The campaign camps of Bill Finch, Joe Ganim and Mary-Jane Foster will likely spend combined more than $1 million for the September 16 Democratic primary. What would you do with a cool million bucks? So it begs the question, is public financing of campaigns to weed out the influence of big-money contributors such as what is done for state races worthy of consideration in local races? CT Post reporter Brian Lockhart has more:
“Off the top of my head, it seems like quite a bit of money,” said Arthur Paulson, a professor emeritus of political science at Southern Connecticut University in New Haven.
Then, consider all that green has been raised ahead of the Sept. 16 Democratic primary.
By November’s general election, the various candidates could easily spend well over $1 million in the fight to lead Connecticut’s largest municipality.
Full story here.
[from the CT Post article]
… Finch argued, public campaign-finance reform is not “a panacea.”
“Ernie Newton is facing prison for a second time,” Finch said, referring to the ex-state legislator and Ganim supporter.
Newton’s political career ended in 2005 with a federal prison sentence for public corruption. Then, earlier this year, he was convicted of gaming Connecticut’s public campaign grant system in 2012 during an attempted comeback campaign.
Mr. Mayor, who said publicly financing campaigns is or would be a panacea?
And, if participants who break the rules are caught and brought to justice for violating the agreed-to system, then the system is doing some good, no?
Another point today’s CT Post article raises:
“Bridgeport’s lesser-known mayoral candidates, including Gardner and the GOP’s Enrique Torres, whose party is greatly outnumbered by Democrats, said they would embrace public campaign financing.”
To those who scoffed at this proposal when it was raised earlier this month, what do you think now?
Prior To Fundraiser, Ganim Proposes Public Financing Of Municipal Campaigns, “Money Should Not Buy Elections”
Jennifer Buchanan // Aug 8, 2015 at 12:50 am
Sure, let statewide taxpayers fund this campaign. SMH–irony upon irony upon irony in this idea.
onlyinbridgeport.com/wordpress/prior-to-fundraiser-ganim-proposes-public-financing-of-municipal-campaigns-money-should-not-buy-elections/
Still not a fan of using tax dollars to fund political campaigns. Rather see schools, infrastructure or even, gasp, taxes reduced. In this age of essentially free social media, email blasts, this much $$$ on elections is obscene. Considering it was congress that voted to impose term limits on presidents, it is time for citizens to work for term limits on every elected official. That might be the most effective way to level the “playing” field.
Pete, when this was proposed a month or so ago, I was hopeful it would become a conversation in Bridgeport so qualified individuals interested in getting involved and running for public office would start with a level playing field. As I expected, the naysayers started with their theories as to why it shouldn’t be. The only sensible concern was where the money could be found to fund it. I commented it was a proposal worth exploring for the future. It appears it’s gained the attention of political experts (not politicians), and I hope it takes on a life of its own. It’s been done, New Haven made it happen, and just maybe Bridgeport will be next. To quote you, Pete, “what do you think now?”
What do I think? Same as I thought when it was first proposed:
Good. How about terms limits, too?
I agree with you! There are some who will call me a hypocrite because I served ten terms on the City Council, but it wasn’t an issue then; and I guess I must have been doing a good job or the residents of Brooklawn would have thrown me out in a NY second. But seriously, terms should be limited if only to give others the opportunity to serve. What the limit should be, I don’t know.
Aw Lisa, do not be so hard on yourself, there are some who would simply call you a politician! Twenty years on City Council, very impressive. Very.
This is just another Ganim campaign promise that will cost the taxpayers plenty for which Ganim doesn’t offer a clue as to where the money will come from. The promises just keep on flowing.
Bob, how do you explain the New Haven solution–predating the current Bridgeport mayor’s race? Don’t give Ganim too much credit. 🙂
Pete,
New Haven applied under a state law that sought volunteers. Don’t know how many other cities applied and how it has worked out. But NH applied right after DeStefano went through a grueling governor primary and general election. DeStefano was looking at a mayoral campaign and did not want anything to do with serious fundraising.
By the way, Bridgeport could have done the same but chose to bypass the process.
Thanks for some history and context, Bob.
I for one would like to see Bridgeport try it, especially with open, accountable, transparent state oversight. I know, that’s asking a lot!
