Social Networks We Use

Categories

CT Tech Junkie Feed

Connecticut Consumers to Begin Receiving E-Book Settlement Refunds
Mar 25, 2014 4:09 pm
Connecticut residents will start receiving refund checks or credits this week for e-books purchased between April 1,...more »
Like New Jersey, Direct Retail Sales of Tesla Automobiles Not Allowed in Connecticut
Mar 19, 2014 12:24 pm
The Connecticut Department of Energy & Environmental Protection is co-sponsoring a contest for the auto dealership...more »

Our Partners

˜

OP-ED | Democrats Should Rethink Their Embrace of Big Money

by Susan Bigelow | Dec 6, 2013 9:49am
(5) Comments | Commenting has expired
Posted to: Opinion

istock

There used to be a time when Connecticut Democrats spoke about getting the money out of politics. That doesn’t happen so much these days, as this week’s eye-popping fundraising numbers illustrate.

First, it turned out that to get a seat at a breakfast featuring Gov. Dannel P. Malloy at the Democratic Governors’ Association it would cost you anywhere from $10,000 to $250,000. Then it was revealed that the head of Northeast Utilities was, ah, “suggesting” that top managers support the re-election of the governor by contributing to the state Democratic Party.

None of what the Democrats are doing is actually against the law, of course. The NU managers dutifully sent money to the federal PAC set up by the state party, which is outside the reach of Connecticut’s more stringent campaign finance laws. It’s the sort of thing that makes most people cringe, but there’s nothing technically illegal about it.

Also, charging suckers a lot of money to sit at a table and clap when the politician on stage says something you like is a time-honored tradition, especially when it might buy you a moment’s worth of “access” to said politician or, better, his staff. It’s gaudy and ostentatious, but it’s also legal.

Connecticut Democrats were vaguely supportive of cleaner elections a long time ago, but apparently now that the cash spigot has been turned to high they’re not so interested anymore. Campaign finance rules have been gutted to allow more donations to the state party, and the governor vetoed a bill put on his desk last year that would have forced corporations and other independent groups that run ads to disclose their donors.

This continuing embrace of big money doesn’t particularly surprise me; I don’t have a lot of faith in the political system to do the right thing these days. I am disappointed, though. I used to be a big believer in campaign finance reform, and its power to change politics. When I was young I went door-to-door for a third-party candidate, talking up the rightness of reforming donations and public campaign financing. This was the Rowland era, so it made a lot of sense, but the Democrats buried my candidate in money and people forgot about reform until Rowland messed up so spectacularly that something had to be done. After he was chased from office they finally reformed the laws and everything was much better.

At least, I used to think that was true. But if huge sums of money are flowing both legally and illegally around our restrictions, and if the heads of companies that are intimately tied to the state are encouraging subordinates to donate to the party in charge, and if the governor is taking big trips out of state for fundraisers and charging six figures for the pleasure of interacting with him, then it doesn’t really seem like the place of big money in our politics is any different.

Republicans are angry, of course, but their indignation has a hollow, phony feel to it. Danbury Mayor Mark Boughton, a prospective GOP gubernatorial candidate, shared his indignation in an email to supporters . . . right before he asked them for money. There’s a difference of degree: $10,000 a plate isn’t the same as an email asking for $35. That still may not have been the best choice of fundraising pitches.

In any case, Republicans are stuck with abysmally low fundraising numbers as the state party continues to founder. All of that makes me wonder just what the state Democratic Party is raising all this cash for, especially since Tom Foley is apparently going to use the public financing system this time.

They may be coming around to the idea that the economy is still going to be lousy in 2014, voters are still going to be grouchy, and that whoever Malloy runs against will have a shot at winning if they aren’t some sort of horrible monster, and so the Democrats are going to try throwing a lot of money at the race and hope for the best. I actually think they don’t need to do that. They can do just as well with smart politics, outreach to disaffected party activists, and hard work, rather than an avalanche of suspicious money.

Meanwhile, Democrats should step back and realize just how far they’ve fallen. “Yes, but it’s perfectly legal” is a lousy excuse. The party should give back the Northeast Utilities money, and then think about really reforming campaign finance and adding to the law’s safeguards instead of continuing to erode them.

Susan Bigelow is an award-winning columnist and the founder of CTLocalPolitics. She lives in Enfield with her wife and their cats.

Tags: , , , , , ,

Share this story with others.

Share | |

(5) Comments

posted by: Lawrence | December 8, 2013  8:35am

How can write this column without making a reference to Citizens United or private GOP spenders like Thomas Peterffy is beyond me. Your analysis is incomplete almost to the point of being misleading without that context. The campaign fundraising landscaping has dramatically shifted; raise funds or die is the bottom line.

And what do sentences like this mean? “None of what the Democrats are doing is actually against the law, of course.” “It’s the sort of thing that makes most people cringe, but there’s nothing technically illegal about it.” It’s either against the law or it’s not, there’s nothing ‘actually’ or ‘technical’ about it.

posted by: DrHunterSThompson | December 9, 2013  1:36am

Are you communist?

HST

posted by: shocked | December 9, 2013  1:56pm

It is really simple - make govt smaller and less money will flow. The larger govt the higher the $ access charge will be and more the single issue politics/lobbying there will be.  The incentive to move the needle ever so slightly in a huge enterprise it too tempting. That small move is imperceptible to you and me but is millions to the successful lobbyist.

The upside to smaller govt is it gets out of everyone’s lives and provides greater freedom. Both a good things.

posted by: Lawrence | December 9, 2013  10:14pm

Thanks for the 80s Reagan flashback, shocked. Smaller govt. DOES provide greater freedom—for the private sector to screw the average American. This has been proven time and time again over the past half-century.

posted by: LongJohn47 | December 13, 2013  6:20pm

I don’t think Foley’s flirtation with public financing is serious, unless he’s sure that Roveland will come to his aid with millions in dark money. 

And as a former “bundler” for W, Foley should be able to count on major support from the Bush wing of the party.

But CT is hardly a significant target within the larger national context.  And with Tea Party attacks being mounted against authentic Republican conservative Senators like Mitch McConnell and John Cornyn, there are plenty of other places for the establishment patricians to invest.