Skip to main content

Taking The Fifth, Rich Incumbents, Poor Challengers


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 Coreywho 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

Popular posts from this blog

The Murphy Thingy

It’s the New York Post, and so there are pictures. One shows Connecticut Senator Chris Murphy canoodling with “Courier Newsroom publisher Tara McGowan, 39, last Monday by the bar at the Red Hen, located just one mile north of Capitol Hill.”   The canoodle occurred one day or night prior to Murphy’s well-advertised absence from President Donald Trump’s recent Joint Address to Congress.   Murphy has said attendance at what was essentially a “campaign rally” involving the whole U.S. Congress – though Democrat congresspersons signaled their displeasure at the event by stonily sitting on their hands during the applause lines – was inconsistent with his dignity as a significant part of the permanent opposition to Trump.   Reaching for his moral Glock Murphy recently told the Hartford Courant that Democrat Party opposition to President Donald Trump should be unrelenting and unforgiving: “I think people won’t trust you if you run a campaign saying that if Donald Trump is ...

The PURA soap opera continues in Connecticut: Business eyeing the exit signs

The trouble at PURA and the two energy companies it oversees began – ages ago, it now seems – with the elevation of Marissa Gillett to the chairpersonship of Connecticut’s Public Utilities Regulation Authority.   Connecticut Commentary has previously weighed in on the controversy: PURA Pulls The Plug on November 20, 2019; The High Cost of Energy, Three Strikes and You’re Out? on December 21, 2024; PURA Head Butts the Economic Marketplace on January 3, 2025; Lamont Surprised at Suit Brought Against PURA on February 3, 2025; and Lamont’s Pillow Talk on February 22, 2025:   The melodrama full of pratfalls continues to unfold awkwardly.   It should come as no surprise that Gillett has changed the nature and practice of the state agency. She has targeted two of Connecticut’s energy facilitators – Eversource and Avangrid -- as having in the past overcharged the state for services rendered. Thanks to the Democrat controlled General Assembly, Connecticut is no l...

Lamont Surprised at Suit Brought Against PURA

Marissa P. Gillett, the state's chief utility regulator, watches Gov. Ned Lamont field questions about a new approach to regulation in April 2023. Credit: MARK PAZNIOKAS / CTMIRROR.ORG Concerning a suit brought by Eversource and Avangrid, Connecticut’s energy delivery agents, against Connecticut’s Public Utility Regulatory Agency (PURA), Governor Ned Lamont surprised most of the state’s political watchers by affecting surprise.   “Look,” Lamont told a Hartford Courant reporter shortly after the suit was filed, “I think it is incredibly unhelpful,” Lamont said. “Everyone is getting mad at the umpires.   Eversource is not getting everything they want and they are bringing suit. It was a surprise to me. Nobody notified me. I think we have to do a better job of working together.”   Lamont’s claim is far less plausible than the legal claim made by Eversource and Avangrid. The contretemps between Connecticut’s energy distributors and Marissa Gillett , Gov. Ned Lamont’s ...