Most of you know that I think public financing of campaigns is a good idea. It’s a way for us to invest in democracy. But a lot of people don’t feel that way, including many Republicans. That’s why I’m glad to see that Connecticut’s first candidate to actually qualify for public financing is Jason Perillo, a Republican who is running for the seat of Rep. Richard Belden in October’s special election (Belden passed away in August). Perillo’s campaign issued a release, which I’ll quote from:
Jason Perillo, the Republican candidate for State Representative to fill the vacancy left by the passing of longtime State Rep. Richard O. Belden, became the first candidate in Connecticut to meet the thresholds to qualify for public campaign financing under new laws passed last year. Perillo raised over $3,750 from over 113 Shelton residents less than a week after announcing his candidacy. The State Elections Enforcement Commission authorized a grant from the Citizens Election Fund today in the amount of $18,750.
[...]
While I share Dick Beldens doubts about whether using taxpayer dollars to fund political campaigns is the right system, it does allow me to focus the rest of the campaign debating the issues and meeting voters rather than raising money, Perillo said.
First, that was a quick $3,750. Second, Perillo’s statement about public financing freeing him from endless fundraisers and allowing him to get out there and talk to voters is yet another reason why I believe this system is the right one.
Democratic candidate James Orazietti is also expected to qualify for public funds.
39 responses so far ↓
Wonderful.
The first campaign where your tax dollars will pay for bumper stickers and robo-calls. I for one and just thrilled to know that my tax money will be used to buy those crappy little pot holders and jar openers with a candidate’s name on them.
This is a great first step to getting special interests out of candidates pocketbooks. No matter how you slice it, when you ask for money from a company or group you are beholden to them in some way.
BTW, I thought the state rep race received $25,000 in state financing?
[quote post="962"]BTW, I thought the state rep race received $25,000 in state financing?[/quote]
It’s less because it’s a special election, I believe.
So I guess when we all look at the road construction going on now that keeps us in traffic jams, and we wonder why we don’t have the money for transportation infrastructure improvements, or when school systems complain that they don’t even have enough money to buy new school books, we’ll still be proud that the state spent $20 million on bumper stickers, radio ads, direct mail, robo calls, tv spots and pot holders for politicians.
Honestly? This is a drop in the bucket for a budget that was $36 million or so for the two-year period. And I think it’s going to be worth every penny spent.
[quote post="962"]$36 million[/quote]
Sorry, $36 billion.
[quote comment="19029"]Honestly? This is a drop in the bucket for a budget that was $36 million or so for the two-year period. And I think it’s going to be worth every penny spent.[/quote]
Yes… we always waste money by those drops in the bucket. We’re the highest taxed state in the union per capita. Our legislature is always finding new things to burn our money on. Meanwhile, we can’t pay for the things we actually need, like a better road system.
No rain drop blames itself for the flood.
Genghis,
It’s a $36 billion dollar budget, not million.
So the challenge is to spend money on things that matter, and are important. Given the ethics scandals we’ve had, given the huge disadvantage challengers have against well-connected and well-funded incumbents, and given the negative influence of constant fundraising on politics, I think this is absolutely worth the money. My hope is that it will make our democracy stronger and our government a little better.
[quote comment="19033"]So the challenge is to spend money on things that matter, and are important. Given the ethics scandals we’ve had, given the huge disadvantage challengers have against well-connected and well-funded incumbents, and given the negative influence of constant fundraising on politics, I think this is absolutely worth the money. My hope is that it will make our democracy stronger and our government a little better.[/quote]
This is all that matters in this state anymore.. as long as we “feel” better about it, that makes it OK.
[quote comment="19033"]So the challenge is to spend money on things that matter, and are important. [/quote]
Yes, I just don’t think bumper stickers matter. If you want to buy that crap, raise it yourself from private donors.
[quote comment="19033"]My hope is that it will make our democracy stronger and our government a little better.[/quote]
That’s the hope. And now we’ll see if we get a better government when politicians stop becoming dependent on private resources, and instead become dependent on the government they are elected to for campaign cash.
[quote post="962"]This is all that matters in this state anymore.. as long as we âfeelâ better about it, that makes it OK.[/quote]
No. The idea is to actually make things better. This isn’t a feel-good initiative. The idea is that it will, in fact, make races more competitive and remove the corrosive influence of private money.
And if we end up feeling better about our government in the process, so much the better.
Genghis, why spend the energy arguing with a couple of Republicans who can’t see beyond their own noses?
I’m with you in being happy that our legislators won’t be dependent on lobbyists, bundlers, contractors, etc. for their campaign dough. And I’m also with you in hoping it will get more librarians (and less lawyers) involved in government!
Can anyone is Hartford tell us if lobbyists are as powerful now as they were before taxpayer financed elections?
Something tells me that lobbyists are just as influential even though they canât contribute. And if they arenât, why are there so many of them?
