It’s a sign of things to come in the 5th, I suspect.
Chris Murphy gets tagged by state and national Republicans for accepting campaign contributions from the now-under investigation Haven Healthcare, with one slight problem: it isn’t true.
But even if it was true, so what? Honestly, I don’t even know what the implication here is supposed to be. Chris Murphy hates little old ladies, because he took money from a company way back before this whole scandal even thought about breaking? …Right. Makes perfect sense.
Republicans are also insinuating that Murphy shouldn’t be taking money from health care companies at all, in part because that might be a conflict of interest. Murphy criticized Nancy Johnson for taking money from health care companies–except that she did it in a HUGE way, and was largely responsible for Medicare Part D. It’s also worth noting that according to FollowTheMoney.org two CPAs for Haven donated money to Gov. Rell’s re-election campaign, and that a vice president of the company contributed to Susan Bysiewicz’s campaign. I’m sure that proves something… right?
Look, if the idea here is to keep candidates from taking contributions from interests that might conflict with their legislative work, then I have a solution for those criticizing Murphy: public financing of campaigns. That way, the only contributions are coming from a group that the candidates better damn well pay attention to: us.
I imagine that the entire point was to put the words “Chris Murphy” and “Haven Healthcare” into the same sentence. It backfired on them. But I think that this tells us what a nasty race the 5th is going to be–again–in 2008, if the mud is already starting to fly.
115 responses so far ↓
The problem with public financing is this: It’s a challenger’s option. Once the challenger — Murphy — gets in, the sluice gates open, and the money starts pouring in. Result: Former challengers hot on public financing are loathe to give up their advantage. Why don’t you ask Murphy whether, now that he is the incumbent, he is willing in his next campaign to accept public financing? Is there any doubt how he will answer?
As for Haven Health Care, just another opposum on the road run over by Attorney General Caligula. One more small step for man on the journey to state health care.
Indian casinoes are next.
And, speaking of strikes there’s this: http://donpesci.blogspot.com/2007/11/what-makes-chris-dodd-run.html
There is only one member of the Connecticut Congressional delegation who has received a contribution from Haven Healthcare in the last couple decades — Nancy Johnson got $1,000 from Barry O’Doherty, VP of Haven Healthcare, on 12/13/2005. No calls from the GOP for a criminal investigation yet.
Don,
Um, as you’re undoubtedly aware, he has already strongly endorsed and voted for public financing as an incumbent state senator, and then there’s, uh, this…
From the Russian newspaper, The Moscow News
The totalitarian can never accept that his are only one of many different legitimate values and that others should be allowed to disagree with them. Rather than accept this competition of ideas as a vital aspect of life, he prefers finding a final solution to every problem. While a liberal would try to find a compromise that would take into consideration the wants and needs of everybody – smokers and non-smokers – the fundamentalist cannot even fathom that a compromise is possible.
Fundamentalists ignore – deliberately – that restaurants and bars are private businesses. Going to a restaurant is not a necessity, it’s a luxury. Non-smokers are not forced to enter restaurants that allow smoking; they can either go to non-smoking places or stay home. Non-smokers are not being discriminated against if they can’t find a non-smoking restaurant to their liking. And if a restaurant does not allow smoking, it’s not discriminating against smokers, either. It’s the choice of the operator to decide whether or not he caters to smokers, non-smokers, or both. Smokers and non-smokers alike can vote with their rubles/euros/dollars/tugrik for whichever business they prefer. That’s the essence of a free market economy.
I took the day off from work and I am going out to rake leaves. When I come in for lunch I look forward to reading the posts from republican leaning bloggers
ridiculing the NRCC and state party for the attempted hit piece on Chris Murphy.
“Lives are stake, and it’s pretty disgusting the Republicans are playing games with this issue,” said Kristen Bossi, a spokeswoman for Murphy. “Even worse, they don’t even have their facts straight.”
http://www.courant.com/news/politics/hc-ctmurphyhealth1122.artnov22,0,1852578.story
Jaekle said he was disappointed by the DPW response to an earlier audit, which found similar shortcomings.
Sixteen previous recommendations were renewed in the latest audit of the DPW, whose former commissioner, James T. Fleming, recently accepted a spot on the Public Utility Control Commission and was replaced by Raeanne V. Curtis in the $134,500-a-year post.
“This time there were a lot of repeat recommendations, which I don’t like seeing for agencies,” Jaekle said in an interview. “Most of our audit work is to help improve agency operations. In this case there were a lot of recommendations and a lot of repeat recommendations.”
——
Jaekle said that the audit findings aren’t outdated, since the DPW continuously works on projects and shortcomings and oversight problems are likely to continue unless they are corrected by management.
“It’s not like their mission has changed,” Jaekle said. “They’re still constructing projects. They’re still administering change orders and they’re basically still engaged in the same type of activities. If they say they’ve solved them all, that’s great, but if they say that was several years back, I don’t believe that.”
Let the word go out; the Rell administration is detached from reality.
http://www.connpost.com/localnews/ci_7528891
The state Department of Social Services has delayed acting on several freedom-of-information requests in part because it sought to warn a state contractor that it planned to disclose documents the company had stamped confidential, according to an agency spokesman.
——
http://www.journalinquirer.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=19047757&BRD=985&PAG=461&dept_id=161556&rfi=6
Sen. Mary Ann Handley, D-Manchester, said a draft recommendation from a state task force recommending more than $600 million in new public aid for hospitals wasn’t a huge surprise, given the financial woes many hospitals have faced for several years now.
—
Rell’s “task force” was made up of industry insiders so you would expect them to ask for more state moiney to keep their gig going!!!!
http://www.journalinquirer.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=19047748&BRD=985&PAG=461&dept_id=161556&rfi=6
Incumbents tend to win… I think the biggest problem that Chris could face is something like Bush going to war with Iran and Murphy not voting to impeach… in which case Murphy gets primaried… and he could very well lose to a well-organized opponent…
come to think of it… if Bush does that, but does not get impeached… watch most of the Democratic congress face progressive grassroots primaries… with many incumbents losing the nomination.
Ghengis….
Wait….
You’re argument makes little sense….
So Chris Murphy didn’t have major influence over healthcare policy as chairman of the Health Committee when he took $2,500 from Haven executives?
No way can Murphy can’t have it both ways.
And the Hartford Courant wasn’t ENTIRELYwrong: Murphy did accept money from Haven.
And his statement didn’t deny that.
And he would have accepted their checks running as a Congressional Candidate. He was “Pledged” $12,000
Hey Tim; what was the story with all the dentists around the state giving you money and trying to get you a state rep job?
toucan… could you be more specific?
With Murphys GOP opponent accepting 15K in Galante bundled contributions they couldn’t possibly dig up enough dirt to make a difference. Cappiello is toast and just wait until the district sees a mailer with Cappy & Galante standing side by side with the caption…..
nah, you’re going to have to wait and see
I received a good deal of financial support from dentists last year, if that’s your point… that’s obvious from reading campaign finance filings.
for what it’s worth… i feel that fundraising has led to the perception that elected officials may not always be acting in the best interests of the voters… that’s why I was an outspoken advocate of CFR… before it passed.
The denitists, for the most part were not form your District. Somehting was obviuolsy going on. People give money to get access. Just curious but you don’t have to answer.
