In the wake of last week's U.S. Supreme Court ruling that will now allow corporations and labor unions to spend limitless amounts to influence elections, it is more important than ever that the Connecticut General Assembly not allow its trailblazing public campaign financing law to die in the cradle.The law would apply for statewide campaigns, including governor, for the first time this year, but it faces multiple challenges. A federal judge's ruling issued last September declared portions of the law dealing with third-party candidates unconstitutional. Those candidates, the court found, had a higher hurdle to overcome in getting public financing than their major party counterparts.

The law would apply for statewide campaigns, including governor, for the first time this year, but it faces multiple challenges. A federal judge's ruling issued last September declared portions of the law dealing with third-party candidates unconstitutional. Those candidates, the court found, had a higher hurdle to overcome in getting public financing than their major party counterparts.The court's decision was appealed and a decision is pending in the U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals in New York.

The court's decision was appealed and a decision is pending in the U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals in New York.Meanwhile, a portion of the law upheld by the federal judge, restricting the ability of registered lobbyists to directly participate in the campaign process, could also be in jeopardy given the U.S. Supreme Court's decision to throw out, on free-speech grounds, laws that restrict corporate and union spending on campaigns. Lobbyists contend the Connecticut law similarly blocks their free-speech rights.

Meanwhile, a portion of the law upheld by the federal judge, restricting the ability of registered lobbyists to directly participate in the campaign process, could also be in jeopardy given the U.S. Supreme Court's decision to throw out, on free-speech grounds, laws that restrict corporate and union spending on campaigns. Lobbyists contend the Connecticut law similarly blocks their free-speech rights.Finally, there is a ticking time bomb in the law itself. Language in the bill mandates an automatic repeal should the law be the subject of an undecided legal challenge the April before an election.

Finally, there is a ticking time bomb in the law itself. Language in the bill mandates an automatic repeal should the law be the subject of an undecided legal challenge the April before an election.Yet despite all those hurdles, Connecticut's "Citizens Election Fund" is at its core a good, progressive law worth saving. Before awarding public funds, it requires candidates to demonstrate broad support through the collection of many small donations of $100 or less from citizens. A gubernatorial candidate, for example, must raise $250,000 in such a manner before receiving $3 million in public financing.

Yet despite all those hurdles, Connecticut's "Citizens Election Fund" is at its core a good, progressive law worth saving. Before awarding public funds, it requires candidates to demonstrate broad support through the collection of many small donations of $100 or less from citizens. A gubernatorial candidate, for example, must raise $250,000 in such a manner before receiving $3 million in public financing.This directs the attention of the candidate where it should be, on the needs of the electorate, rather than kowtowing to deep-pocketed special interests.

This directs the attention of the candidate where it should be, on the needs of the electorate, rather than kowtowing to deep-pocketed special interests.Of course, given the Supreme Court's disastrous ruling that tears down campaign finance laws, candidates will face increased pressure to forgo public financing in favor of the unlimited financing corporations and other special interest groups will now be able to provide. But having a public-financing alternative will give those candidates who are not for sale a source of funding. And voters can make their own assessment whether to choose the candidate who attracted broad support, and the public financing it made available, or the candidate bankrolled by corporations.

Of course, given the Supreme Court's disastrous ruling that tears down campaign finance laws, candidates will face increased pressure to forgo public financing in favor of the unlimited financing corporations and other special interest groups will now be able to provide. But having a public-financing alternative will give those candidates who are not for sale a source of funding. And voters can make their own assessment whether to choose the candidate who attracted broad support, and the public financing it made available, or the candidate bankrolled by corporations.We call upon Gov. M. Jodi Rell to set the agenda by proposing changes in the law when she outlines her priorities for the coming General Assembly session. The Republican governor served a vital role in pushing forward with public financing, a move that helped restore confidence in government after ethical lapses forced her predecessor from office and into prison. Gov. Rell is entering her last year in office. It would be a shame if inaction erases one of her greatest achievements.

We call upon Gov. M. Jodi Rell to set the agenda by proposing changes in the law when she outlines her priorities for the coming General Assembly session. The Republican governor served a vital role in pushing forward with public financing, a move that helped restore confidence in government after ethical lapses forced her predecessor from office and into prison. Gov. Rell is entering her last year in office. It would be a shame if inaction erases one of her greatest achievements.But ultimately it is up to the legislature.

But ultimately it is up to the legislature.First, the General Assembly should remove the law's sunset provision. It should then do what it should have done after the federal court ruling, repair the language that sets a higher standard for third-party candidates to get funding. Such an action would have made the appeal moot.

First, the General Assembly should remove the law's sunset provision. It should then do what it should have done after the federal court ruling, repair the language that sets a higher standard for third-party candidates to get funding. Such an action would have made the appeal moot. Thirdly, it should dial back the restrictions on lobbyists, which, given the recently Supreme Court ruling, are legally vulnerable.

Thirdly, it should dial back the restrictions on lobbyists, which, given the recently Supreme Court ruling, are legally vulnerable.Time is short. Candidates need to know soon what set of rules they are playing by. Decisive action is necessary.

Time is short. Candidates need to know soon what set of rules they are playing by. Decisive action is necessary.