Malloy/Democrats make mockery of Connecticut’s once prominent role in campaign finance reform

Thanks to the changes in Connecticut’s campaign finance system that were initiated and signed into law by Governor Malloy, corporate education reformers Jonathan Sackler and Mary Corson each wrote $10,000 checks to Connecticut’s Democratic Party this year.

It is hardly the first time that Sackler and his wife, Mary Corson, have ponied up for Governor Malloy.

Over the past two years Malloy has attended fifteen (15) fundraisers for a political action committee named Prosperity for Connecticut PAC.  Three of these events were held in Washington D.C., three in New York City and the rest here in Connecticut.

The most successful Prosperity for Connecticut fundraising event was held at the home of Jonathan Sackler and Mary Corson. (See Wait, What? post: Malloy affiliated Political Action Committee cashes in on education reform bill).  The event raised nearly $50,000 and donations came from education reform industry leaders from around the state and country.    The  event was held on the day Malloy’s education reform bill became a Connecticut Public Act.

Jonathan Sackler was also an initial donor and Board member of Achievement First, Inc., the large charter school management company co-founded by Stefan Pryor, Malloy’s Commissioner of Education.

Sackler also formed ConnCAN, ConnAD and 50CAN, all major corporate education reform advocacy groups.

Last year, at the last moment, Sackler wrote a check for $50,000 to help pay for Bridgeport Mayor Bill Finch’s failed attempt to change the Bridgeport Charter to do away with a democratically elected Board of Education and replace it with one appointed by Finch.

In recent days, various Connecticut media outlets have been writing about Connecticut campaign finance issues.

The CT Mirror posted an article entitled, “CT GOP, Democrats joust over Malloy’s fundraising,” while CT Newsjunkie published “Heavy Hitters Ride to the Rescue For Dems Under New Fundraising Rules.”

The controversy surrounding Malloy and the Democrats is hardly a new one.

In a Wait, What? story last June entitled, “Malloy, legislature continue to water-down Connecticut’s “landmark” campaign finance laws,” readers were informed that;

“This year, Governor Malloy and the Democrats in the legislature made their most dramatic and audacious effort, to date, to undermine the law.

And they succeeded…with Malloy signing the new bill into law yesterday.

At a time when the public understands that campaign money plays too much of a role in American politics, Malloy and the Democrats took significant steps to reverse earlier limitations on campaign donations and spending.

As a result of the new law, significantly more money will be spilling into Connecticut campaigns.

Among other things, the law doubles the amount campaign donors may contribute to political parties and actually removes the cap on how much political parties can spend on publicly-financed candidates.

The most incredible new development is that the law now allows a candidate to help raise money for a political action committee that will later spend that money to support the very candidate who helped raise it.

As reported here at Wait, What? and elsewhere, Governor Malloy has held at least 15 fundraisers for a political action committee called Prosperity for Connecticut.  Under the old law, there were severe limitations on how that committee could spend its money, ensuring that its primary purpose was not to support any affiliated candidates.

The new law changes that system completely.

Malloy can now help a Super PAC raise unlimited amounts of money and that PAC can then spend that money to support Malloy.”

Now Malloy is capitalizing on his successful efforts to undermine Connecticut’s campaign finance laws.

In its most recent campaign finance story, the CT Mirror writes,

“Emboldened by looser campaign-finance rules and a rainmaking governor, the Connecticut Democratic Party is raising money nearly three times faster for the 2014 election than it did four years ago in preparation for 2010. At the same time, Republican fundraising is stagnant.  Gov. Dannel P. Malloy, a first-term Democrat up for re-election next year, is aggressively headlining his party’s fundraising, utilizing a law passed this year by the Democratic state legislature that raised donor limits and allows the state parties for the first time to make unlimited expenditures to support candidates for governor and other state offices.”

The CT Mirror further explains, “The Democratic Party, which dominates the General Assembly and holds every statewide and congressional office, has raised more than $1.5 million since January in its state and federal campaign accounts, compared with $566,530 over the same period four years ago. And the numbers do not reflect proceeds from Malloy’s most recent fundraising efforts, a series of events a week ago in California.”

The power of the Malloy driven changes can be seen in that, “Of the $1.5 million raised this year by Democrats, $430,000 came from a roster of donors who wrote $10,000 checks, the maximum allowed by law. Those donors include top executives of the state’s largest utility, the company that manages state athletic venues, a major state landlord, a provider of state parking services and developers of a major real-estate project supported by state assistance.”

While the CT Mirror story reports that “Brian McAllister of New York, the chief executive of a ferry company that has urged the state to build a new terminal in Bridgeport, wrote two $10,000 checks, one for the party’s federal account and another to its state account,” the story fails to make reference to the fact that Malloy is collecting campaign checks from people like McAlister in a number of was.

A December 2012 Wait, What post highlighted the rest of the story by noting, “15+ family members and employees of a New York tug boat towing and ferry boat company give to Malloy PAC.

In fact, many of the $10,000 checks to the Democratic State Central Committee come from people who attended one of the 15 fundraisers held by the Prosperity for Connecticut PAC.

Following the Rowland scandals, Connecticut passed some of the most far-reaching campaign finance reforms in the country.  Our law was a model for how the people could take back their democracy.

Since then Governor Malloy, with the help of the Democratic controlled legislature, has been destroying and undermining Connecticut’s landmark campaign finance laws.

We are well on our way back to becoming the “pay to play” state that ended up with a governor in jail.

  • cindy

    For sale: Connecticut Public Education School System. Requires some upfront investment . Comes with policy/law changes as needed; modified reporting requirements as needed. High Performing school systems included, and need little oversight; The real cash-cow in the lower performing schools; comes with time-tested 3-step plan to transition from parents/local municipalities to investor-control (videos, handouts and materials for quick learning curve of “education field”); lucrative and low maintenance pay-off down the road. Call Dan for more info.

  • buygoldandprosper

    Connecticut has the best government money can buy.
    Dan Malloy is a new low for the state but a bargin for the influence peddlers.
    He reminds me of the Everleigh Sisters of Chicago the way he engages in his “visions” of governing, turning Hartford into his own version of the Everleigh Club. To save posters time…it was a nortorious brothel and the sisters were very successful madams.
    That’s Dan Malloy. Aspiring whoremaster and small time whore.

  • buygoldandprosper

    Here is a perfect example of Dan Malloy’s skill as a leader:

    “In 2003, then-mayor Dannel P. Malloy announced a $300 million deal shortly before Election Day to build 550 apartments and about 450,000 square feet of retail space, including a Wal-Mart and Sam’s Club at the site on the corner of Greyrock Place and Tresser Boulevard. That deal later fell apart…”
    Fourteen years and he could not fill a hole in the ground as mayor.
    What were the voters in Connecticut thinking when they voted for Malloy?