[quote comment="22897"]With Murphys GOP opponent accepting 15K in Galante bundled contributions they couldn’t possibly dig up enough dirt to make a difference. Cappiello is toast and just wait until the district sees a mailer with Cappy & Galante standing side by side with the caption…..
nah, you’re going to have to wait and see
[/quote]
8yawn* Maybe if you actually contributed to this site other than the same pre-recorded message, people would actually take you seriously.
Now get back to work sandy, I’m sure there are some constituent projects that need your attention.
From the outset and througout the ‘06 campaign, I spoke of my concerns… taxes & the cost of living in CT, poor energy/land use policy… and a few other topics… I spent virtually no time addressing dental policy, even when speaking with anyone from the dental community… so please don’t suggest that I was selling access. I would never do that. I try very hard to represent the interests of the voters, and only the voters, who have elected me… that’s the reason I knock on doors in March/April/May every year… not just in Sept/Oct every other year.
Besides… why did you even mention this? Is it related to my earlier comment in some way? Personally, I think this Haven fundraiser thing is a non-issue.
The leaves are done, for today, and that I am happy about. But how disappointing! Not a single item from the republicans (Party Operative’s) critisizing the failed bothched poorly researched hit piece. Rememeber, within days after Medicare Prescription passed, Nancy recieved hundreds of thousands from the medical industry. Now that is the appearance of conflict of interest!
[quote comment="22901"][quote comment="22897"]With Murphys GOP opponent accepting 15K in Galante bundled contributions they couldn’t possibly dig up enough dirt to make a difference. Cappiello is toast and just wait until the district sees a mailer with Cappy & Galante standing side by side with the caption…..
nah, you’re going to have to wait and see
[/quote]
8yawn* Maybe if you actually contributed to this site other than the same pre-recorded message, people would actually take you seriously.
Now get back to work sandy, I’m sure there are some constituent projects that need your attention.[/quote]
Ichabod, I think I understand you. People you agree with contribute to this site and people you don’t agree with are not taken seriously. I think you need to take that W sticker off your bumper.
[quote comment="22904"][quote comment="22901"][quote comment="22897"]With Murphys GOP opponent accepting 15K in Galante bundled contributions they couldn’t possibly dig up enough dirt to make a difference. Cappiello is toast and just wait until the district sees a mailer with Cappy & Galante standing side by side with the caption…..
nah, you’re going to have to wait and see
[/quote]
8yawn* Maybe if you actually contributed to this site other than the same pre-recorded message, people would actually take you seriously.
Now get back to work sandy, I’m sure there are some constituent projects that need your attention.[/quote]
Ichabod, I think I understand you. People you agree with contribute to this site and people you don’t agree with are not taken seriously. I think you need to take that W sticker off your bumper.[/quote]
LOL – that’s why you see my busily quoting and going after everyone else on this site that blindly attacks Cappiello…. get over yourself. And stop wasting my tax dollars on this blog. Back to work.
Like I said Tim; you don’t have to answer the question – and you didn’t.
Most people, and especially the Courant, have some very funny political filters. Hats off to the Courant though, for making our Dept. of Public Health do their job and giving “Our Dick” AG a whole fresh bunch of cameras to chase.
I think that the further from Danbury that the Galante bundles landed, the more they stink. A lot of those $$’s fell into Billy Ciotto’s lap and I have accused him of putting the larceny into Larson’s office. I’m starting to wonder who has been corrupting who in the relationship between Larson and Ciotto.
Who turned “Grandpa Billy” into the thug he is today? Is his job in Larson’s office just a payback for services rendered? One might suspect that one would find a whole lot of “policies” Johnny wrote in his private business smelt like overripe Limburger Cheese. Did Johnny ever write any insurance for the Galante family? Did he ever write any insurance policies for Roncalli or Haven?
Did Billy Ciotto act as John Larson’s cut-out to people like Galante? Is he still doing that inside his office today?
Speaking of Rep. Murphy, did anyone see this?
http://www.registercitizen.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=19044409&BRD=1652&PAG=461&dept_id=572348&rfi=6
[quote comment="22905"][quote comment="22904"][quote comment="22901"][quote comment="22897"]With Murphys GOP opponent accepting 15K in Galante bundled contributions they couldn’t possibly dig up enough dirt to make a difference. Cappiello is toast and just wait until the district sees a mailer with Cappy & Galante standing side by side with the caption…..
nah, you’re going to have to wait and see
[/quote]
8yawn* Maybe if you actually contributed to this site other than the same pre-recorded message, people would actually take you seriously.
Now get back to work sandy, I’m sure there are some constituent projects that need your attention.[/quote]
Ichabod, I think I understand you. People you agree with contribute to this site and people you don’t agree with are not taken seriously. I think you need to take that W sticker off your bumper.[/quote]
LOL – that’s why you see my busily quoting and going after everyone else on this site that blindly attacks Cappiello…. get over yourself. And stop wasting my tax dollars on this blog. Back to work.[/quote]
Yes Icky. Anybody who attacks Cappiello has to be doing it “blindly”. I guess it is not at all relevant that Cappiello is now the biggest recipient of mob money in the state Senate. I am sorry and to prove it, next time I see Cappiello and Galante together I will buy them a bottle of wine. Would you please ask David what wine they drink?
[quote comment="22909"][quote comment="22905"][quote comment="22904"][quote comment="22901"][quote comment="22897"]With Murphys GOP opponent accepting 15K in Galante bundled contributions they couldn’t possibly dig up enough dirt to make a difference. Cappiello is toast and just wait until the district sees a mailer with Cappy & Galante standing side by side with the caption…..
nah, you’re going to have to wait and see
[/quote]
8yawn* Maybe if you actually contributed to this site other than the same pre-recorded message, people would actually take you seriously.
Now get back to work sandy, I’m sure there are some constituent projects that need your attention.[/quote]
Ichabod, I think I understand you. People you agree with contribute to this site and people you don’t agree with are not taken seriously. I think you need to take that W sticker off your bumper.[/quote]
LOL – that’s why you see my busily quoting and going after everyone else on this site that blindly attacks Cappiello…. get over yourself. And stop wasting my tax dollars on this blog. Back to work.[/quote]
Yes Icky. Anybody who attacks Cappiello has to be doing it “blindly”. I guess it is not at all relevant that Cappiello is now the biggest recipient of mob money in the state Senate. I am sorry and to prove it, next time I see Cappiello and Galante together I will buy them a bottle of wine. Would you please ask David what wine they drink?[/quote]
All I did was make a suggestion, and I get all this attitude back.
If you want to be taken seriously around here, you need to build a reputation. You need to chime in and make some thoughtful comments on a variety of subjects. You can’t just make a name and be a talking point troll every time you get a Google News Alert for David Cappiello in your inbox.
Toucan… I’ve offered some thoughts on a very vague question. If you would offer me a specific question, I’d be glad to answer the best I can.
[quote post="1214"]what was the story with all the dentists around the state (i.e. not form your district) giving you ( a newbie challebger for state rep) money[/quote]?
That seems like a pretty specific question to me. BTW, I got the answer on my own from my own souces. Your incumbent opponent pissed them off and they wanted her out of office.
Mike
From the Urban piece you cited: “Murphy also told participants in the conversation that he favors public financing of House campaigns.”
