Bridgeport attorney Chris Mattei who earned his prosecutor’s stripes investigating public officials says he will not accept donations from lobbyists in his exploratory campaign for governor.
From Mattei:
As you know, our State has a sad history of corruption. Far too many times, the people of our State have been let down by public officials who enriched themselves or their friends at the public’s expense. These actions have diminished the public’s faith in their government, and have impeded our ability to develop sound public policy free from undue influence. These actions have also led to an unfair perception of the many excellent public officials who serve Connecticut.
To help move beyond this history, I have pledged not to take any contributions from lobbyists or raised by lobbyists –and I hope you’ll join me.
Those who are registered to lobby our elected leaders should not also be simultaneously funding the campaigns of those same officials. Lobbyists should not operate under the belief that their contribution today will result in favors in the future. Nor should we allow a situation in which our fellow citizens might question our fidelity to their interests. The best way to prevent even the perception that our government is rigged in favor of the special interests is to reject lobbyists’ donations in the first place.
We have the opportunity to speak in one voice and let Connecticut voters know that we answer to them and them alone–that we will uphold their highest ideals and put their interests at the center of every decision we make. We must put the old way of doing business behind us.
I wonder aloud whether the Chris Mattei prosecutorial experience has an application to activities in the City of Bridgeport today? You know the types of things that I have reported, and then asked, “Where’s the Sheriff?” Hope that his experience with “public corruption” and frankly his outrage at such might provide him strength and vision to right the numerous practices that cry out for enforcement or a Charter change, as well as testing the authenticity of oversight regarding how obligations are adopted, proposed to be funded and accepted by a democratic majority. Isn’t that what we are accomplishing today? Your answer? Time will tell.