My head just exploded.

Will you press Murphy to make a voluntary arrangement with his opponent to restrict PAC money, or are you just dodging the question?

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.

Two

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.

Three

A yes to the question — Shays previously took the pledge — would convince all doubters that Murphy is serious about campaign finance reform.

What pledge did Shays take? Or were you simply making shit up and hoping nobody called you on it?

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.

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.

..

..

..

..

..

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

Banning PAC contributions alone, while leaving individual contributions untouched, will not reduce the disparity of political influence between large donors, small donors, and non-donors. In fact, it may increase this disparity, particularly between individual corporate contributors and individual labor contributors. Although corporate PAC money far outweighs labor PAC money — at both the federal and state levels — more corporate money comes in the form of large individual contributions than in the form of PAC contributions; whereas almost none of labor’s money comes as large contributions. If candidates cannot accept PAC money but still need to raise large sums of campaign money, they will likely depend even more on large individual contributors, many of whom will represent the same monied interests previously represented by corporate PAC contributors. … [In] most federal races, and even more so in most state races, PAC contributions account for much less money than do contributions from wealthy individuals. Because it is much easier to determine the economic and ideological interests of PAC contributors than those of individual contributors — disclosure requirements being more rigorous for PACs and there being far fewer PAC contributors than individual contributors to identify — banning PAC contributions will make campaign finance analysis much more difficult. Serious questions have been raised about the constitutionality of banning PAC contributions.

And on this point:

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.

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.

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?