Umm, frankly, Scarlett, I don’t give a hoot what he favors. The question is: Will he take a pledge, right now, to forgo any campaign contributions that are not publicly funded. Get back to me on it, okay?
BTW, Haven Healthcare is hardly a non-issue. Itmay not be an issue with campaign contributions to Murph but it’s an issue for the taxpayers.
Attorney General Richard Blumenthal today is filing a motion in federal bankruptcy court seeking to appoint a Chapter 11 trustee to take over Haven Eldercare, LLC and its 44 entities, including 15 Connecticut nursing homes after the financially failed corporation filed for bankruptcy today.
http://www.ct.gov/ag/cwp/view.asp?Q=399758&A=2788
“non-issue” related to Murphy’s campaign… I haven’t seen any polls, but if the election were held today, I’m guessing Murphy would be reelected
The lawmakers objected in letters to the Department of Public Utility Control, which is expected to rule this morning on whether to issue a grant totaling more than $6 million to Rand Whitney, as part of a 2005 state program that was intended to encourage large electric users to generate some of their own power, thereby lessening the strain on the state’s electric grid. The grants come directly from individual electric customers — they are raised by a surcharge on monthly bills.
http://www.theday.com/re.aspx?re=7ac43d25-f7b1-42a3-b231-5d109e6644b7
[quote comment="22907"]Most people, and especially the Courant, have some very funny political filters. Hats off to the Courant though, for making our Dept. of Public Health do their job and giving “Our Dick” AG a whole fresh bunch of cameras to chase.
I think that the further from Danbury that the Galante bundles landed, the more they stink. A lot of those $$’s fell into Billy Ciotto’s lap and I have accused him of putting the larceny into Larson’s office. I’m starting to wonder who has been corrupting who in the relationship between Larson and Ciotto.
Who turned “Grandpa Billy” into the thug he is today? Is his job in Larson’s office just a payback for services rendered? One might suspect that one would find a whole lot of “policies” Johnny wrote in his private business smelt like overripe Limburger Cheese. Did Johnny ever write any insurance for the Galante family? Did he ever write any insurance policies for Roncalli or Haven?
Did Billy Ciotto act as John Larson’s cut-out to people like Galante? Is he still doing that inside his office today?[/quote]
Qtrans: Those are some mighty strong statements you have made. This is the first time I have heard anyone attempt to link Don Galante to John Larson or Billy Ciotto. What do you mean by “a lot of those $$ fell into Billys lap “and what source are you quoting?
The documents said Mr. Malcynsky was paid $112,500, based on an investment the Treasurer’s office made last year, and is to receive additional payments for the next two years. Mr. Malcynsky, a lawyer, said he was paid for his legal advice to the investment partnership that received the investment.
Malcynsky also wieghs heavily in the above DPUC decision. There’s lots of money to be made in CT state government if you are well connected.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F07EFDB1039F932A15753C1A96F958260
Mr. Weicker’s campaign manager, Jay F. Malcynsky
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=940DE1DD163AF93BA15753C1A96E948260
[quote post="1214"]Qtrans: Those are some mighty strong statements you have made. This is the first time I have heard anyone attempt to link Don Galante to John Larson or Billy Ciotto. What do you mean by “a lot of those $$ fell into Billys lap “and what source are you quoting? [/quote]
They are all descendants of Adam and Eve!!!!!!!!
Aaaaaaaannd Don Pesci jumps the shark!
On a totally unrelated note, why say “what a nasty race the 5th is going to be” when 2006 saw a case of GOP overreach in the 5th, and 2008 looks like it will be a repeat of the same wholly unreasonable Republican caterwauling. Maybe rather than saying that “the race” will be nasty, we should call the problem what it is — the CT Republicans are simply a bunch of nasty, unreasonable extremists, at the very least when it comes to Chris Murphy.
Murphy won over Johnson to some extent because he did not take the bait and go nasty in the campaign against Nancy Johnson despite the advice that the national Democratic campaign headquarters was giving him. So if the CT Republicans go nasty, maybe Murphy will win by an even bigger margin!!!
[quote post="1214"]The question is: Will he take a pledge, right now, to forgo any campaign contributions that are not publicly funded. Get back to me on it, okay?[/quote]
Do you mean in the alternate universe where the financing that you are suggesting he take actually exists, or in the world we live in where it doesn’t?
To simplify my question, WTF are you talking about?
Don,
Um, you know, it’s not such a good idea to follow the GOP’s foolish charges that can’t be backed up with your own foolish charges that can’t be backed up. Instead of apologizing for your own silliness, you continue with a yet more idiotic line of questioning and diversion. It’s really best to stop while you’re behind.
Do you have any idea what you’re talking about? In truly publicly financed elections, including the law the Murphy vocally supported, there is no public financing, aside from qualifying contributions. He can’t accept public funds for his campaign, because, um, there are none at the federal level. Given his long and public history of support for public financing, there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that he would choose to opt out of such a system. But that’s what you and Chris Healy are all about – throw out as much evidence-free sh-t as possible and see what can stick.
What about a system whereby there were no campaign contribution restrictions, but donor’s identity would be shielded from the candidate? Contributions would be handled by some hopefully neutral clearinghouse (maybe the government). Of course, individuals or corporations could claim giving money, but no one would really know.
Quod Felix,
I personally think Murphy won when in general because he didn’t go nengative
but in particular when he ran the ad, “She’n not bad person, she’s just part of the
problem”. The firtst time I saw it I turned to my wife and said he just won.
OK, Mike, we’ll go through it carefully. Public financing is financing through tax dollars, as opped to accepting campaign contributions from people that you as a congressperson regulated — you know, like Chris Dodd does., not that he is alone in this. And here’s what I want to know: Will Murphy, who you have quoted as saying that he favors public financing, take a pledge, this moment — right now — to eschew funds from people he may be regulating? This is not rocket science here. Please get back to me with a yes or no answer.
The point I was making is that everyoene succums to this sort of thing as soon as they win office and inherit the kingdom from their predecessor. Murphy will be no exception. Doesn’t mean Murphy is dirty, just the run of the mill politician.
Time to eliminate “special interests.” Only potential constituents should be allowed to contribute. Ok.
The following fable is fictional. Any resemblance to persons, living or dead, is quite intentional.
[quote]
So the next Republican candidate for the Senate says, “It’s time to end the federal government’s over reaching and return state’s rights to the states…I’m going to repeal the federal ban on Internet taxes.”
“Lunancy!” says Genghis and contributes to the Democrat. “Foolishness!” says CCG, and also contributes. So far, so good Genghis posts on his blog … of very special people with a common interest. … Oh, no! Egads! Now it’s a special interest group poisoning democracy.
[/quote]
The moral of the story is one person’s informed constituency is another’s special interest group. And restricting contributions is restricting free speech and not in the spirit of the First Amendment.
>>What about a system whereby there were no campaign contribution restrictions, but donor’s identity would be shielded from the candidate?
How about no restrictions – but it has to be online within 48 hours or so?
Complete full disclosure.
I kind of like Quod Felix’s idea. If it were possible to mask contributions, they could be distributed to the parties by some upright and lucky guy, who also would be anonymous; then the parties could distribute the funds to individual politicians. In a system of this kind, no individual politician would be aware of the source of his funds, leaving him free to do the public business without money attachments.
pharg, You said:
“I personally think Murphy won when in general because he didn’t go nengative”
And so do I !!!!! (well at least he himself didn’t need to) I am happy to see we can agree without ourselves, having go negative.
