Musto Finds Trumbull Religion After Killing Bridgeport Conflict-Of-Interest Bill

Musto walking
Voters gave Musto his walking papers.

Anthony Musto’s hypocrisy is so thick you’d need a blowtorch to vaporize it. The former state senator who killed a government reform bill on behalf  of Bridgeport’s Democratic political establishment prohibiting city employees from serving on the City Council to prevent conflicts of interests is now sanctimoniously speaking out about a Trumbull ethics issue as Trumbull Democrats encourage Musto to challenge Republican First Selectman Tim Herbst.

Musto was defeated last August in a Democratic primary by Marilyn Moore with his opposition to the state government reform bill a central issue of Moore’s campaign in the city-suburban district. Now that Musto’s considering a challenge of Herbst, he’s trying to reinvent history about doing the right thing.

Let’s examine Musto’s record in the State Senate: voted for the largest tax increase in state history, one of only two state senators voting to release the images of the slaughtered Sandy Hook kids and killed a government reform bill to enforce Bridgeport’s City Charter preventing conflicts of interests. Musto was not bashful at all in his assertion protecting Bridgeport’s political establishment.

Interestingly, state law prohibits municipal employees (in Trumbull) from sitting on boards of finance to eliminate conflicts of interests such as voting on their own wages and benefits, but Musto would not vote for the same in Bridgeport. Now he’s on his ethics high horse in Trumbull.

(Full disclosure: I was a Herbst political consultant.)

From Keila Torres Ocasio, CT Post:

Former Democratic state Sen. Anthony Musto said he also finds the switch troubling.

“You don’t want the Ethics Commission to be seen in any way as a partisan board,” he said. “It is an adjudicating body. To have a commission like that not looked at as completely independent is problematic.”

Musto said the state’s minority representation statute states that a person must be a member of a party for a period of three months after a change in affiliation to avoid these kinds of situations. He said he thought they should be avoided at the local level as well.

Full story here.



  1. I think Anthony should talk to his State Senator to see if she would be amenable to including this language in her bill to ban city employees from serving on the council when she resubmits it again next year.
    Then Anthony and Nancy DiNardo can champion this clean government legislation up in Hartford. A win-win for clean government.

  2. Either that or Anthony can spearhead a fight for charter revision and just hope the state doesn’t come in and rewrite their charter like they did to Bridgeport.

  3. Musto is starting to get a lot more vocal about a lot of things going on in Trumbull, sounds to me like he may be having thoughts about a first selectman run there.

  4. Honestly on this blog, Only in Bridgeport, who cares about Trumbull or pretty boy Musto? Too many problems here.
    But on the other hand, Ganim and Musto will be better neighbors, as Herbst fights with everyone, he is a class-A bully in the first degree, knocking on a friend’s door to yell at her for disagreeing with her Conn Post opinion.

    1. Ron Mackey, only in Bridgeport. My favorite candidate? I wouldn’t trade Herbst for Musto. Instigating a conversation is just like your usual race baiting. Better you concentrate on the here and now. Focus on Foster, Ganim and Finch. I am supporting Finch, isn’t that where you should focus your attack? You know the Fake supporter. Maybe you need to be knocking on doors for your candidate. Who is it today, Ganim or Foster? Don’t worry about Musto. He is political history by his own choice. Mary-Jane Foster could have run for his seat. Honestly, anyone could have run for his seat. I did not support him for his political acumen, I supported him because he supported our Mayor. To me that was a big deal.

        1. Mackey, no. You are just injecting me into a conversation I am not a part of. I’d call that misguided instigating. What would you call it? You make it like outside the blogosphere I was walking the streets for this candidate.

          1. Steven Auerbach, one thing you have always shown on OIB is you are very loyal when you support someone like Musto and Finch. There was a time when you almost hated Ed Gomes and didn’t like Marilyn Moore, that’s how deeply loyal you are.

