This is a draft of a post I had up at my soapbox blog. I'm parking it here while I revise it.

The Connecticutt legislature, in a partisan vote, has passed an unconstitutional campaign finance bill, which is expected to be signed by the GOP governor. Article.
The bill does attempt to discourage negative ads by requiring that all mailings and ads be strongly linked to the candidate by including the candidate's name and photograph. Broadcast ads must include his voice. Automated phone calls, which campaigns often use to persuade voters with criticism of opponents, must include the sponsoring candidate's name and voice.
A similar unconstitutional restriction on speech was erroneously upheld in CT state court, although it conflicts with Supreme Court precedents such as Talley v California.

I am going by press reports. The text of the bill pdf has been a closely guarded secret, although it should be up somewhere now. If the compelled speech provisions are just part of the strings attached to the public funding aspect, that's less troubling.
The bill discriminates against third parties.
In practice, no third parties will be able to qualify for the funds.
I call for the formation of "jefferson caucus", for libertarians to run in democratic primaries using public funds until the discriminatory "welfare for Democrats" language is fixed. I am available as a fundraising consultant for such efforts.
Governor Rell's predecessor was booted from office because he acted corruptly. It is corruption for the legislature to enact, and the governor to sign, legislation that
is unconstitutional and void.

One of my pet peeves is articles about bills or cases that don't bother to mention to bill number or case name. I've finally found the bill number in this press release from governor Rell, SB 2103. With that I'll be able to find the text, in the hated pdf format. Bill analysis.

Ok, here's a problem. The $5000 in qualifying contributions has to come from the district, at least 150 people contributing between $5 and $100. That'll make it tougher for minor candidates to qualify - their support tends to come from around the state, not just within their own district. No, I think I have that wrong. 150 in-district $5 contributions seems to qualify. That's doable, although it rewards machines like Acorn or unions that can send armies door to door shaking down or begging from constituents.

This part is blatant content-based discrimination:
Independent Expenditures (§ 15). When the SEEC (1) receives a report that someone has made, or has obligated to make, an independent expenditure in an effort to oppose a participating candidate or (2) determines at the request of a participating candidate that such an independent expenditure has made against him, it must immediately notify the comptroller. The comptroller has two business days to provide the candidate with additional money equal to the amount of independent expenditure. It also presents fun opportunites to game the system.
I think the madison center is litigating one of these somewhere, maybe Colorado.

POLITICAL ADVERTISING (§ 39)

By law, candidate and exploratory committee’s political mailings and advertisements intended to promote or defeat a candidate must contain certain information. The bill adds to the contents of the mailings and advertisements by requiring:

1. mailings to include a picture of the candidate conducting the mailing and his name in the same size font as the mailing’s narrative;

2. television and Internet advertising to include the candidate’s name, image, and voice before the advertising ends;

3. radio and audio internet advertising to include the candidate’s name and voice before the advertising ends; and

4. automated telephone calls to include the candidate’s name and voice before the call ends. [I think the automated calls section is constitutional, and is distinguishable from the other parts, as preservative fot he privacy of the home.]

If anyone is interested in working with me to challenge the constitutionality of the act, let me know. gtbear at gmail dot com.

I have sent Goveror Rell's office the following letter, to which I don't expect a substantive reply.

Judd Everhart
judd.everhart@ct.gov

Dear Mr. Everhart,
I'm Robbin Stewart. I write an online column about election law at http://ballots.blogspot.com, and am working on revising my article on SB 2103.

I have a few related questions for the governor.
1 Will Governor Rell sign the bill if parts of it are unconstitutional?
2. Would doing so be consistent with her oath of office?
3. Does she have any procedure to review legislation for constitutionality before signing or vetoing?

Cordially,
Robbin Stewart.
Update: I got an answer. It was prompt and polite and responsive, although it didn't actually answer my question.
The Governor will be reviewing the bill with her legal counsel and the director of the State Elections Enforcement Commission to consider the very questions you raise. She has said she will sign it if there are no constitutional problems.
Best,
Judd Everhart
Director of Communications
Governor M. Jodi Rell
State of Connecticut