Johnson ran a campaign that has to be must reading for anyone who never hopes to ever win any election. She took the MoveOn. bate, hook, line, and sinker……I mean really sinker!!!!!!
If she had 10MM to spend on adds, she would have lost by 30,000 votes!!!!!!!!!!!
I too raked my leaves this afternoon, and looked back in here to see what words of wisdom from either side might be posted. I am happy to see that aside from Sandy, who’s posts I just disregard, I didn’t see any to get worked up over. Hopefully the Cappiello camp has learned from Johnson’s huge mistake, and will try to keep this election focused on the issues, and on the high road.
And clean and clear discussion of the issues this time around would be very well welcome.
Don,
Not that anyone can take you or the GOP seriously today, but just for fun, you’ve now asked three questions, none of which make any sense.
What public financing of elections has to do with accepting private funds from “people he may be regulating,” which would include the entire U.S. population, is beyond me. I give up.
[quote comment="22933"]pharg, You said:
“I personally think Murphy won when in general because he didn’t go nengative”
And so do I !!!!! (well at least he himself didn’t need to) I am happy to see we can agree without ourselves, having go negative.
Johnson ran a campaign that has to be must reading for anyone who never hopes to ever win any election. She took the MoveOn. bate, hook, line, and sinker……I mean really sinker!!!!!!
If she had 10MM to spend on adds, she would have lost by 30,000 votes!!!!!!!!!!!
I too raked my leaves this afternoon, and looked back in here to see what words of wisdom from either side might be posted. I am happy to see that aside from Sandy, who’s posts I just disregard, I didn’t see any to get worked up over. Hopefully the Cappiello camp has learned from Johnson’s huge mistake, and will try to keep this election focused on the issues, and on the high road.
And clean and clear discussion of the issues this time around would be very well welcome.[/quote]
Al, although you can disregard my post, I am happy to be able to enjoy and absorb your words of wisdom. Thank You for sharing your vast knowledge with us.
Mike,Mike,Mike,
You know as well as I do that public financing of campaigns represent a firewall that supposedly prevents public officials from doing favors for those special interests that contribute to their campaigns. You can’t want me to take you for a dope, because you aren’t one. If there were no such conflicts of interests between politicians who are in a mood to do favors for special interests that contribute to their campaigns, there would be no need for restrictive campaign finance laws. Elsewhere, I’ve argued that public financing of campaigns protects incumbents because it locks in their advantages. I know you’ve been keeping up with all this. You know, you know. So, stop throwing up your hands in disbelief. The posture is ridiculous for a savvy guy like you. Everything I’ve said here is stone cold truth. Murphy, as an incumbent, is no better or worse than anyone else, and that includes Chris Dodd, who you damned well know sits on the banking committee in the US Congress and accept huge campaign contributions from the financial sector for which he writes rules and regulations. All I’m saying is this: Give Murphy a few years and he’ll turn out to be just like Dodd — or, better still, Mr. Earmark King himself, John (Want A Submarine) Murtha, whose life and times I’ve explored here: http://donpesci.blogspot.com/2006/11/murthas-augean-stables.html
Hope you had a nice Thanksgiving.
[quote post="1214"]Everything I’ve said here is stone cold truth. [/quote]
Well, except for the question, repeated three times, of whether Murphy will agree to avail himself of a system of public finance that does not exist.
I, for one, won’t trust him until he comes out for or against the Phoenix.
Gabe,
I don’t care what Murphy “comes out for,” verbally. If he wanted to refuse tainted campaign money, he could do it whether there is a law prohibiting it or not. I don’t have to wait for a law prohibiting the cannibalism I deplore before I take a pledge not boil people and eat them. That, at least, would be a sign one could respect that he he is willing to apply to himself what he stands for. No? You tell me.
Don,
Here’s what I’ll tell you, what you just wrote is incompatible with this:
If, [quote post="1214"]I don’t care what Murphy “comes out for,” verbally. [/quote], then why do you keep asking him to make pledges?
[quote post="1214"]If he wanted to refuse tainted campaign money, he could do it whether there is a law prohibiting it or not. [/quote]
But how could he (quoting you now) be “willing in his next campaign to accept public financing” and ” forgo any campaign contributions that are not publicly funded,” if public financing doesn’t exist in his race?
[quote post="1214"]I don’t have to wait for a law prohibiting the cannibalism I deplore before I take a pledge not boil people and eat them. [/quote]
No, I guess not, but, to extend your appalling metaphor, you do have to wait for caramels to be invented before you eat them.
Please don’t expect the rest of us to have a clue what you are talking about, when you can’t seem to be bothered to…
Wherein Gabe valiantly attempts to hold a good-faith argument with a bad-faith political actor…
this is a serious question and is not intended to jump into the middle of this discussion…
Anyone know why there’s public financing for POTUS, but not for Congress? I know I’ve never heard of public financing for congress… but the candidates for POTUS always seem to consider it.
And while we’re at it… with the Presidential primary in Feb… does that mean congressional primaries are the same day? (For example, could Cappiello/Himes be the official nominees in Feb? Or do Congressional primaries happen in Aug, same as Lamont/Lieberman?)
I’m not sure about the reasons for the first, but to the second, no, the primary dates for all other offices are the first Tuesday in August.
Gabe… thanks… about the second point… seems kinda stupid to me… like unnecessary spending that could be streamlined.
I realize it gets complicated, but maybe that’s a strategy that could be used in trying to get states to restrain themselves from pushing the primary season up further… pass a federal law that requires all fed-related primaries to happen on the same day… some states may then see a benefit in restraining themselves… although I don’t understand this stuff well… after all, don’t we have our gubernatorial (and congressional) conventions before the primary? As opposed to the Presidential primary preceding the convention?
That seems really strange to me, but then… a lot of party rules oftentimes seem odd and even devoid of logic.
With a slap to my my own head… Proofread ! Proofread! Don’t just click and post!
Don,
It is now extremely clear that you support public financing of Congressional campaigns. I know that you must be all over the Capiello campaign trying to convince THEM to forego all private donations and only take money that doesn’t exist.
Then Capiello could start to shake the proven accusations that he took dirty money from a known mobster. Except he’d have a little problem: with no money and therefore no staff, he wouldn’t be able to campaign. But I’m sure that you and Capiello are much more interested in avoiding private donations than in winning an election in the actual system that exists today.
Tallarita is not alone in questioning whether legislation can do anything about the circumstances that had given freedom to the chronic offenders charged in the Cheshire case, Joshua Komisarjevsky and Steven Hayes
—–
And though legislators insist that their main criteria for judging any proposal is whether it increases public safety, looming huge in the background are shifting public opinions about crime and punishment, budget pressures, and the difficulties of prison construction.
—–
But as of the time of the murders, neither Komisarjevsky, 27, then a Cheshire resident, nor Hayes, 44, from Winsted, had yet been convicted of any crimes deemed most serious under state law.