          2. Ah Ron Mackey, let me correct you if I may. First, I do not hate anyone. Second, I stand true to what I said and I will repeat, Ed Gomes and Marilyn Moore did not support Steelepointe. With that I could not support them and again, I am a Democrat. When Moore won the primary I supported her, voted for her and had her sign on my lawn. I am entitled to support any candidate I choose too, without answering to you, no? You dislike Finch, I am not going to go back and forth with you knowing we are on opposite sides. When I support a candidate it is not a lifetime of support. If my candidate supports something I do not agree with I am vocal.
            I share something with your good friend Donald Day. I am only responsible for my own actions. When I work on a campaign I am a team player but work my ass off as though everyone else is sitting on their ass. Marilyn Moore is my Senator. I will support her until I have a reason not to support her. You know Ron, I don’t get you at all, but just so we understand each other. When Moore won the primary I had her sign on my lawn. What did she do for me? Did she ever thank me? No. So Ron, don’t worry about whom I support or don’t support. It really is not your concern. I do not use campaigns to ameliorate my circle of friends. I have met some wonderful people along the way, but they are not my friends. So get busy Ron with your candidate. You can badger me all you want but I am supporting Bill Finch until I have a genuine reason not to.

  5. If Musto runs for Trumbull First Selectman, you know full well Herbst will hammer him over voting for Malloy’s tax increases and against the anti-corruption bill. It won’t be close–Herbst will win big.

  6. Now hear this: To condemn hypocrisy is to condemn politics altogether. Ganim’s set up an exploratory committee for a job he’s already had and MJF says she’s a poor person in the hunt for money. Gardner and Coviello are untainted.
    What some people call hypocrisy, others call politics as usual. Expect blowtorches to be extinguished and politics to be resumed.

    1. LE,
      You may be on to something but it may be something other than hypocrisy.
      Joe Ganim has set up an “exploratory committee” perhaps for more than one reason. He can see if the early money is there without committing, and tap it and others later. More important is the fact he carries a burden and weight that he did not when running in the past. He was caught significantly aggrandizing himself while doing the public’s business, right? Now that is experience as a Mayor, but not the kind that gets you into office. So the burden he has is to make the public believe it does not matter, and there’s the rub. Even those of us who believe in forgiveness or “second chances” set up safeguards (as in sexual abusing offenders bearing the label sex offender with certain consequences) and some hurdles or checks. I have heard no public discussion of such and think someone might get serious about the subject. Bridgeport has fewer mechanisms today than it did in Ganim’s years for monitoring public funds regularly, accurately and credibly. Joe might give this some attention.
      I have worked with folks, income rich or poor, with lots of wealth or bankrupt for over 50 years and it is interesting in how people use these terms. So a million-dollar home makes you a millionaire, but if you cannot sell it at what you determine to be a fair price, how rich or wealthy do you feel? And then there are people who look at others and judge by externals as to who is rich or poor. Go back and read The Millionaire Next Door and re-think some of the assumptions at work in this campaign. So MJF looks poor at the moment, but her first fund raiser is tomorrow, so she is off and running, also. No integrity burden there. If there is no money in your candidate fund, isn’t that a definition of poor?

      What number will come out to vote this year? Ten, twelve, or fifteen thousand in the primary or at the general election. If the Mayor reportedly has raised some $500K, and Ganim can do $50K monthly, or MJF decides she can do it with less, etc., perhaps our eyes ought to be on how the money is being spent and look at its possible effect. Was the Mayor’s Town Hall telephone call to 8,000 that pared down to 14 questioners per Lockhart of whom some 1800 may have heard part or all of “the City is getting better every day” mantra, the point is there was a screener deciding which caller and questions made the cut, and I know one who reached that point and did not make the cut with a very pointed question.

      So the Mayor even screens himself from unwanted questions in a situation where he has invited people to ask him questions and expect an answer. Might you call that hypocrisy? I still have not heard who is paying for the several ongoing ventures to paint the Mayor palatable to voters. When they see how easy it is to hold taxes down (and not fund education appropriately) for one year, yet still increase capital spending without a PUBLIC DISCUSSION that would inform and prioritize (Coming next Monday), perhaps some of the rose will come off the lenses. And what happens if some of your program finances are understated grossly in areas of real City need? People might get angry. And then where would we see hypocrisy? Time will tell.


Leave a Reply