[quote comment="19042"]Can anyone is Hartford tell us if lobbyists are as powerful now as they were before taxpayer financed elections?
Something tells me that lobbyists are just as influential even though they canât contribute. And if they arenât, why are there so many of them?[/quote]
Impossible to say, since this is the first one.
[quote post="962"]Something tells me that lobbyists are just as influential even though they canât contribute. And if they arenât, why are there so many of them? [/quote]
The lobbyists write the majority of the legislation – like the energy bill – for the dumbass legislators. CFR was always bullshit but Jodi needed it for he re-election campaign so it “got done” as she likes to say.
Thatâs right!
I remember all the liberals on this forum complaining that lobbyists wrote the energy bill. I thought âcampaign financeâ was supposed to stop such âcorruption.â
Lobbyists cannot contribute to these legislators, and yet they are still writing the laws.
Toucan–
You neglect the empirical evidence from places like Arizona and Maine where both sides of the aisle say it has freed them from being reliant on special interests.
Can you imagine if our Congressional delegation didn’t have to turn to the pharmaceuticals, banks, and insurance for their $$$? Under those circumstances someone like Dodd might be willing and able to takĂ© on the credit card industry.
[quote post="962"]You neglect the empirical evidence from places like Arizona and Maine where both sides of the aisle say it has freed them from being reliant on special interests.[/quote]
I have a hard time beleiving that CFR will infuse knowledge and wisdom into a bunch of boneheads – there are few exceptions but not many with brains that do more than memorize, regurgitate and repeat
I thought we had a better system than Maine and Arizona.
Why are lobbyists still writing bills in Connecticut?
[quote post="962"]Why are lobbyists still writing bills in Connecticut? [/quote]
Because CFR said nothing about lobbying activity and without lobbyists who would write the bills? Certainly not Jodi or anybody inthe exec branch!
Since legislative elections don’t buy much advertising, the key to influence will probably lie with the local newspapers — the weeklies and dailies. Those are where most people get their news about these races I guess. The Waterbury Republican American, New Haven Register, etc. and the various small local papers around the state. If the local paper is against you, it’s going to be hard to counter that.
You know what’s funny is that I saw a poll once that said a majority of people were in favor of public financing of campaigns BUT they were against the use of taxpayer money to pay for them.
The real question is why should it cost so much to run for the State Legislature (Or First Selectman/Mayor). Its not like there is an expansive electorate to reach, just one or two towns depending on how the district is drawn. Keep the literature to a minimum, use lots of shoe leather knocking on doors, and a bit of radio and newspaper ads, and, these days, a web site. It all should cost less than $5,000.
By the way, lobbyists write the bills because they have the expertise to do it correctly. The best bills are those that combine the efforts of lobbyists from both sides of an issue. If the legislature was better funded, it might have the expertise in the staff to draft cogent bills. Until then, we just have to put up with help from the outside that generally has a strong viewpoint on an issue.
http://www.catostore.org/index.asp?fa=ProductDetails&pid=1441236&method=search&t=welfare&a=&k=&aeid=&adv=&pg=
Campaigns funded by taxpayer money is just plain wrong.
Sorry if you folks don’t think I can see beyond my nose.. but taxes were not meant to fund this kind of nonsense.
To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical. -Thomas Jefferson
Alright,…for the love of christ. At least get the legislation right morons. None of CFR is paid for by tax dollars. The money comes from “the big list” at the Sec. of the States office. It’s unclaimed monies. Any idiot can check the list anytime they want o see if they are owed dough. Unless you’re on the list, shut your mouth because no one is “stealing from you”
for reals.
Thatâs taxpayer money and saying it’s not is a lie.
You can’t rationalize your way out of it. Its taxpayer money. Just admit it. Its taxpayer money. You have to at least concede me that much.
This is thievery plain and simple. Tax money is meant for things like bridges and building schools. Given that the state is not so terrific at either maybe we should be getting back to basics instead going on this tangent.
This âfree moneyâ badly retards the process whereby a candidate has to earn the money he or she uses. If the message is wrong or weak or the candidate is wrong than people don’t give anything.
There was nothing broken with the way it was before. Challengers had a chance. Not a good one but at least they had a chance to make their case. Now we have a built in Incumbent Protection firewall.
Your way any quack can come in and haul away free taxpayer money and thatâs one step closer to being elected.
ïź As if we don’t have enough quacks in office already. As years go by the requirements will be liberalized. There must be some sort of accommodation for independent and minor parties to get in on the taxpayer money give-away plan and I fear that might be a Trojan horse. God only knows where we go from hereâŠ.
– And going back to Republitarianâs main point there is the inescapable conclusion that at the core WELFARE FOR POLITICIANS is just plain wrong.
Its wrong that my money now comes out of my pay and goes to candidates you like but I don’t.