—–
If there’s any consensus among legislators now, it may be that an overhaul of the parole system and how information is shared among criminal-justice agencies might make the most difference.
http://www.journalinquirer.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=19052590&BRD=985&PAG=461&dept_id=161556&rfi=6
Group to protest parole ban
Says politicians are ‘exploiting a tragedy’
By Abbe Smith, Register Staff
http://www.nhregister.com/WebApp/appmanager/JRC/BigDaily;jsessionid=PJWJHL7Wy00T6k06vHhKN1Z1G4QQVFrZjhnnyyMgbkh6Q9xLyvM2!-1290892734?_nfpb=true&_pageLabel=pg_article&r21.pgpath=%2FNHR%2FHome&r21.content=%2FNHR%2FHome%2FTopStoryList_Story_1154623
State Grapples With Housing, Treatment Of Sex Offenders
General Assembly Scheduled To Consider $10 Million Bill
http://www.theday.com/re.aspx?re=5fe3e48a-244c-4fd0-b7e1-aea59b771c62
I disagree – I think this shows how one-sided the race is gonna be. Limp, untrue attacks about Murphy’s finances don’t negate the fact that he supported public financing in the State House and continues to do so in D.C.
Also, his attacks on Johnson resonated because she didn’t see the need to reform Part D or adopt broader, system-wide reforms of health-care — you can’t say Murphy isn’t a STRONG proponent of health care reform. As a social liberal opposed to the war, where does Cappiello draw his support besides the 3o% of diehard Repubs that were never gonna vote Murphy anyway?
Federal prosecutors have not alleged that anything about the loan itself was improper. But they charged in a 16-count indictment unsealed two weeks ago that Mr. Kerik had failed to disclose it to the federal government as required after the White House appointed him to train the Iraqi police in 2003.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/24/nyregion/24kerik.html?_r=1&ref=nyregion&oref=slogin
Gabe,
Pretty slippery. You should run for politics. We are all aware of the intersection of politics and special interests. Here’s the question: Will Murphy pledge not to accept campaign contributions from interest groups whose fate he, as a legislator, may have a hand in shaping? Simple question. I think, from your previous response, you may agree with me that legislators need not wait for a law to be promugated before they commit to an action they approve of. So, get back to me, OK?
justthefacts
I do not support public financing of campaigns, especially as they are presently conceived. But other people on this sight apparently do; so does Murphy. His taking of the pledge above should be considered a test of his sincerity.
Gabe,
Get back to justthefacts too. He seems to be interested in this sort of thing.
justthefacts
My own views on public financing of campaigns may be deduced from this:
http://donpesci.blogspot.com/2005/10/october-primer-on-campaign-finance.html
A question:
What is special interest?
To each person it means something different.
Some groups:
AARP, NRA, NARAL, NOW, NTU, and so on.
Each of us benefit from the advocacy of these groups. I guess most people call there pro-groups causes and anti-groups special interests.
I guess if a give a congressman $250 contribution because he solved my tax problem I am a special interest.
Right or Left I don’t care who gives candidates money as long as it is legally given. Full disclosure should be enough. Let the voters judge for themselves.
Sandy, Good morning!!! You said:
“Al, although you can disregard my post, I am happy to be able to enjoy and absorb your words of wisdom. Thank You for sharing your vast knowledge with us.”
I am so happy you enjoy and are able to absorb my “words of wisdom”… I was unaware that a desire for an issues based election this coming year in the 5TH , rather than another WWWF pay for view mud wrestling event would be considered wisdom.
I think the question asked by mtown in post number 66 above says it perfectly for me:
“where does Cappiello draw his support besides the 3o% of diehard Repubs that were never gonna vote Murphy anyway? ”
I say, let’s put the mud down and find out. Let these two make their best case, and then let the voters decide.
To that end, and for that simple desire, please don’t concern yourself with looking for any store of vast knowledge in my posts. There isn’t any beyond that simple desire……Likewise, I won’t for now overly concern myself with missing any intellectual content in your posts….
>>I won’t for now overly concern myself with missing any intellectual content in your posts….
What have I missed?
Intellectual content in Sandy’s posts?
Please post a link – I must have missed it.
[quote comment="22922"]Murphy won over Johnson to some extent because he did not take the bait and go nasty in the campaign against Nancy Johnson despite the advice that the national Democratic campaign headquarters was giving him. quote]
LMAO!
No she lost because of the war. The Mich McConnel Law of CFR is that no one loses because of CFR. Anyone who cares about CFR has already made up their minds about which party they support.
So you are full of poop dude. That race was a slug fest and so what? We had two points of view and the voter made a choice. Show me whats broken here.
The defeat of one individual Republican does not mean that the party is doomed. We have elections every two years. You boy does not have a crown.
If he wants another term than he is going to have to get elected again.
Don’t like it? Move to Cuba.
* * *
To the original poster. First why is a race only “nasty” when it looks like the Republican nominee looks competitive? I have always wondered why the degree of so called “nastiness” has a direct correlation to the Republican candidate’s chances — or at least visibility.
I agree with your main premice that there is no “there” there EXCEPT I have to nail you on just itty bitty one thing and that’s the general principal of:
Ta dahhh!: Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
You want different standards for different folks and sorry but to borrow a line from Slick Willy — that dog just won’t hunt
How can you think for a second that people are going to let you get away with — over and over again — applying these slippery selective standards?
Did you think we would not notice?
I recall quite vividly that peacenik in a suit Joe Courtney beating Simmons up on his contributions from lobbyist Jack Abraham. You would have thought that the lousy 2 thou Simmons got from him had him completely in Abraham pocket.
When Abraham says “jump” Simmons asks “How High Mr. Abraham sir?!”
Can you point me in the direction of a post you made back then defending Simmons exactly and precisely how you are defending that this liberal Murphy (who is a lawyer) now?
I recall with such crystal clarity as if it was yesteday Simmons being raked mercilessly over the coals by all you liberal bloggers and of course the Old Media chimed right in too
Yeah. I will name names.
Ray Hackett.
Hackett associated Simmons with every misdeed both real and imagined you could think of. Where were you? Did you defend Simmons then like you do Murphy now?
Let me declare the age of Bill Clinton is over.
Rules apply to each and every single one of us the same. We are a nation of equals right?
You can’t blame the new Republicans from doing to the liberal incumbents the exact same thing these liberals (who are now the incumbents) did to the old Republican incumbents.
And don’t tell me it’s the same thing because it actually IS (we all know the meaning of this word right?) THE EXACT SAME THING.
It is no more complicated than that. It’s just the D’s and R’s been switch around.
Sauce for the goose is sauce is sauce for the gander.
But Democrats are the victims even when they go on attack. Democrats are always the victims. That’s one of the golden rules of politics.
And by the way, Gabe, that pledge is not that unusual. The sole remaining Republican moderate House member in Connecticut, Chris Shays, took the same pledge a few campaigns ago and, as far as I know, has kept to it. So, waddya say you put the question to Murpy and get back to me on it. Remember: don’t care what he feels, don’t care what he says. We need a pledge.
[quote comment="22959"]But Democrats are the victims even when they go on attack. Democrats are always the victims. That’s one of the golden rules of politics.[/quote]
Hillary is great at it. Especially after that debate with Tim Russert.
[quote post="1214"]Simple question.[/quote]
How simple is it if it took you four tries to get it out?
Are you really so intellectually dishonest as to not even acknowledge that the first (two) version(s) of the question a) is completely different from the final version, and b) is impossible to answer under current campaign financing?
