Opinion ID: 150472
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Spouses and Children of Contractors

Text: The CFRA not only bans contributions by contractors, prospective contractors, and the principal of any contractor or prospective contractor; it also bans contributions by the spouse or dependent child of any of those covered individuals. See Conn. Gen.Stat. § 9-612(g)(1)(F)(v), (1)(G), (2)(A)-(B). Defendants do not attempt to justify the ban on family-member contributions by arguing that a contractor's family members will themselves attempt to exert improper influence over a state official. See Appellees' Br. 80-83, 98. That is for good reason, as there is no record evidence to suggest that the spouses or dependent children of state contractors have been in any way involved in Connecticut's recent corruption scandals (or, for that matter, any other corruption scandals of which the parties have made us aware). Rather, defendants attempt to justify the ban on family-member contributions by arguing that it is a reasonable measure to avoid circumvention of the prohibition of contributions by [contractors]. Id. at 80. That is, defendants argue that contractors and other covered individuals will avoid the CFRA's ban on contractor contributions by siphoning their improper contributions through their spouses and children. The Supreme Court has recognized that, in regulating campaign contributions, the legislature must be given room to anticipate and respond to concerns about circumvention of regulations designed to protect the integrity of the political process. McConnell, 540 U.S. at 137, 124 S.Ct. 619; see also Beaumont, 539 U.S. at 155, 123 S.Ct. 2200. Nonetheless, the Court has struck down so-called anti-circumvention provisions where the government has put forward only scant evidence of a particular form of evasion. McConnell, 540 U.S. at 232, 124 S.Ct. 619. Here, the record in support of the ban on contributions by contractors' spouses and dependent children is by no means overwhelming. There is little direct evidence suggesting that contractors will use their spouses or children to circumvent the CFRA's contribution bans. Nevertheless, the recent corruption scandals in Connecticut have shown that contractors are willing to resort to varied forms of misconduct to secure contracts with the state. That, we think, is far more than the scant evidence required by McConnell. See id. In light of the recent corruption scandals, therefore, the General Assembly must be given room to anticipate and respond to concerns about the circumvention of the bans on contractor contributions. Id. at 137, 124 S.Ct. 619. Indeed, were we to affirm the ban on contributions by contractors but strike down the ban on contributions by their family members, we would invite the very circumvention that the General Assembly was trying to prevent. Thus, we conclude that the CFRA's ban on contributions by contractors' spouses and dependent children, see Conn. Gen. Stat. § 9-612(g)(1)(F)(v), (1)(G), (2)(A)-(B), is closely drawn to avoid the circumvention of the ban on contractor contributions.