Gubernatorial Election 2014, Malloy, Public Opinion Research, State Politics Gubernatorial Election 2014, Malloy, State Politics
Yesterday, the Hartford Courant’s Rick Green posted an article entitled, “Malloy Approval Ratings Up, Support For Re-Election Still Tepid.” Green wrote, “A new poll by the Yankee Institute finds that Mayor Dannel P. Malloy has his highest approval rating ever among voters…And while it looks like he faces a tough re-election fight, the governor is no longer trailing an un-named Republican opponent.”
The observation is not necessarily wrong, but it hardly provides the whole picture.
The “election question” was, “If Governor Malloy runs for re-election in the year 2014, will you probably vote for Governor Malloy or probably vote for the Republican candidate?”
According to the survey results;
42% said they will probably vote for Governor Malloy
39% said they will probably vote for the Republican candidate
19% said they are not sure they will vote for.
First off, the number saying that they will vote for Governor Malloy is only up from 39% (in June 2011). That number is within what is called the statistical margin of error – meaning that it would be factually incorrect to say that he is definitely doing better. The change could simply be the consequence of a different sample.
Of even more concern for Malloy is the probable vote by party;
To be blunt, having spent decades studying Connecticut’s elections results, a statewide Democratic candidate cannot win with 11% (1 in 10 Democrats voting for the Republican) and another 14% unsure if they will support the Democratic candidate
Second, while Democrats outnumber Republicans by more than a 2 to 1 margin, it is simply impossible to win a statewide election with the support of only 25% of unaffiliated voters.
That is not to say that things can’t change – but losing at least 10 percent of Democrats only getting the support of 25% of unaffiliated voters will mean certain defeat for Malloy.
Second, this early in the campaign cycle, many pollsters look to job approval ratings as a better indicator of future electoral outcome than questions about imaginary head to head campaigns.
According to the new Yankee Institute Poll, 54% of Connecticut voters approve of the job Governor Malloy has been doing, 45% disapprove of Malloy’s performance and 2% are unsure.
The key is two-fold. The first is looking at the number of voters who disapprove of an elected official’s performance because that provides the basis for opponents and the second is to particularly watch what is happening with Democrats and unaffiliated voters.
According to surveys produced by the Yankee Institute the percent disapproving of Malloy’s job performance has been as follows:
February 2011 46% disapprove
June 2011 56% disapprove
February 2012 46% disapprove
February 2013 45% disapprove
Except for the bounce after the 2011 legislative session, the percent of voters most receptive to anti-Malloy messages has remained virtually unchanged since he took office.
Finally, Malloy’s job performance rating by party provides the most worrisome information at all;
|Malloy Job Performance
Remembers, to win, a Democratic statewide candidate needs virtually unanimous support from Democrats and needs significant support, although not a majority, from unaffiliated voters.
As the job performance by party reveals, a stunning 22% of Democrats disapprove of Malloy’s performance and 55% of unaffiliated voters disapprove of the Governor’s performance.
The Democrat has consistently sought strategies to alienate important Democratic constituencies and this poll reiterates, again, the impact of that effort. It is fair to say that as long as nearly 1 in 4 Democrats disapprove of Malloy’s job performance, he cannot win.
And strengthening that assessment is the fact that with such weak support among unaffiliated it would be virtually impossible to make up for the lost Democrats by increasing the percentage of support from unaffiliated.
Again, this doesn’t mean the election is “over,” but as we’ve learned, public opinion polling is an art and a science. Three important factors are how the questions are worded, who is interviewed and whether the assessment of the data is put in context.
The results from the Yankee Institute survey are hardly good news for Team Malloy.