[quote post="1214"]The sole remaining Republican moderate House member in Connecticut, Chris Shays, took the same pledge a few campaigns ago and, as far as I know, has kept to it. [/quote]
He pledged to only accept public financing? Does he ride into debates on Pegasus, the winged horse?
[quote post="1214"]Remember: don’t care what he feels, don’t care what he says. We need a pledge.[/quote]
Also, a pledge is “what he says:”
Ghengis, I think that the issue here is pretty plain: Chris Murphy is a hypocrite who doesn’t abide by the ethics he professes. Regardless of whether or not the pledge was fulfilled, the fact remains that Chris Murphy’s campaign willingly accepted it and left it on the books for months. Even if the amounts are different the scrutinizable act is still there, because they accepted $2,500.
This incident simply goes to show that Chris Murphy is nothing more than a hypocrite- because he willingly did something that he criticized Nancy Johnson for.
I also think that it’s an issue of false advertising. As you recall, Chris Murphy tried to make the case that this made him different from Nancy Johnson. Maybe they aren’t all the different.
Now I happen to believe in free speech and think that there’s nothing wrong with taking money from health care companies as long as it’s disclosed in a timely fashion and disclosed in conjunction with any votes favoring them.
I have little respect for those who expect others to obey an ethical code that they don’t. Ethics are supposed to be part of a way of living, not something you make up so that you can use them to hit your political opponent over the head.
This just shows that although Chris Murphy talks a big game about ethics, the ethics he public espouses are faux ethics that do not reflect his real behavior.
Personally, it gets to me because I’ve become tired of politicians who talk a big game and don’t deliver. As I was once taught by a gifted teacher, “The steam that blew the whistle never turned the wheel.” This is certainly the case here- for all his wind-bagging all Chris Murphy stands for is saying whatever he thinks he should to win.
I have been learning- that’s the story with the democrats. Do as I say, not as I do. And you know for someone barely making it financially, I get tired of hearing that I need to pay more for stuff that’s “green” or “organic”. It’s very easy for someone with six or seven figure income like Al Gore to go around buying carbon credits. But what about the little guy who can barely afford a house, let alone to buy a bunch of carbon credits. They’re nothing more than modern day indulgences for the rich and famous.
But I digress. The 5th has been a nasty race for years. The issue is that a good part of the 6th got lumped in with it.
I think it will be tough race in ‘08, along with the 2nd, and neither Chris Murphy and Joe Courtney are shoo-ins.
The overarching theme of the 2008 election is going to be anti-incumbentism, and this disfavors Murphy and Courtney because they both are now part of the machine down in Washington.
But this anti-incumbentism theme goes beyond partisanship. It opens the door for success by republicans and democrats who credibly campaign against the status quo, which people are tired of.
Gabe,
That’s the way questions happen in the news business. They get refined. The only unanswered question is: Are you intellectually honest enough to put the question to Murphy? Here it is again: Will Murphy pledge not to accept campaign contributions from interest groups whose fate he, as a legislator, may have a hand in shaping? No bar prevented Chris Shays, the sponsor of campaign finance reform in the US House, where Murphy also serves, from taking a pledge not to accept contributions from the people he would be regulating. A pledge of that kind would be a token of Murphy’s sincerity. How do you know, without asking him, that he would not accept the challenge? Why not give it a try? I’d be the first to pat you on the back if you got from him an honest answer to an honest question that your pertinant objections had a hand in forming. Intellectually honest enough for you?
J Bailey,
In a couple of years you may be right about anti-incumbentism.
When Chris and Joe have a few terms behind them they may have to face that.
But this year in the end it will come down to how much damage George Bush has done to this country. Anyone associated with the Bush including the “I torture too” reublican candiates will not do well this coming year in CT.
So, no, huh?
Is that like the $95,000 in PAC money he received just this year from the finance, insurance and real esate industries he oversees on the Financial Services Committee?
Or the PAC money he got this year from the Federal Employees Association, whose work he oversees on the Oversight and Government Reform Committee (along with endless numbers of others that have an interest in government)?
Or his donations from defense industry PACs with an interest in the work of the Homeland Security Committee?
Or any of the thousand of other individuals and PACs who had a direct interest in the thousands of floor votes he’s taken over his career?
Once again, do you have any idea what you’re talking about? Any claim to credibility? Any shred of honesty? I’d pat you on the head if you could demonstrate any. Please get back to us on that.
Again, this post is about the sleazy, dishonest, and evidence-free smear tactics of the GOP. In response, you’ve been demonstrating these tactics over and over again, while shifting your language and questions in a particularly sloppy and incomprehensible way.
[quote post="1214"]That’s the way questions happen in the news business. They get refined.[/quote]
So this is how the “news” business works, huh?
First you make a bunch of stuff up to ask your political opponent an “embarrassing” question (to distract from something that doesn’t make your side look good).
When people point out that you, in fact, made up an entire system of campaign finance from whole cloth, you change the “question,” and the entire subject of the point you were initially making.
No matter what, you never acknowledge that you were initially wrong (or disingenuous) with your facts, and you never acknowledge that the question has, in fact, changed.
As people continue to point out that you have no idea what you are talking about, get more and more condescending.
Do I have that right, Don? Damn, you must be the best journalist of all time!!!
Oh, and, I’m with MikeCT, directly above.
[quote post="1214"]Chris Shays, took the same pledge a few campaigns ago and, as far as I know, has kept to it. [/quote]
“As far as I know” is an interesting turn of phrase, no? It largely depends on how willfully ignorant the person using it has kept themselves…
Gabe,
None of us are omnicient, but you certainly have the resourses to check up on it. You can get back to me on it at the same time you get pack to me on the question concerning Murphy’s sincerity.
“That’s the way questions happen in the news business. They get refined.”
Refined means improved. Improved means changed. Man, you sure don’t know how to take a compliment. I think I did mention that your comments were pertinent. So, we have a different question. Answer it.
MikeCT checked on it above already and it turned out, in a big shock to all of us, that you had your facts wrong.
But that’s what happens when you make stuff up to fit your worldview, rather than taking teh Google out for a spin and maybe learning something.
But above all:
[quote post="1214"]No matter what, you never acknowledge that you were initially wrong (or disingenuous) with your facts, and you never acknowledge that the question has, in fact, changed.[/quote]
Gabe,
Don’t think that’s an answer to my question, but have a nice day.
The original poster Genghis Conn has yet to respond to my questions which are:
1, Why is a race only “nasty” when it looks like the Republican nominee seems competitive? I have always wondered why the degree of so called “nastiness” has a direct correlation to the Republican candidate’s chances — or at least visibility.
2, I agree with your main premise that there is no “there” there but what about the general principal of sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander?
3, Why is it NOT dishonest for Murphy and his liberal supporters to come up with these new ethical standards than respond with “No fair hitting a girl” when the new Republicans hold the same standards to your boy (which he invented) in which he bashed Nancy Johnson with? Its just seems to me very un-manly for Murphy to be playing the victim here when he was bashing Nancy a year ago with the same non-issue.
4, Murphy took the money as far as I am concerned — or no? Set me straight on this issue. I say there is no moral differentiation between taking a “pledge” and taking the actual money. Saying otherwise is like saying if a hooker sells her body and her John swindles out of her fee than she isn’t a prostitute.
