Common Cause Blog

Of Hot Tubs and Kitchen Countertops

Tue, 27 Jan 2009 16:33:03 GMT

It's good to be a politician in Connecticut. After all, elected officials get all kinds of perks: lavish dinners paid for by lobbyists, flights on corporate jets, free hot tubs, and allegedly, work on your kitchen counter and bathroom by a city contractor even if you haven't secured funding or permits yet. But what? You say - this isn't "Corrupticut" anymore! Governor Rowland went to jail and Connecticut has embarked on a new era of clean government! Well, apparently the Mayor of Hartford didn't get that memo. Mayor Perez, of Hartford, CT, has been arrested this morning on charges of two counts of bribery, and one count each of fabricating evidence and the conspiracy to fabricate evidence, all having to do with a $20,000 home renovation performed by a city contractor in 2007.

To be fair, Mayor Perez has only been charged - not convicted, and we don't know yet whether it will be determined that he has actually broken the law. However, there is an obvious appearance of impropriety here, which elected officials are supposed to avoid. It is disturbing that Mayor Perez hired a city contractor to work on his private residence, even if the work was properly paid for at fair market value. The courts and the city council will work out whether Mayor Perez needs to be punished for these things, but it is obvious that Connecticut is still in danger of retaining the "Corrupticut" moniker. The State Legislature, in response to issues with the Rowland administration, passed the Citizen's Election Program. Part of the program included the ability for municipalities to participate in the program. The Hartford City Council would be wise to take this as an opportunity to look at public financing of Hartford's municipal elections, not only to make sure that Hartford elects leaders without a taint of corruption, but also to help rehabilitate the image of the city.

Maine Republicans endorse public financing

Wed, 17 Dec 2008 00:16:36 GMT

A group of elected Republicans from Maine penned an op-ed over the weekend in support of public financing for federal races -- using their own state as the first good example. Maine has used a voluntary, comprehensive public financing system for state races since 2000, and this past year 85% of the winning candidates used public funds rather than private contributions to run for office:

Cleaning up is hard to do

Tue, 25 Nov 2008 19:54:15 GMT

When Connecticut Common Cause helped to get the Citizens Elections Program passed in Connecticut, we always expected enemies of clean election reform to try and raid the fund. What we didn't expect to see was Leaders who helped pass the reform vote to use the fund as their own personal ATM machine. Yet last night law makers voted overwhelmingly to raid $5 million from the Citizen Elections Fund to help address the looming budget crisis here.

There were other options. $25 million in unclaimed bottle deposits could have been claimed instead. However, lobbyists for the beverage companies moved quickly to influence legislators and save the $25 million to line the pockets of the companies they represent. Instead, they took the untainted Citizen Election Funds that are designed to clean up Connecticut elections.

While the $5 million taken from the Citizens Election Fund represents 0.27% of the overall $18.4 billion budget, it is a major hit for the Citizen Elections Program itself. This program was created in order to remove the taint of corruption from Connecticut politics and restore public trust in their elected officials. How can trust be restored when Leaders who helped pass this program vote to raid it at the first opportunity?

As the old saying goes . . . if you're not outraged, you're not paying attention.

Connecticut's public financing program already making big waves

Fri, 24 Oct 2008 00:33:27 GMT

Small donors and public funding are powering 75% of the candidates running for state legislature in Connecticut this year. It's the first year of the state's new Citizens' Elections Program, and that's a fantastic start. The New York Times took note of this exciting progress today:

The big story about public financing of campaigns nationally has been Barack Obama's decision to opt out of the national system. But what's unfolding in Connecticut may end up being far more influential.

What's unfolding? Three-quarters of the candidates are not relying on wealthy donors and special interest money to run for office. They're raising small contributions, and those contributions are amplified by public funds to give them enough to run a competitive race -- which means elected officials who aren't accountable to wealthy campaign donors but to regular voters and small donors.

Connecticut's initial success is remarkable; the Times acknowledges, "Connecticut's initial experience has exceeded the expectations of even its most enthusiastic supporters." Yet the media have been largely missing or distorting this demand for reform around the country.

Himes, Shays agree on support for public financing

Mon, 20 Oct 2008 21:51:13 GMT

In a closely contested race in Connecticut, incumbent Rep. Chris Shays (R) and challenger Jim Himes (D) agreed yesterday that changing the way we pay for our elections is critical:

During that rare light moment, they agreed that public financing needs to be adopted for congressional campaigns to prevent the proliferation of lobbyists, political action committees and special interests who this year are making Connecticut's tight 4th District race one of the most-expensive in the country.

Perhaps it has something to do with the dramatic initial success of the Connecticut Citizens Elections public financing program, which began this year. In addition, last week, we sent a letter to every congressional candidate and asked them to sign the Voters First Pledge.

As the nation faces its worst financial crisis since the Great Depression, now is the time for bold reforms to both the financial and political systems. Wall Street and powerful financial interests should not be funding campaigns for Congress if we want a political system that truly works for the American people.

The time is long overdue for members of Congress to do what the majority of Americans now know they should do: Make genuine reform of campaign finance a top legislative priority in 2009.

Himes and Shays need to make it official that they're on board -- you can see the signers here -- but it's great that this important reform issue entered their debate in its final weeks.

The one good investment

Fri, 19 Sep 2008 18:25:30 GMT

USA Today points out what was perhaps the only good investment in this whole economic mess: the banking industry's $170 million to lobby Washington and fund lawmakers' political campaigns over two decades, which is now paying off with a multi-hundred billion dollar taxpayer bailout of Wall Street.

Buying justice?

Tue, 09 Sep 2008 17:02:48 GMT

Over the weekend, the New York Times ran a editorial on a topic that often gets overlooked but is quickly becoming a major concern for a host of public interest organizations that count on judicial fairness: the megabucks flowing into judicial elections from special interests. The most egregious example recently, that the Times highlights, was the CEO of a major coal company bankrolling a state Supreme Court justice's electoral campaign, and then the justice turning around and casting the deciding vote to vacate a $50 million verdict against the CEO's company.

the deciding vote was cast by Justice Brent Benjamin. He refused to recuse himself despite the $3 million that Mr. Blankenship spent to get him elected.

Judicial neutrality and the appearance of neutrality are basic elements of due process. Not every contribution to a judicial campaign triggers due process concerns significant enough to require recusal, but Mr. Blankenship's outsized campaign expenditures surely did.

Across the country, state courts are drowning in a sea of special-interest campaign money. The American Bar Association has good standards for judicial recusal, which nearly every state court system and the federal judiciary have adopted.

Unfortunately, compliance is spotty. Situations like the Massey Energy case create an unmistakable impression that justice is for sale.

I'm no money manager, but I'm pretty sure that the $50 million, a 1,667% return on $3 million invested in campaign contributions, is what you'd call a "good return on your investment."

Unless you're invested in a healthy democracy and a fair, impartial judicial system. Then you'd just call that absurd and senseless and you'd push for public financing of judicial races, as we're doing.