We have reached the point in session where the Joint Favorable (JF) deadlines now loom over the various committees. The JF deadlines mark the make-or- break point for pieces of legislation. Very simply put, a bill that does not get “JFed” out of a committee by its deadline is no longer alive and the language with that bill dies. But truth be told, in the legislature, language never truly dies! You never know when in might pop up in the amendment of another bill at the eleventh hour...

As of today, 13 committees have celebrated their JF deadlines. Committee staff can now breathe a sigh of relief as their bills are sent to the House or Senate floors, or to another committee for review. There are only 24 committees all together and by the end of March, 8 more will have reached the milestone. The month of April is solely dedicated to the 3 largest committees of the General Assembly: Judiciary, Finance, Revenue & Bonding, and Appropriations. Appropriations is looking forward to an especially busy time trying to find a budget solution that works for the Governor, the legislature, and most importantly, the taxpayers.

Committee dynamics have added an interesting twist to the usual process this year. The sheer number of Democrats versus Republicans has left many Republicans trying to utilize the time-honored tradition of filibustering in order to defeat a bill when the votes to do so are simply not there. If a bill is not passed by a unanimous vote and then brought to the Legislative Commissioner’s Office (LCO) by 5 pm on the committee’s deadline, the bills are pronounced dead.

On occasion, the death of bills is unintentional. Just this past week, the General Law Committee met on the day of its JF Deadline to discuss over 30 Senate and House bills. By the end of the meeting, all the Senate Bills were voted on and brought up to LCO by the deadline. The House Bills, however, were mistakenly set aside by staff members after they were voted on, so they were not brought up to LCO on time. Unfortunately, 18 pieces of legislation meant for the House floor were killed.

Still, all hope is not lost. As mentioned before, even though a bill may die now, it is by no means lost forever. The legislative session has a way of resurrecting bills that did not make it over the first hurdle and ultimately getting them across the finish line.

When a legislator solicits charitable donations on behalf of an organization they work for from lobbyists and their clients, is that person using political influence for personal or professional gain? Republican State Chairman Chris Healey says yes. Speaker James Amann says no. And the Office of State Ethics? Well... the jury is still out.

The question arose about a year and a half ago when Speaker Amann, accepted a job as a fundraiser for the Connecticut Chapter of the National Multiple Sclerosis Society. At that time, he sought advice from the State Ethics Commission. However, now that there is a ban on lobbyist contributions for elections and a new Office of State Ethics has been established, the question is again alive and well inside the state capitol. This past week, the debate hit a high mark in response to the Speaker soliciting lobbyists to buy tickets to a $350- per-person benefit concert by pop star Josh Groban at Mohegan Sun.

State Republican Chairman Healey alleged that Amann’s solicitation for donations from lobbyists that have business before him in the legislature is an unethical conflict of interest. He further suggested that using his political contacts would help Amann reach his $250,000 fundraising goal, which could impact his compensation.

Amann retorted that his $67,500 a year salary is not directly tied to attaining his fundraising goal. At a press conference on Tuesday, Amann also pointed the finger at the Governor’s office and the Governor’s Chief of Staff, whom he believes played a role in this incident becoming an issue. “Where do we stop?” Amann asked. He explained that the legislature already self-polices, citing the strict new campaign finance laws as an example. Amann elaborated that he does not strong arm lobbyists or imply that if they don’t donate, there will be consequences. Instead, he explained that he will take money from anyone for a good cause, and that he does not question any individual’s motive. Healy countered that maybe the influence is with those that do donate and that they would see increased attention on their issues.

Back in 2005, the State Ethics Commission ruled that as long as the money does not specifically benefit a person’s position, then the ethics code does not prohibit raising funds for charity. The Capitol Media has noted that House Minority Leader Larry Cafero has declined to criticize Amann’s actions. Cafero believes that Amann has relied on the advice he received from the ethics lawyers two years ago. He also complimented Amann for requesting the Office of State Ethics to review the previous ethics advice and provide additional guidance. This decision came about after The Hartford Courant Editorial Board challenged that the now defunct Ethics Commission was on its last legs when the 2005 decision was rendered and asked Amann to pose the issue again to the new Office of State Ethics.

And so for now, many questions remain: Is a solicitation the exercise of undue influence if it’s for charity? Will such a contribution garner any special recognition by an elected official? Can legislative and professional roles ever be separated enough? What if the elected official is not paid to raise money, but instead is acting as a volunteer? Looks like the legislature’s got a “chicken or the egg” scenario on their hands!