Skip to main content

Jepsen Wealthy Beyond His Means Owing To Public Financing

Is anyone doing the arithmetic here?

Theoretically, public financing is supposed to “even the campaign money playing field” between contestants for office.

There is no incumbent in the attorney general race. Attorney General Richard Blumenthal is running for the U.S. Senate.

Out of the gate, George Jepsen, the Democratic candidate who has accepted public financing, will be awarded $750,000, according to a story in the Greenwich Time:

“To quality for a $750,000 grant, Jepsen was required to raise at least $75,000 in contributions of $100 or less. According to a campaign finance report filed this week, Jepsen has raised about $84,500.”
Of the two Republican nominees for the office, Ross Garber has raised $72,640, and Martha Dean, the Republican nominee for the position has raised $26,000. Both Republicans have spurned public financing.

Public financing, in this instance, has tilted the playing field significantly in Jepsen’s favor. The Democratic candidate for attorney general has in his campaign kitty $651,360 more than the combined total of both his opposition candidates.

If the purpose of public campaign financing is to give all contestants an even money shot at a public office, public financing has failed spectacularly in this instance.

Comments

Fuzzy Dunlop said…
Cheers Don. Well put. I've enjoyed the public financing issue. It's given us an opportunity to finally agree.
Don Pesci said…
Fuzzy,

It will be Interesting to see if the anomaly gets any media attention. I doubt it. Actually, the problem is bound to recur IF the public financing scheme is successful. The scheme envisions that there will always be an incumbent in the race, or a millionaire whose “advantages” may be leveled though trigger mechanisms now found to be unconstitutional. It really is a mess. The scheme itself will continually throw up dubious constitutional questions; and, in respect of public financing, the Supreme Court seems determined to hue to a rational view of constitutional assaults.

I’m bitterly disappointed that we agree. It’s much more fun the other way.

Popular posts from this blog

The Blumenthal Burisma Connection

Steve Hilton , a Fox News commentator who over the weekend had connected some Burisma corruption dots, had this to say about Connecticut U.S. Senator Dick Blumenthal’s association with the tangled knot of corruption in Ukraine: “We cross-referenced the Senate co-sponsors of Ed Markey's Ukraine gas bill with the list of Democrats whom Burisma lobbyist, David Leiter, routinely gave money to and found another one -- one of the most sanctimonious of them all, actually -- Sen. Richard Blumenthal."

Powell, the JI, And Economic literacy

Powell, Pesci Substack The Journal Inquirer (JI), one of the last independent newspapers in Connecticut, is now a part of the Hearst Media chain. Hearst has been growing by leaps and bounds in the state during the last decade. At the same time, many newspapers in Connecticut have shrunk in size, the result, some people seem to think, of ad revenue smaller newspapers have lost to internet sites and a declining newspaper reading public. Surviving papers are now seeking to recover the lost revenue by erecting “pay walls.” Like most besieged businesses, newspapers also are attempting to recoup lost revenue through staff reductions, reductions in the size of the product – both candy bars and newspapers are much smaller than they had been in the past – and sell-offs to larger chains that operate according to the social Darwinian principles of monopolistic “red in tooth and claw” giant corporations. The first principle of the successful mega-firm is: Buy out your predator before he swallows

Down The Rabbit Hole, A Book Review

Down the Rabbit Hole How the Culture of Corrections Encourages Crime by Brent McCall & Michael Liebowitz Available at Amazon Price: $12.95/softcover, 337 pages   “ Down the Rabbit Hole: How the Culture of Corrections Encourages Crime ,” a penological eye-opener, is written by two Connecticut prisoners, Brent McCall and Michael Liebowitz. Their book is an analytical work, not merely a page-turner prison drama, and it provides serious answers to the question: Why is reoffending a more likely outcome than rehabilitation in the wake of a prison sentence? The multiple answers to this central question are not at all obvious. Before picking up the book, the reader would be well advised to shed his preconceptions and also slough off the highly misleading claims of prison officials concerning the efficacy of programs developed by dusty old experts who have never had an honest discussion with a real convict. Some of the experts are more convincing cons than the cons, p