Incumbents are much favored and pampered creatures. The
Captains of Industry throw dollars their way, and major media outlets pet them
shamelessly. It is not at all surprising then that U.S. Representative
Elizabeth Esty should be richer than Republican challenger Mark Greenberg in
campaign donations, even as the supporters of Mrs. Esty chide Mr. Greenberg for being a wealthy and successful businessman. In American politics, with precious few exceptions, incumbency trumps personal
wealth. Of course, some politicians -- U.S. Representative Rosa DeLauro and
U.S. Senator Dick Blumenthal, both millionaires many times over, come to mind –
are fortunate enough to be both wealthy and incumbent progressives.
One paper recently noted that Mr. Greenberg has $118,174 in his campaign account as of September 30,
while Mrs. Esty has $923,000 on hand. Mr. Greenberg’s relative penury has
forced him to break open his own private piggy bank and lend his campaign
$592,500.
So then, where did Mrs. Esty’s campaign loot come from?
Political action committees ponied up $208,140 during the
filing period that ran from July 1-Sept. 30. Among campaign contributors
tossing money her way were the National Association of Realtors, the Sierra
Club and Democratic House colleagues Zoe Lofgren of California and John
Sarbanes of Maryland, among many others. Mrs. Esty was not alone in being so
favored. Incumbent U.S. Representative Jim Himes of the 4th District
hauled in $1.7 million, while his relatively impoverished Republican opponent Dan
Debicella reported having received a paltry $114,314. Democratic incumbent Joe
Courtney of the 2nd District has $704,719 on hand, while his
Republican opponent Lori Hopkins Cavanagh pulled in only $41,852. Democratic incumbent John Larson of the impregnable 1st District
pulled in $1,684,872, while his Republican opponent, Matthew Corey, who refers to himself correctly in his campaign literature as the real working
class candidate in the contest, garnered a more modest $20,212.
The incumbency vs. challenger playground is, to employ a
phrase that often has fallen gracefully from the lips of multi-millionaire incumbent
U.S. Senator and former Attorney General Blumenthal, NOT a level playing field.
Following the conviction of former Governor John Rowland for
depriving the public of honest services in 2005, Connecticut’s General Assembly
was moved to pass campaign finance regulations that seemed to prevent state
contractors from purchasing the political services of incumbent politicians in
return for campaign contributions. Since then, the noble effort of politicians
to place themselves beyond the reach of filthy lucre has suffered several
setbacks. Politicians in Connecticut may now escape the campaign contribution
prison they had created for themselves by shifting money from various private
and public campaign financing streams.
Jon Pelto, gone but not forgiving from the gubernatorial
campaign trail, noted on his blog, “Wait, What,” the successful attempt on the part of Mr. Malloy to overcome ethical
boundaries: “Not only has Malloy taken the $6.2 million in public funds for his
re-election campaign this year, but he has also inappropriately tapped
into nearly $4 million in tainted money that has been laundered through the
Democratic State Central Committee and another $3.5 million that has been
funneled through a political action committee associated with Malloy’s
campaign.
One thing, it seems, will never change. In respect of political incumbents, the old
Billie Holiday song “God Bless The Child”
is more than prophetic: “Them that's got shall have/Them that's not shall
lose/So the Bible said and it still is news.” At this point, perhaps the only
way to level the playing field between incumbents and challengers may be
through term limits, which would rotate politicians bellying up to the campaign
contribution bar and remove, at least for a time, the insuperable advantages
incumbency brings to “politicians for life” like Mrs. DeLauro and Mr. Larson.
So far, many mainstream outlets reporting on Connecticut’s
political races have risen in opposition to cynical moves by the Malloy administration to effectively vacate the state’s campaign finance regulations. And, of course,
the announced mission of journalism is to comfort the afflicted and afflict the
comfortable. In a recent editorial, the Hartford Courant expressed its
displeasure with the “state Democratic Party,” which was “just begging for punishment
by regulators and by the voters.”
Now that endorsement time has rolled around, it should be
interesting to see whether papers in Connecticut are willing to administer
condign punishment by withholding their endorsements of the destructors elect of
the Democratic Party.
Comments