Connecticut's 2005 law, which established state-financed campaigns to keep the corruptive influence of money out of politics, is at this point a failure, at least in terms of gubernatorial elections. When it comes to electing a governor, the state has the worst of both worlds - candidates can qualify for state funding and still manipulate the system to accept special-interest money.

The General Assembly either has to find a way to fix the system or abandon public financing for the gubernatorial race, which would be a shame because there is no more important state election.

The Citizens' Election Program (CEP), as the publicly funded system is known in Connecticut, was passed into law largely in response to the scandal that drove Gov. John G. Rowland from office and into federal prison for nearly a year. Mr. Rowland had solicited gifts and campaign donations from state contractors who directly benefited from their ties to the governor, awarded with contracts for lucrative taxpayer-funded projects and services.

Among the reforms was a law prohibiting state contractors from donating to political candidates. The CEP also created a new way of paying for a campaign. If a candidate could demonstrate broad support through the collection of a specified amount of small donations from individuals, he or she would qualify for state financing for their campaign.

To get the state money, candidates agree not to accept any outside contributions. With these rules in place, both the Democratic candidate, Gov. Dannel P. Malloy, and Republican Tom Foley received $6.5 million to run their general election campaigns in 2014.

Yet the Connecticut Mirror reports that outside groups spent about $18 million in independent expenditures to influence the race for governor. Most disturbing was the blatant circumvention of the restrictions that the Malloy campaign employed. The Connecticut Democratic State Central Committee received $5.1 million in its so-called "federal account," operating under federal election rules and outside of Connecticut's restrictions. Gov. Malloy then used much of that federal money to help him get re-elected.

This exploitation of the loose federal laws also allowed state contractors to effectively donate to the re-election campaign of Gov. Malloy by directing their donations through the Democratic Party's federal account. The list included some of the same companies involved in the Rowland scandal. In the same way, lobbyists, who could donate no more than $100 under the state law, donated up to $10,000, using the federal loophole.

Meanwhile, the Mirror notes that Mr. Foley benefitted from a $1.17 million contribution from an out-of-state Super PAC (Political Action Committee) whose financial backers are unknown.

Gov. Malloy and Democrats in the legislature had set the stage for the abuses in 2013 when they doubled the limit on contributions to the state parties from $5,000 to $10,000 and totally removed the $10,000 cap on expenditures parties could then make in support of candidates, even candidates receiving state funding.

Thus, the state had the case of Ted Kennedy Jr., of the famed and infamous political family, receiving $205,000 from the Democratic Party, while still qualifying for $93,960 in state financing, to win his state Senate race.

Gov. Malloy points to the unlimited outside expenditures that can influence an election, a result of the misguided Citizens United decision by the U.S. Supreme Court, as the reason a candidate and party needs access to greater funding resources than the Citizens Election Program provides.

While there is some truth to that, it does not forgive the use of loopholes that allowed state contractors and lobbyists to buy influence in direct contradiction to the ideals of the 2005 reform law.

The General Assembly should reinstall the $10,000 cap on how much money parties can direct to campaigns, drop back to $5,000 the donation limit to political parties, and place strict restrictions on money collected under federal rules, so that it cannot be used to influence campaigns for state office.

If the politicians are unwilling to do that, they should stop using taxpayers' money for gubernatorial campaigns.