Itâs my money. I work hard for my money. I am tired at the end of the day. I load trucks. Itâs not like I am one of the trust fund Republicans. My money has value. It represents literally my blood, sweat and tears. I work hard for the money (as the song goes) and itâs wrong for you or anyone else to steal it. Can I make that any clearer?
Itâs not your money. Itâs mine. I don’t care what fund you take it out of. That money would have otherwise gone to legitimate government expenses. Now thatâs it going to be mis-spent in this fashion that money will now have come from somewhere else.
Sooner or latter we all know this is going to come out of the general fund anyway. Recall the lottery was going to fund schools?
I do give to candidates but up until now itâs been my choice where my money goes — if I chose to give at all.
That choice has been taken away from me. I do have one last option you know. There is a way I can protect my First Amendment rights.
I can do what seven near and dear family members of mine have done — leave Connecticut. Nanny Rell canât get my money if I am no longer a state resident.
* * *
My question is what about principled Republicans (unlike the prostitute that took the money on the nightstand) who donât want public financing?
I am not familiar with the complexities of this immoral law but through the years as this awful notion was debated nationally the bills proposed nationally generally gave Republican-challengers a choice similar to that of a bank teller who is ordered to put the money in the bag
– or she gets her brains blown out.
Do challengers Republicans have that kind of choice with current law or can they refuse the whore-money and run on their own with out being punished?
— And without the incumbent Democrat being rewarded with extra helpings of free taxpayer money?
And for those Republicans who take the money I have this to say: âI want a divorceâ.
You no longer have the right to call yourself a Republican in my opinion and you will not get my vote at election time.
John,………..it’s not “tax” dollars as the monies which fuel the fund are not “collected through taxes”!!!!! Period.
You guys can keep rationalizing this stuff anyway you want, but one thing is certain. NONE of you have READ THE GOD DAMN BILL!!!!!! I mean the language has only been out for 2 YEARS! but shit, why should anyone on this website actually read what it is they want to spew about? Fecking Idioits!
here’s the language, that took me all of three seconds to find.
CITIZENSâ ELECTION FUND SOURCES (§§ 2, 3, 10, 26, 51-53)
The act establishes a Citizensâ Election Fund from which payments to participating candidates are made. The fund receives (1) proceeds from sales of abandoned property in the stateâs custody; (2) voluntary contributions from individuals, businesses, organizations, party committees, and political committees (known as PACs); (3) contributions of surpluses from campaign committees, exploratory committees, and certain other committees that dissolve; and (4) its own investment earnings. In the case of a shortfall, it also receives corporation tax revenues. The state treasurer administers the fund, which is a separate, nonlapsing account in the General Fund. Grants paid to participating candidates from the fund are not considered public funds for any other purpose.
So I guess if You are a CEO, it may in the case of a shortfall take some of your corporation’s tax revenue, which I have no problem with considering Corporations have become America’s biggest welfare queens under this current administration.
Oh, and also…….anyone with an intro level understanding of constitutional law would also know….IT’s OPTIONAL! So anyone who bitched about it or voted against it, they don’t have to use it. The system is OPTIONAL!
Arizona has term limits combined with public financing; itâs the term limits that make the state receptive to constituents. Without term limits, public financing is an incumbency protection racket. Bloomberg did not secure the mayoralty in New York by relying on public financing; he bought it, fair and square, with his own money. In the Northeast, where such stupid ideas as public financing are popular, the only way to capture an incumbentâs seat is to buy it.
Is it optional and will it stay optional? These detestable concepts have a way of creeping in slithery-like over years. Rest assured that year after year people like State Rep. Denise Merrill will be introducing bills to further their advantage under the guise of *reform*.
She will say something like:
âSpeaker I rise today heavy of heart in recognizing that money is still poisoning the process to whereby we get elected. There is a way out of this mired cess pool of corporate special intrest â and just darn stinky — swamp however. Reform-minded clean citizen-representatives must funnel more clean money into the election stream. Clean money, not corrupt money, should be the norm. I am rising here today to challenge my esteemed colleagues to have the courage to put aside the old ways of the past and embrace the future. My bill âThe Clean Money Elections Act of 2012â will ensure that more clean money goes into campaigns. Candidates for office who chose to bank roll their corrupt special interests laden campaigns with filthy money will no longer go unpunished. Under my bill dirty politicians will no longer get a free ride if they stubbornly refuse to accept Public Financing, hereafter referred to as clean money (because thatâs what it is of course). Corrupt challengers who either use their own money or their corrupt supporterâs money will now not only face fines enacted last year but their opponents will now be awarded extra CLEAN MONEY to offset their opponentâs dirty funds. Speaker its time to end privately bought and paid for elections and embrace a bright clean future. Speaker lets not do this for ourselves. Letâs do it for the children!â
So while my bank teller could very well tell the bank robber to âgo to hellâ she will pay the price for her âchoiceâ by getting her brains blown out of the back of her head.