Achievement First/ConnCAN, Charter Schools, Ethics, Gubernatorial Election 2014, Malloy, Michelle Rhee, Prosperity for Connecticut PAC, Public Opinion Research, Rell, State Politics ConnCAN, Ethics, Gubernatorial Election 2014, Malloy, Public Opinion Polling, Roy Occhiogrosso
Earlier today, the Global Strategy Group, a political consulting and public relations company released a memo about a public opinion survey that it had conducted for the “education reform” advocacy group, ConnCAN, the Connecticut Coalition for Achievement Now, Inc.
According to a Global Strategy Group memo, the poll found that, “Voters see the Governor [Malloy] as a strong advocate for education reform. Voters give the Governor favorable ratings (54% favorable/36% unfavorable) and believe he is doing a good job when it comes to education. A majority of voters (54%) approve of the job he is doing when it comes to Connecticut’s public schools. Parents are especially supportive of the Governor’s efforts and rate his performance on schools favorably by a margin of nearly 2 to 1 (60% approve/31% disapprove).
The Global Strategy Group is where Roy Occhiogrosso landed after leaving the Governor’s Office six weeks ago. After serving for two years as Governor Malloy’s chief advisor and spokesman, Roy Occhiogrosso recently returned to Global Strategies Group to serve as its Managing Director.
Occhiogrosso had previously served as a partner at Global Strategies from 2003 to 2010. During the 2010 gubernatorial campaign, Dan Malloy’s gubernatorial campaign, much of it funded through the State’s publicly funded campaign finance system, paid Occhiogrosso and Global Strategies a total of $669,105.87.
According to the memo, the ConnCAN opinion survey was conducted between January 23 and January 27, 2013, just a couple of weeks after Occhiogrosso rejoined Global Strategies.
Although neither ConnCAN nor Global Strategies released the questionnaire that served as the survey instrument, it is clear from today’s memo that the poll was designed to collect valuable political information, as well as perspectives on policy issues.
When an organization conducts a survey with a larger sample size, only interviews voters and includes questions to determine the respondents’ party affiliation, their goal is generally to collect information about how key political sub-constituencies respond to potential voting issues.
It is particularly suspicious that ConnCAN and Global Strategies decided to conduct the survey at the end of January, prior to the Governor’s Budget speech, but held the results until after the speech was completed. A poll of this nature would be of tremendous political value to the Malloy Administration if they had access to the data prior to putting together his budget speech.
ConnCAN’s political support for Governor Malloy is well known. Last Spring, within 24 hours of Malloy’s “education reform” bill becoming a Public Act, one of ConnCAN’s founders held an extremely lucrative fundraiser for a political action committee called Prosperity for Connecticut. The PAC appears to be affiliated with Governor Malloy and the Governor has attended all, or most, of the PAC’s fundraising events, including a series of fundraising parties in Washington D.C. and New York City.
Jonathan Sackler, who hosted the event for education reform supporters, is not only one of the original founders of ConnCAN, but he also formed ConnAD, the organization that spent record amounts lobbying for Malloy’s “education reform bill. Furthermore, he is also the founder of 50-CAN, a national education reform advocacy group. National officials from Michelle Rhee’s StudentsFirst, Teach for America and other national education reform groups donated to the Sackler fundraiser.
The May 30, 2012 fundraiser at Sackler’s $8.5 million home raised over $41,000 for the Prosperity for Connecticut PAC, making it the most successful of the 15 fundraisers the PAC has had since being formed two years ago.
At the Sackler event, significantly more than half of the money raised came directly from members of ConnCAN’s Board of Directors, ConnCAN’s Advisory Board or family members of the individuals who serve on the two boards.
The decision to conduct this poll raises numerous serious issues.
Did Occhiogrosso know about the poll before he left state service and did he spend any state time or resources communicating with ConnCAN or Global Strategies about the poll?
Were any other members of Malloy’s Administration, such as OPM Secretary Barnes, Education Commissioner Pryor or Chief of Staff Ojakian aware of the poll? Did any of these public officials offer information that impacted the questions being asked?
Equally important is whether the Malloy Administration received any information about the survey’s finding prior to the poll’s public release and most importantly, prior to the Governor’s budget speech.