5, Can you point me in the direction of a post you made defending Republican Simmons exactly and precisely how you are defending this liberal Democrat Murphy now?
6, How can you blame the new Republican candidates for employing the same political strategy against the new liberal incumbents that worked for these liberals a year ago? How is that unfair?
7, Sauce for the goose is sauce is sauce for the gander? Or is the issue far more nuanced than my simple brain can handle?
* * *
Chris Shays riding in on the Pegasus.
LMAO
Oh what a picture that plants in my mind. Someone has GOT to ink up that illustration. I do think that’s how he sees himself. I wish I had the talent to do it myself.
[quote post="1214"]Don’t think that’s an answer to my question, but have a nice day.[/quote]
You are the only person left who knows what your question is and I don’t work for Murphy, so you have a nice day too. Don’t research stuff too hard, okay?
Here it is again, new,refined, better, the question that Gabe id too timid to put to Murphy: Will Murphy pledge not to accept campaign contributions from interest groups whose fate he, as a legislator, may have a hand in shaping?
A yes to the question — Shays previously took the pledge — would convince all doubters that Murphy is serious about campaign finance reform.
Gabe, we are not dealing in thumbscrews here. It’s a friggin question. Stop pretending you don’t understand what it means. It means what it says. It asks Murphy to make a committment to abide by the same ethical rules he supports imposing on others.
I quite understand why you don’t want to answer the question. But Murphy is a big guy; his answer might surprise both of us.
I’ve closely examined this statement, and it’s free of intellectual… whatever you called it.
Also, if the question has not been put to him yet — and I don’t think it has — googling won’t help. I’m relying on your insider status to drop the question on his plate. You seems to know what he thinks about everything, and if ehe had answered the question in the past, I’m sure you would have nmentioned his reply by now. Nice playing dodgeball with’ya.
Don,
I’m going to put this as simply as possible. I don’t care about the question you are asking now, I only piped in because your original (or two or three) question was moronic and left the impression that Murphy voted for public financing and then refused to use it. Someone who was ignorant of the facts (and by this I mean actually ignorant, not willfully ignorant) might think that this was the case and not that public financing doesn’t exist in federal races (a fact that would have been painfully clear had you spent even three seconds thinking or researching before blathering).
Your changing the question three hundred times (without actually acknowledging that your original question was, to be charitable, ill-informed) isn’t going to get anyone (except you) interested in the answer, it just highlights the duplicity of Republican campaign attacks against Murphy.
Also, given the link provided by MikeCT above, I would stop bringing Shays up, because if he took such a pledge (your latest one, not the original, impossibly mythical one), then he is violating the heck out of it by taking buckets money from people he is allegedly regulating. I’m sure he appreciates the publicity though.
BTW, thanks for making me chuckle with this:
[quote post="1214"]Stop pretending you don’t understand what it means. It means what it says. [/quote]
It has said six different things!
[quote post="1214"]I’ve closely examined this statement, and it’s free of intellectual… whatever you called it.[/quote]
Well, its free of something, you got that.
I’m going to watch the Giants.
That’s a “No” then.
Don,
Oh, I get it now! You don’t care what he says (pledging to support public financing of campaigns, a comprehensive reform that would get all special interest money out of politics, something he’s already done in Connecticut). You want to know what he says (pledging to support whatever harebrained, arbitrary demands that eventually spring out of the head of a Republican non-constituent like you).
As a Congressman, just which individuals or interest groups have a fate that he does not have a hand in shaping? Can you name anyone in the country who is not affected or regulated in some way by the federal government? So he can’t accept any private contributions and he can’t have any public financing. Who could fail to be the first in the country to take a pledge like that?
I’m embarrassed to continue engaging with your Tourette’s-like, infantile behavior, but it is pretty humorous.
“As a Congressman, just which individuals or interest groups have a fate that he does not have a hand in shaping? Can you name anyone in the country who is not affected or regulated in some way by the federal government? So he can’t accept any private contributions and he can’t have any public financing. Who could fail to be the first in the country to take a pledge like that?”
I partially agree with you and have opposed campaign finance reform in the past precisely for other reasons. The point however is not what I support; I’m not a state or US Representative. Mr. Murphy is. Moreover, as a state representative, Mr. Murphy helped pass a state public financing law. The point you make here also applies to state government, and it applied to state government even at the time Mr. Murphy was helping to shape a campaign finance reform bill that will, according to a fairly comprehensive piece in the Record Journal — http://www.zwire.com/site/tab1.cfm?newsid=18724719&BRD=2755&PAG=461&dept_id=592709&rfi=6, fully take effect in 2008.
The campaign finance law favored by Mr. Murphy, had it been enacted when he achieved office, presumably would prevent incumbents like Mr. Murphy from raising in his first three months in office nearly $420,000, “the most ever,” according to the National Democratic Campaign Committee, “by Connecticut a congressman.”
In the next 15 months, Mr. Murphy is expected to raise $3 million, “500,000 more, according to the Record Journal, “than he raised to unseat Republican Nancy Johnson, a 24-year incumbent.”
This is sort of what I meant when I said the Mr. Murphy was no better or worse than the average politician, and that he had inherited Johnson’s kingdom.
That kingdom involves hefty contributions from PACs. According to the Record report, Mr. Murphy’s PACs include “PACs for insurance companies Aetna and St. Paul Travelers, investment houses Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs and groups as diverse as the National Rural Letter Carriers’ Association and the National Beer Wholesalers Association. He said he won’t take money from tobacco or pharmaceutical groups, and he returned $500 from Boehringer-Ingleheim, a large pharmaceutical company with operations in Ridgefield.”
So far, according to the Record Journal report, only 2 PAC’s have contributed to the campaign of Mr. Murphy’s Republican opponent. Can anyone guess why? According to the Record Journal report, in the first three months of his campaign, Cappiello “who launched his campaign in late April, raised $198,000 in less than three months. All but $13,000 of that came from individual donations, although two of the individuals identified themselves as lobbyists.
“When Murphy ran last year, 77 percent of his donations were from individuals, but this year it is less than 57 percent. PACs make most of the difference, a common advantage for incumbents.”
Mr. Murphy himself regards the disparity in fundraising between himself and Mr. Cappiello as “a tragedy.”
I assume – correct me, please, if I’m wrong – that Mr. Murphy regards such disparities as a tragedy because he favors a system of campaign financing in which incumbent politicians need not prostitute themselves by accepting money from organization they will have a hand in regulating.
So the question arises: How can Mr. Murphy alleviate the pangs of remorse he is forced to feel because he must wait until 2008 for the reforms he has had a hand in creating to click in.
Since you don’t like my suggestion, perhaps you and Gabe can get together to come up with some other idea to assuage Mr. Murphy’s conscience.
Mr. Cappiello, according to the Record Journal report, opposes public financing of campaigns, as I do. However he would support a law that would ban contributions from Pacs. Personally, I thing that law would be stuck down bt the courts.
However, why not a pledge to voluntarily refuse PAC contributions?
Just want to pass that one under your nose to see how you feel about it. If you agree this might help keep Shays and Murphy and other incumbents above the PAC water, could you please mention it, at the first opportunity, to Mr. Murphy?
Don,
I think this is the fifth shift in your arguments and questions, but at least you’ve asked a reasonable and understandable question this time. It’s ironic, however, when opponents of public financing express moral outrage that Democrats are accepting funds from PACs and wealthy individuals. Here’s one explanation of why banning PACs would not really be helpful, and an implicit argument for the necessity of public financing.