It’s a good idea to me, regardless of who raised it and/or his/her motivations. Follow-through? We’ll see.
As for the argument that Bridgeport can’t afford it, there’s an estimated $7 to $9 million in our city budget each year going to ghost positions with benefits. Think we couldn’t squeeze a little seed money for the program out of that?
That this year’s mayor’s race is reportedly going to exceed $1 million in campaign spending begs the question: Is there a better way?
I’d also like a mayoral candidate to propose enforcement of the charter and introducing term limits–two four-year terms for mayor and for every other elected city position.
Taxes are payments to fund what individuals cannot reasonably finance alone that benefits all, and when one person uses the item or service, it does not diminish the benefits to others: paved roads, sidewalks, or police & fire, my neighbor’s house fire does not spread to other houses, for example. Schools, hospitals etc., we all agree to fund and support for the greater good of all. When you want to allocate my share of taxes to help pay for a party I do not support, even if my party has equal access, well it just does not sit right with me. I do not see the benefits to all to allocate tax dollars for elections. Our elected officials spend and are paid with our money, why do we need to give them even more to get themselves elected?
Also, public-financed candidates can still receive special-interest money via PACS, so they get not only our tax dollars, individual donations and PAC money. And we all wonder why elections are so expensive. Give a campaign more money and they will find ways to spend more money.
You go, Pete!!!
I don’t understand how this is “another Ganim campaign promise.” The New Haven solution, if that’s what it is, is a pilot program. Joe Ganim didn’t have anything to do with it.
Personally, I support public financing for all elections from President on down.
However, thus far Joe Ganim’s campaign pretty much boils down to: “I am going to simultaneously cut taxes for everyone and at at the same increase city services for everyone. Oh, and please don’t ask me to explain how I am going to pull this sleight-of-hand off–just trust me.”
So please forgive me if I do not take his current position on public financing very seriously.
OMG, I just agreed with Bob Walsh! 🙂
LOL.
That may be true, but between Steve Auerbach declining to put Bridgeport financial issues on OIB (whether before or after a salad or entree is served) and former Mayor Ganim declining any serious talk about the Grand List, tax levels, budget priorities, etc. (that should be easy for him because Tom Sherwood is still operating in the forest and Joe knows the way); but people, why are the major candidates talking about “financing campaigns” rather than FINANCING THE CITY OF BRIDGEPORT? Time will tell.
Pete might be half right with term limits. The biggest problem I have with the state program is it seems to protect the incumbents. I have never seen a comprehensive analysis of the state program but just on an observational basis since the money is theoretically equalized, an incumbent via the inherent perks has and maintains the upper had therefore it entrenches the status quo.
I know you would never see anything like this but the process should deduct from the grant a certain percent from any incumbent. Then you would have a much more balanced playing field.
Bob,
As it stands, Finch has over 60% of the reported funds raised (I’m estimating $500K/$800K), Ganim about 25%, Foster about 10%.
What about Charlie Coviello? He must have raised enough to buy postage stamps.
Before that, the city’s government must be made to be more responsive to the needs of the people of the city of Bridgeport. The Democratic Town Committee is Democratic in name only and does not adhere to the ideology or policies of the national Democratic Party. According to Wikipedia,
“Democrats support a more progressive tax structure to provide more services and reduce economic inequality by making sure that the wealthiest Americans pay the highest amount in taxes. Democrats support more government spending on social services while spending less on the military. They oppose the cutting of social services, such as Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and various other welfare programs, believing it to be harmful to efficiency and social justice. Democrats believe the benefits of social services, in monetary and non-monetary terms, are a more productive labor force and cultured population, and believe that the benefits of this are greater than any benefits that could be derived from lower taxes, especially on top earners, or cuts to social services. Furthermore, Democrats see social services as essential towards providing positive freedom, i.e. freedom derived from economic opportunity.”
The above certainly doesn’t reflect any of the Finch administration’s policies, or those of Joseph P. Ganim or Mary-Jane Foster, for that matter. Foster benefited from tax abatements during the Ganim era. Giving unbridled tax abatements to well-heeled Gold Coast developers and campaign donors at the expense of Bridgeport’s long-suffering and overburdened middle class does not benefit anyone outside of Bill Finch’s small circle of friends.