No I have not read the bill and I am not going to anytime soon. I am busy working to pay my taxes which do nothing but go up in this state even under so-called Republican administrations.
And as for the magic money. What would happen to your magic money from heaven if incumbents weren’t raiding it for their re-election campaigns?
It would — I am willing to wager without checking — go into the general fund where it would most likely be squandered on constructing a bridge or something foolish like that.
Denise Merrill is a good example. In 2006, and I would suspect before that, she was unopposed for re-election. Public financing will put a Republican challenger on the same financial playing field. That is much better than allowing a state legislator to go unchecked.
You are wrong Jim.
Besides if they are on the same plaine as you put it the incumbent wins because she has more name rec.
A challanger in order to be sucessful has to spend more, not the same and certainly not far far far less.
And the challanger won’t get equal number of dollars in total. You can take that to the bank.
I disagree. Public financing is a hell of a lot better for democracy than no real choice at all. The alternative is that the most liberal legislators go completely untouched. If a challenger had the same funding as Merrill, or any other typically uncontested legislator, and was willing to put in the work of knocking on doors and running a smart campaign, he or she could pull it off. Merrill’s district is a special case, because of UConn and the fact that there are a dozen Republicans in the district.
That said, public financing is going to eliminate a lot of these embarassing uncontested seats.
John R. McCommas said:
“No I have not read the bill and I am not going to anytime soon. I am busy working to pay my taxes which do nothing but go up in this state even under so-called Republican administrations.”
What a cop out. I work too, and so do lots of other well informed citizens. If this legislation was enough to get you to run your mouth and get all righteous about it, don’t you think it might help your argument to …..I don’t know…..say take ten minutes out of your stressful day of working and spewing bullshit on blogs…..to sit down and read the bill that makes you so furious?
Also, it’s not “magic money” numbnuts,…it’s laid out clearly where it comes from, but then again that would require you to read and learn. God forbid that might cut into your blog commenting time.
[quote post="962"]Without term limits, public financing is an incumbency protection racket. [/quote]
I don’t know if this is necessarily so, but I would like to see term limits as a compliment to public financing.
I need to make another big post about term limits at some point.
I am not going to read it because it would be a waste of my time.
If I thought it was worth my time I would read it. Time is precious. We are just going to have to let this all play out. I see where itâs going all too clearly and I donât like it. I am basically powerless to stop it. We have no alternative now. We will just have to wait and see.
Winning an argument with you is not reason enough to read the lawyerese of the bill â now law.
What I suggest you read, make that re-read, âfor realsâ is your posts to me. You seem to resent that I have an opinion at all that differs from your own. You find that intolerable and you resort to insulting me which I think is a real “cop out”.
Thatâs the way liberals operate now a days. You want to silence people like me (campaign finance de-form is one way to do it). You call me names accuse me of having my facts wrong when I don’t.
I have different values than you do and thatâs something you just can’t accept. I donâtâ think public money should be spent on polticians running for office. Thatâs just not what its for and it wonât be clean money besides. Money that is stolen is not clean from the get-go.
Even though I am clearly on the losing side on this issue (and you are the winner) and it looks very bleak I will ever get the policy I would like, it still infuriates you that I exist at all and publicly air my opinion. I should not even be able to gripe about it.
What would you have done to upstarts like me in your perfect world? Would the secret police come and whisk me away and reprogram my brain to perfectly match what I am supposed to be thinking? Stepford Citizens? Is that what you really want?
Why are people like me so dangerous? All I am doing is sitting here with last nightâs take out by my side as todayâs lunch trying to reason with my fellow citizens what the wisest course of action for our state government should be.
Why is it such a bad thing that we donât all think exactly the same?
You are just going to have to come to terms wit the fact that I think you are wrong about this. Can you do that?
Excuse me – but you guys can pontificate all you want – the fact is that the fund receives (1) proceeds from sales of abandoned property in the stateâs custody; and (4) its own investment earnings; and in the case of a shortfall, it also receives corporation tax revenues. I would venture to say that those monies in reality belong to the taxpayers of this state… there is no reason why it should go to pay to finance politicians.
This scheme is really nothing more than political welfare.
The PACs are also still filling these coffers and so the lobbyists are still funding the campaigns – so what- nothing has changed except the money goes into a big pot.
I don’t see what the issue is regarding “endless fundraisers”.. This is how politicians are supposed to get grassroots support .. meeting the people and getting your word out is what campaigning is all about and if people like the candidate enough then they support him with their dollars.
Republitarian
We are in total agreement. Nothing was broken but that didn’t stop them from fixing it.
And we have Rell to thank for it. I think she is the worst governor we have ever had.
You must log in to post a comment.