And on this point:
Unfortunately, you still don’t seem to know what you’re talking about. He’s not waiting for anything. There is no public financing for Congressional candidates in 2008, 2009, or 2010.
Mike,
Guess you missed it. A VOLUNTARY agreement on the part of candidates not to accept PAC money need not rely on a law forbidding it. If I believed in laws prohibiting funding, which I do not, I would argue that the present Bill should be expanded to include federal offices. And if that were not possible, I would argue that that political parties should adopt an across the board rule prohibiting Pac funding. But VOLUNTARY means VOLUNTARY. These are not shifts in arguments,; they are honest attempts to solve a problem that torchers the soul of Mr. Murphy. Why suffer when remedies — if we could agree on them — are available?
In 2008 the campaign finance law Mr. Murphy was pushing when he was in the state legislature will apply to other state offices. The entire program will be VOLUNTARY. So, what the problem with Mr. Murphy taking a pledge not to accept PAC funds, provided his opponent does the same?
Don,
For the eighth time, you are either unintentionally incoherent, or you have no idea what you’re talking about, or both. The campaign finance law passed by the Connecticut General Assembly applies to candidates for the General Assembly and state constitutional offices. Not Congressional candidates.
I just explained why a ban on PACs would be ineffective and largely meaningless, whether such a ban is voluntary or not. I explained that public financing is the only meaningful comprehensive reform. Which Murphy supports. Enough. Good night.
So you’re saying that Murphy should pledge not to take PAC funds, which is the pledge that Chris Shays took.
..
..
..
..
..
It also appears that you believe refusing to take PAC money is the same as public financing, and that non-legislative state offices of any sort will be on the ballot in 2008.
I think you are well beyond saving, friend.
No, no I’m saying that if Mr. Murphy is concerned about the baleful effects of PAC money, he can arrange with his opponant to VOLUNTARILY refuse to accept PAC money. The result, since his opponent already has agreed to forgo PAC money if Mr. Murphy does the same, will be far less tragic than the present course Mr. Murphy has settled on. That’s what I’m saying. But I’m open to any suggestion from your quarter that would relieve Mr. Murphy’s anxiety. I really do think you get it.
Matt,
Most public financing schemes contain a provision of this sort, from the news story cited above: ” Participation is voluntary, but candidates who take the money are barred from accepting further donations and from spending more than they’ve received.” The money is supplied by the general public. The purpose of publically financed campaigns is to reduce the influence of special interests and PACs. But you know that, don’t you? If Mr. Murphy supported these initiatives at the state level — and he did — it should not be troubesome for him to agree to VOLUNTARILY eschew PAC donations, provided his political opponant does the same. If you have a better idea to prevent the undue influence exerted on campaigns by organized political interests, I suggest you share it will all the folk here who ardently supported public financing until Mr. Murphy inherited Mrs. Johnson’s kingdom and are now having second thoughts.
Maybe you could characterize the pledge that Chris Shays took, so I (as well as any Murphy staffers who are snickering on the sidelines of this thread) might more easily understand what exactly you’d like to have Congressman Murphy do.
I thought I had a grasp on what you were saying with respect to PAC donations, until you brought public financing – which does not currently exist for the U.S. House – back up again.
So once more, maybe you could point to the pledge that Congressman Shays took, so we can all have some clarity on just what is a position one might take that would satisfy your demands.
Here is a quote from the story I am citing that puts the matter in a correct perspective: “Murphy is also aware that he’s walking a fine line as a self-labeled reformer who’s also living under an existing set of rules. There’s a tension, he said, about not being able to unilaterally disarm.” The idea, surely, is to settle upon an arrangement that relieves Mr. Murphy’s tension without giving an insuperable advantage to his opponent. If you’ve got a better idea, let’s hear it. If Gabe has a better idea, he has a platform to launch it from.
I’m not sure about Shays. I think at some point he agreed to some self imposed limitations. His PAC donations are about 26% of his total donations. I don’t know what the ratio in Mr. Murphy’s case would be. Perhaps you can tell us. That aside, there are some questions here for you that you haven’t answered. If you read these last few remaks attentively, I think you can guess what I’m getting at. No one — not even the Supreme Court — would object to voluntary limits on campaign contributions. If PACs are the problem, any two political opponents can come to an amicable and voluntary agreement to limit or eliminate them. Similar agreement can be made that affect the size and distribution of campaign funds. The state program for public financing, fully operational 2008, is voluntary. A federal programs must also be voluntary to satisfy the courts. No law prevent Mr. Murphy and Mr Cappiello from the Voluntary agreement I am suggesting — not demanding; I am not in a position to make demands. If you have a better suggestion, put it out here. This is pretty much as clear as I can make it. Personally, I am against all forms of campaign finance restrictions. But Mr. Murphy, you and Gabe apparently are not. My suggestions are an attempt to give you what you want: campaigns free of undue influence by monied interests. It is you who should be proposing a settlement, not me.
One
Two
Three
What pledge did Shays take? Or were you simply making shit up and hoping nobody called you on it?
Matt,
Will you press Murphy to make a voluntary arrangement with his opponent to restrict PAC money, or are you just dodging the question?
Shays I think took a dollar amout pledge. The point is 1) He was a House member, 2) his pledge was voluntary, and 3) there is nothing to prevent Mr. Murphy to make a voluntary arrangment with his opponent that will effectively impose on himself reasonable restriction on PAC money, which he has deplored.
Shay’s PAC ratio was 28.2% in his last election; Murphy’s was 22% in his first election.
I’ll write Murphy a letter asking him to co-sponsor public campaign finance legislation when you give me a link to Shays’ “pledge,” which I’m keenly interested in seeing.
Uh-huh. He can co-sponsor till the moon drops out of the sky. That’s paperwork; your nemisis Shays is famous for that. No,no Matt, no deal. I want him to arrange privately with his political opponent to forgo campaign funding from PACs. That would be an indication of his seriousness in controling campaign funding. Shays is not important in this; though if he were serious about campaign finance reform, he would make the same pledge. Here’s the deal: You write a letter to Mr. Murphy pleading with him to voluntarily forgo Pac donations — if his opponent is willing to do the same, and I’ll write the same note to Shays. Okay? And then we’ll post the responses, if any, right here. Deal?
So you’re bullshitting on Shays’ pledge, is what you’re saying?
No, I just know a bad deal when I see it. Shays/Meeham, McCain/Feingold is the principle campaign reform financing bill in Congress. Do you think the fact that the bill was co-authored in the House by Shays means that special interests have now been routed? A national bill to provide public financing of campaigns, very likely unconstitutional, will not route them either. Look Matt, its real simple. If Murphy wants to puify his campaigns so that special interests do not grab hold of his tail and drag him into Hell, he can do this by pledging, at the very least, not to accept, campaign cotributions from PACs, provided his opponent does the same. I know you don’t like PACs, because I read your comment above. That is what I am suggesting, and that is what you and others on this site are pretending not to understand. So go ahead, be intellectually dishonest if you like. It’s still a free country.
[quote post="1214"]So go ahead, be intellectually dishonest if you like. [/quote]
My head just exploded.
You must log in to post a comment.