GOP Files Complaint, WFP Says It Followed The Law
by Hugh McQuaid | Jun 28, 2011 5:00am
(6) Comments | Commenting has expired
Posted to: Election 2010, Legal
The Connecticut Republican Party filed a complaint Friday alleging that the Working Families Party broke state and federal election laws by making illegal monetary transfers to the campaigns of several state officers before last year’s elections.
The complaints, which were filed with state and federal election commissions, said the Working Families Party illegally gave money to the campaigns of Gov. Dannel P. Malloy, Attorney General George Jepsen, Treasurer Denise Nappier, Comptroller Kevin Lembo, and Secretary of the State Denise Merrill.
According to a Republican Party statement, the transfers were filed as “coordinated with reimbursement sought,” but the money was never reimbursed.
“The Working Families Party has been long known to be a hollow organization which merely exists to prop up Democrats by funneling money to liberal candidates,” said Republican State Party Chairman Chris Healy. “It appears the WFP doesn’t believe it has to play by the same rule.”
However, correspondence between the Connecticut Working Families Party and the state Elections Enforcement Commission shows that the party had reached out in advance to the commission for guidance on how to proceed with a petition drive. In a written response dated August 11, the SEEC said that in some cases the money does not require reimbursement back to the WFP.
The party also requested information on how it should go about properly filing when some of its petition contained the names of more than one candidate and the already-complicated rules become more complex when candidates who receive public financing are thrown into the mix.
Different campaign finance rules apply when a candidate is receiving public campaign funds. One such rule dictates that campaigns receiving public funds are restricted from transferring funds to another party.
So the party asked how it could split the costs of a consultant between five candidates who would by law be required to reimburse a percentage of the money if some of the candidates weren’t permitted to transfer the funds back.
To avoid that Catch-22 the SEEC recommended the campaign pay the percentage to the consultant who would then reimburse the party.
“In other words, in the scenario in which there are five candidates on the petition, 20 percent of the total expenditure would be attributable to each candidate, regardless of whether the expense is reimbursed by the candidate committee to the WFP state committee and reported as a payment to another committee or the expense is not reimbursed by the candidate committee and instead is reported as an organizational expenditure of the party for the benefit of the candidate,” SEEC Legal Compliance Director Shannon Clark Kief wrote.
Kief noted that the opinion was an informal one and not an official declaration by the commission.
Connecticut Working Families Party Executive Director Jon Green called the Republican statement “classic sour grapes.” He said that the Healy and the Republican Party are bitter about poor results last year.
“It’s no surprise that Healy is lashing out at the end of his term as GOP chair,” he said. “The facts in this case are clear: In 2010, the WFP sought the advice of the State Election Enforcement Commission regarding a planned petition drive to place statewide candidates on the ballot. We received clear instruction from the SEEC, initially verbally and subsequently in writing. The WFP carefully followed that instruction and complied with the letter and the spirit of the law.”
Healy’s statement further alleged the Working Families Party made $30,000 worth of transfers to the Connecticut Working Families Federal PAC D/b/a Take Back Congress, which never appeared on the Federal Elections Commission report on the PAC’s income.
Green said that money was for shared expenses.
“The Working Families State Committee reimbursed our federal committee for the appropriate share of general staff expenses, which is legal and reasonable. One thing we don’t spend our limited resources on is frivolous complaints to smear political opponents,” he said.
According to the party’s filings with the SEEC, the group made five payments to the federal PAC over the past year totaling a little over $23,000. Many of the payments were listed as “reimbursement for staff services/payroll” and all were marked with a purpose code of “POC,” which the state’s campaign laws define as including expenses “for the cost of the salaries of the other committee’s salaried employees who were loaned to the committee, etc.”
Tags: campaign finance, election enforcement, Working Families Party, Republican Party, Healy, Hugh McQuaid
(6) Comments
posted by: oliviahuxtable | June 28, 2011 6:55am
Working Families Party—-PLEASE. The people they support—“liberal democrats”—care nothing about the real working families in CT. They care about electing politicians who can then help them…one hand washes the other. They are NO different in ideology than the Republicans. Both Democrats and Republicans have abandoned the middle class. They have begun an assault on the working families all over the country. Only difference is the dems will pretend to care for you, while screwing you in the end.
posted by: CT Jim | June 28, 2011 9:24am
Been trying to figure out for a while if Olivia is some concerned citizen or as is plain and simple a republican hack set out by the party to fill the comment isle. Once a hack always a hack. You should change you name now because your becoming irrelevant.
posted by: Tessa Marquis | June 28, 2011 1:45pm
While the SEEC isn’t flawless, it seems like Working Families Party asked for, and then followed, the SEEC directions. That is all you can do with matters like this.
Healy is irrelevant.
