Skip to main content

Foley, Trampin On The Vine


“Baby, they diggin' my potatoes
Lord, they trampin' on my vine…”


So goes the Big Bill Broonzy blues song.  The song, for those unfamiliar with frequently met double entendres in blues music, is not really about potatoes or vines.

Never found my baby
'Cause she was layin' in another town
I know she's diggin' my potatoes
Lord, she's trampin' on my vine

The blues rarely miss the right chords concerning human nature. We are territorial animals – Get off my farm!  Grieving over large campaign contributions made by one-percenters to politicians dispensing favors has in the past been territory staked out by populist Democrats. Until now.


Crony capitalism has become a bi-partisan affair. Perhaps that was always the case: If politician A has the means to assist crony capitalist B, and B has the capital resources to aid A, the match would appear to be one made in political heaven.

To be sure, there are – thanks mostly to Democratic politicians who have stalked out the territory – campaign finance regulations aimed at preventing the more gaudy forms of political corruption that arises from close relationships between those who design regulations and the subjects of the regulation. But in politics there are always loopholes to be exploited, money hungry politicians, and exhausted or indifferent watchdog agencies, many of which find themselves pressed under the thumbs of politicians they are supposed to be scrutinizing.

When unannounced Republican Party gubernatorial prospect Tom Foley a few months ago suggested that the news media might want to have a closer look at some irregularities involving Governor Dannel Malloy, he was given the Big Bill Broonzy bum’s rush – Get off my farm! Stop trampling on my vines! You’ve been layin around in another town. And a Republican town at that!

Here is Mr. Foley’s most recent declamation against the Malloyalists’ too cozy relationship with Big Business campaign financiers as it appeared in a column in the Journal Inquirer.

Mr. Foley begins by noting that the last Republican governor, Jodi Rell, the object of much hilarity in Democratic quarters as a mere shadow of the current gubernatorial dynamo, did in fact make some progress in prohibiting “state government contractors and lobbyists from making political donations directly to state campaigns.”

This baby step forward was frustrated by a bill engineered by Mr. Malloy and the Democratic dominated General Assembly that “allows state contractors and lobbyists to donate up to $10,000 to a state political party, which in turn can spend the money on its nominee’s campaign for state office. Many state government contractors and lobbyists have already done this in the amount of hundreds of thousands of dollars that likely will be spent to re-elect the governor next year.”

Mr. Foley then listed some of the more prominent crony capitalists that have taken advantage of the loophole: “…executives of HAKS Group, a state government contractor, recently gave $45,000 to the Connecticut Democratic Party. Executives of Northeast Utilities, a state-regulated utility, gave $54,000 to the party. Executives of Manafort Brothers, a contractor for the Hartford-New Britain busway, gave $14,000, while $22,500 came from lobbyists.”

In the column, Mr. Foley throws down an armor plated gauntlet. He first makes a distinction between “contributions motivated by party affiliation, ideology, or a belief that a candidate is the better representative of the public interest,” which will be encouraged, and “contributions made primarily to facilitate a personal or organizational benefit,” which will be disallowed. This is followed by a campaign pledge: “If I become a candidate, I will ask Connecticut’s Republican Party not to accept contributions from anyone prohibited from contributing to my campaign… If I am elected governor I will seek to disallow these tainted contributions to our state political parties because they erode public confidence. I will also seek to prohibit state government contractors who make contributions to the state parties from receiving new state contracts for five years.”

It may be possible for a strong governor to discourage state contractors from making campaign contributions to individual politicians; the gubernatorial bully pulpit is sometimes an effective moral rostrum, and such contributions have been looked upon unfavorably by some courts. But it may not be possible to prohibit campaign contributions flowing from crony capitalists to political parties, a golden stream later laundered by the parties and distributed to individual politicians. Money will find a way, and clever politicians will always be able to drive a superhighway through campaign finance cul-de-sacs. An absolute prohibition of campaign contributions to parties from companies and quasi political organization such as unions could occur only after the repeal of U.S. Constitutional prescriptions. The moral suasion of a governor would have to be very intense indeed to persuade his own party to forego an advantage the loyal opposition would seek to exploit.

So then, where are we?

On the farm – watching Mr. Foley diggin Democratic potatoes, tramplin on their vines. And the outrage certain to pour from the usual Democratic fonts at this moral interloper will be a wonder to watch.


What Connecticut really needs to nudge morally agnostic politicians towards the path of righteousness is a ferociously aggressive Inspector General, armed with subpoena power, thoroughly independent of governors, courts, and political parties. A term in prison for corrupt crony capitalists and their political facilitators is the best remedy for what ails Corrupticut.

Comments

peter brush said…
Money will find a way
-----
I'm inclined doubt that we can control or eliminate the problem with campaign finance laws. I'm not sure to what extent I oppose such laws in themselves apart from their futility.
Not that I recommend the behavior, but I'm not so upset about the pay-to-play corruption we saw, for example, with Treasurer Silvestre. There is a violation of trust in the improper self-aggrandizement, but there is not necessarily financial harm to the State or its taxpayers. I recall no suggestion, for example, that Silvestre's chosen brokers mishandled the State's investments.
But, the Malloy operation known variously as "First Five," "Next Five," and "Very Next Five" is simply taking money from the people, taxpayers or State and giving it to entities the Executive Branch thinks would make good beneficiaries. I haven't heard any body say it's illegal, but if the Constitution of 1965 doesn't prohibit this sort of thing I'd say it's not a particularly useful Constitution. Ditto on the legality of public sector unions, whose relationship to the Democrat sworn representatives of the people goes beyond cronyism into explicit conflict of interest.
It seems to me the best way to attack the problem of money and politicians is also the best way to address our fiscal mess. The government should take it upon itself to do less, and those things it does should be run in a less intrusive way, a way more dependent on free markets.
Let's imagine the good all around that would ensue, for example, if we Nutmeggers were to use a voucher program for education as we do for food. Contractors involved in building and maintaining school buildings would not be involved with pols. The teachers would not be forced at gunpoint to fund the Democratic Party through a labor union. And, the schools would be accountable to students and their parents, unlike the government monopoly district schools we presently insist on preserving.

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."

Obamagod!

My guess is that Barack Obama is a bit too modest to consider himself a Christ figure , but artist will be artists. And over at “ To Wit ,” a blog run by professional blogger, journalist, radio commentator and ex-Hartford Courant religious writer Colin McEnroe, chocolateers will be chocolateers. Nice to have all this attention paid to Christ so near to Easter.

Did Chris Murphy Engage in Private Diplomacy?

Murphy after Zarif blowup -- Getty Images Connecticut U.S. Senator Chris Murphy, up for reelection this year, had “a secret meeting with Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif during the Munich Security Conference” in February 2020, according to a posting written by Mollie Hemingway , the Editor-in-Chief of The Federalist. Was Murphy commissioned by proper authorities to participate in the meeting, or was he freelancing? If the former, there is no problem. If the latter, Murphy was courting political disaster. “Such a meeting,” Hemingway wrote at the time, “would mean Murphy had done the type of secret coordination with foreign leaders to potentially undermine the U.S. government that he accused Trump officials of doing as they prepared for Trump’s administration. In February 2017, Murphy demanded investigations of National Security Advisor Mike Flynn because he had a phone call with his counterpart-to-be in Russia. “’Any effort to undermine our nation’s foreign policy – e