Connecticut's venture into public financing of campaigns, the Citizens Election Program (CEP), was sold as the antidote to what had become, "Corrupticut."

“Bid-rigging, influence-peddling and pay-to-play scandals cost the taxpayers of this state hundreds of millions of dollars in the bad old days of 'Corrupticut.' That ended with the clean elections reform we adopted in 2005," says Common Cause, major CEP supporter, on its home page, where it also asks for donations.

At its core CEP is a noble experiment. It requires those seeking office to troll for small donations from many contributors before meeting the "threshold" that triggers public campaign dollars.

Democrat Dannel Malloy, the Stamford mayor who has the resume to be governor and has been running for the post since the last gubernatorial election, still hasn't raised enough as required by CEP to qualify for public financing. Republican Lt. Gov. Michael Fedele is in the same position, but two independently wealthy candidates, Republican Tom Foley and Democrat Ned Lamont, are moving forward with multi media advertising campaigns eschewing CEP.

Not only has CEP proven to hamstring those candidates without personal wealth, but the most egregious aspect is that it excludes minor parties.

In his legal opinion, U.S. District Court Judge Stefan Underhill said, "the CEP imposes an unconstitutional, discriminatory burden on minor party candidates." While lawmakers are considering legislation to remedy the issue, that legislation has about as much chance of passage as the General Assembly voting for term limits. The political establishment wants to keep things, well, established.

It's interesting that this major flaw in the CEP, the exclusion of minor party candidates, isn't even mentioned in a preliminary report by the Campaign Finance Institute (CFI.) The CFI highlights that the CEP has been successful in "reducing the role of large donors, who were not representative of the state as a whole."

What would be representative, a thousand, 2,000 large donors? And why are we so convinced that a lot of people want to make contributions to campaigns, and why is that better? Perhaps people who are living paycheck to paycheck (if they have a job) and who are trying to pay the onerous taxes in Connecticut don't want to part with $10 or $25 for a political campaign. The good government crowds have got the public thinking that if everyone makes a $25 donation, that will lead to better government. That's just plain silly.

Juan Figueroa, a long shot for the Democratic nomination, is particularly hurt by CEP. Many in the Hispanic community and others to whom Figueroa appeals are least likely to part with their hard-earned dollars.

Can't we stop all this foolishness and allow the money to flow? Why shouldn't Malloy or Figueroa be allowed to find several or even one wealthy donor to help them compete? Imagine a Figueroa campaign with Linda McMahon-type money flooding Univision with ads? It seems strange that the fastest growing minority group in the country and here in Connecticut, Hispanics, barely has a voice in the gubernatorial contest.

The key criterion is disclosure. As long as everyone knows where the money is coming from, what's the problem?

Why is it that spending large amounts of money on campaigns is distasteful? If taxpayers had the same indignation over the way publicly financed, ethically rinsed and sanitized elected officials spend tax dollars, the state probably wouldn't be facing bankruptcy.

The campaign finance laws were developed largely in response to the scandals surrounding the John Rowland administration. The truth is most of the misdeeds by former Gov. Rowland and his staff had little to do with breaking campaign finance laws. Their crimes were bribery, obstruction of justice and tax charges. An argument could be made that campaign dollars were misappropriated. But laws were already in place, individuals just decided to ignore them. They could do the same today.

Those who promoted CEP did so with good intentions. Unfortunately the facts are that CEP is unworkable, unfair and it excludes 45 percent, or 914, 893, registered unaffiliated voters from taxpayer-sponsored campaign dollars.

As George Orwell wrote, "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others."

Ben Davol is a veteran of numerous local, state and federal political campaigns. Once a Republican organizer, he is now registered as unaffiliated.