WFP is the winner for the past few years: their endorsed candidates get elected and they were the impetus behind the successful passage of Paid Sick Leave, which made CT a national leader.
posted by: skydogct | June 28, 2011 1:48pm
“Sour grapes” is an understatement. While the rest of the US was turning red in the last election, Republicans got their butts whupped in CT. So now they lash out at the WFP? It’s true; the WFP did make the difference in the Gov.’s race. The real question is how many Republicans voted WFP because they don’t recognize their party anymore since the radicals hijacked it. They can’t bring themselves to vote Democratic so the WFP is a good alternative. The Republican Party in CT is in disarray but’s outgoing leader would rather try to blame a 3rd party for its demise rather than to take responsibility.
Re OliviaH: You obviously know nothing about the WFP. There isn’t a group in CT that has done more for working families since it burst on the scene 6 years ago. They are tireless in their pursuit of issues that benefit ordinary people. They were the driving force in passing paid sick days and support issues such as living wage jobs and fair taxation. They are fearless in the face of corporate pressure that buckles many Dems. The fact that they’ve now become a target of the right points to their growth.
posted by: ASTANVET | June 28, 2011 2:48pm
CT Working Families Party… How is it possible to have candidates run for office, and be listed on a ballot twice for the same office. I.e. the WFP’s running of Democrat candidates on the same ballot. The next election I wonder if the GOP candidate can run as a democrat, independent and WFP candidate. Something just doesn’t seem legal… am I the only one with that question?
posted by: ASTANVET | June 28, 2011 3:26pm
Working Family Party (progressive candidates) their charter or values are the following
“We’re fighting to bring back the American Dream, and we want you to join us.”
Good Jobs.
Lets not forget that the “dangerous mortgages” and “predatory credit cards” were started as a means by the federal government to give more “opportunity” to the disadvantaged lower and middle class…it was the “American dream” that we needed to subsidize. Now that those people engaged in risky loans they knew they couldn’t pay, it cascaded into the free fall of bad loans and a federal guarantee. Sooooo… who do we need to protect ourselves from again??? It was government intervention that unrealistically propped up their mandated unstable loans to a population they wanted to “help”. Good job, way to go to the well again!!!
Fair Taxes.
It’s time to put that baby to bed… the rich (which I am not) pay a disproportionate portion of taxes than the middle or lower classes. The State and the Country have RECORD revenue. This isn’t a revenue problem, it is a spending problem. I do agree that we pay WAY too much in taxes, but my solution is to cut programs and cut spending. How “fair” is it to take money from earners to support programs for those who do not pay taxes at all? Flat tax would be “Fair”…as it would require us ALL to pay! That’s fair, not this arbitrary line that you draw on who is too wealthy. That’s just straight out wealth re-distribution which is to vilify success, and reward those who do not aspire for success.
Paid Sick Days.
I personally love this one (sarcasm)… this is to say that we don’t have free will, or the freedom of choice. For those who have a job that doesn’t have paid sick days, maybe they could make a choice to enter a job, or career that has them. I think it is irrational for us to assume that these outcomes don’t come from personal choices and a manifestation of the decisions you make throughout your life…or maybe it’s a kid who is working their way through college who doesn’t really “need” sick days. Either way, all you are doing is forcing an employer to pay for non-productivity. Who do you think pays for that??? Consumes through higher costs and a lack of productivity…additionally, maybe those employers will think twice before they hire… but that’s just a guess.
Affordable healthcare.
If this is a huge issue (which it is) why are they not talking about free market solutions, loosening the artificial restrictions on inter-state competition, why are they not talking about tort reform? Again, another flawed solution to a real problem. But I’m sure they can pin it on the “evil” businesses and those dang tax cheating doctors, how dare they taunt me with their Porsche!
Quality Schools.
Ok, so what does the Federal or State department of education actually produce as far as the quality of education within the state????? Anyone??? Throwing money which is filtered through the fed and state management is ridiculous. Since the inception of the Dept of Education under Jimmy Carter US test scores have steadily dropped every year. When are people going to wake up and take responsibility at the community level. That is where the solutions are. Responsibility to parents, to educators and to administrators of actual SCHOOLS – perhaps it is time for municipalities to manage their own schools, defund the state Dept of Ed, and use that money to ensure you hire good teachers, that students are able to choose… stay in school or face the consequences in life. You can’t force someone to learn… you can’t administer that from the state level and expect that taking funding from Greenwich and giving it to Bridgeport is going to fix the problem.
My point through all this is that these are not so cleverly listed values. Words and language that most people find reasonable, however when you get into the consequences and the cause and effect of most of our state and national crisis there is usually a “good idea” behind it. If you want to “bring back the American Dream” you must cut back on regulations, get out of the way of free markets and go back to what Ben Franklin used to say. “as long as your actions do not infringe on my life, liberty or property” The WFP is a direct assault on my liberty and my property through excessive taxation to pay for their “good ideas”…