Connecticut’s law imposes a contribution and solicitation ban on state contractors, prospective state contractors, and their principals. A few, but not all, of the principals now covered under the law are as follows:
- Members of the company’s Board of Directors;
- Individuals owning 5% or more of the company’s stock;
- Individuals at the company living or working in Connecticut with the title of president, treasurer, or executive vice president;
- Spouses, civil union partners, and dependent children (age 18 or older and living at home) of the above; and
- A political committee established or controlled by an individual described above or by the state contractor or prospective state contractor.
On December 19, 2008, the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut upheld Connecticut’s pay-to-play law. The court found the pay-to-play and accompanying lobbying contribution and solicitation bans to be narrowly tailored to prevent corruption or the appearance of corruption, which, the court said, was significant given Connecticut’s recent history with corruption at the highest levels of state government. Green Party of Connecticut v. Garfield, No. 3:06cv1030 (D. Conn. Dec. 19, 2008).
On December 7, 2005, the Connecticut General Assembly passed “An Act Concerning Comprehensive Campaign Finance Reform for State-Wide Constitutional and General Assembly Offices.” The law, codified at Conn. Gen. Stat. § 9-600, et seq., became effective on December 31, 2006 (formerly codified at 9-333).
§ 9-612(f) prohibits investment services firms with state contracts from contributing to the campaigns for the State Treasurer.
§ 9-612(g) places limitations on campaign contributions by state contractors.