanics of the weighted audit lottery, what documentation auditors require for consultant invoices and how the commission triages complaints and audits during busy cycles. The commission repeatedly distinguished between discussion or advice it can provide and formal enforcement actions, and it reminded the committee that complaint resolution times, audit selection and the scope of reviews are determined by statute and available staffing.

The commission asked lawmakers to consider three practical changes it said would materially reduce problems: restore the earlier committee termination date so auditors have more months to work, adopt the proposed CPI timing fix so treasurers and candidates know targets at the start of the cycle, and place limited additional statutory documentary obligations on consultants who receive large shares of public funds so treasurers can perform oversight. The commission said those changes together would improve transparency and reduce the number of post‑grant refunds and audit followups.

The testimony produced no formal committee votes during the hearing. Several lawmakers said they would review the commission’s written proposals and the committee’s staff will continue follow‑up as bills move through the process.