Depending on what information was provided and who did the communicating, there are potential violations of Connecticut’s ethics laws, let alone the possibility that public employees used state resources to further their political agenda.
The issue is particularly relevant because leading up to the 2010 gubernatorial campaign, I filed a complaint against Governor Rell, her chief of staff and key members of her administration for using state resources to support public opinion polling that was designed to have political benefits for Rell. The complaint eventually led to major fines for some of the individuals involved in the effort.
While in this case the poll was conducted by a private entity, was not done at state expense and Malloy has yet to form a campaign committee, ConnCAN is a registered lobbyist and that brings a whole series of ethics issues into play. In addition, it is conceivable that if state employees were involved in the development of the survey, other laws may have been violated.
Anyone aware of Connecticut’s ethics laws and the laws prohibiting the use of state resources for political purposes would instantly recognize that a poll of this nature, especially conducted at this time, would raise a wide variety of questions.
It is for that reason that this post is entitled, “Incredible stupidity, stunning arrogance or both…”
Rest assured that this is not the last time we will hear about this incredible and stunningly stupid move by ConnCAN and Global Strategies.
News coverage of this event has been extremely limited to date. Here is the first article on the poll. Advocates Say Survey Shows Support For Education Reforms.
Coincidentally – here is a Wait, What? post from earlier today entitled; Malloy says: I know, let’s finish off the effectiveness of the government watchdog agencies…
Ben Barnes (OPM Secretary), Ethics, Freedom of Information, Malloy, Office of State Ethics, State Budget, State Elections Enforcement Commission, State Politics Freedom of Information Commission, Malloy, Office of State Ethics, State Budget, State Elections Enforcement Commission
In his first budget, Governor Malloy went a long way toward undermining the effectiveness of Connecticut’s landmark Freedom of Information Commission, Office of State Ethics, State Elections Enforcement Commission and Connecticut’s other watch dog and good government agencies by merging them into a single agency, reducing their resources and giving financial control to a political appointee.
Although he somehow forgot to mention it during his speech last week, Malloy’s new state budget plan takes another giant leap forward in his effort to destroy Connecticut’s once stellar standing as having one of the best good government programs in the nation.
The CTMirror has the details in an article entitled “Howls as Malloy tries to shorten leash on watchdogs,” but the quote of the day goes to Malloy’s Secretary of the Office of Policy and Management, Ben Barnes, who says of the proposal to destroy the remaining independence of the watchdog agencies, “There is nothing insidious about this.”
As quoted in the CTMirror article, James H. Smith, president of the Connecticut Council on Freedom of Information explains, “These proposals can only be explained as an effort to gain control over the guarantors of transparency and integrity in government…We ask why the Malloy administration is determined to emasculate the independent watchdogs?”
As the CTMirror explains, “Malloy’s plan would give a gubernatorial appointee, the executive director of the Office of Government Accountability, the authority to assign and discipline lawyers whose duties could include investigating Malloy or some future governor.”
The CTMirror summarizes the situation noting, “The change would remove a layer of political insulation that protects the agencies and the governor: The watchdogs are free of executive influence, real or perceived; and the governor’s office is protected against accusations of protecting friends or punishing enemies.”
Imagine what the Democrats would be saying if a Republican governor made such an outrageous proposal.
I bet if we listen carefully, we can hear John Rowland laughing…
CABE, Education Reform, Malloy, State Politics Commissioner's Network, Education Reform, Malloy, Stefan Pryor
Where is the Connecticut Association of Boards of Education?
Commissioner of Education Stefan Pryor instructed towns that if they had a local school that they wanted to become part of the new Commissioner’s Network, ”Expression of Interest Forms” needed to be submitted by January 4, 2013.
On its face, the commissioner’s action seemed simple enough.
When the Connecticut General Assembly debated and adopted Governor Malloy’s “Education Reform” bill, it was widely understood that the state’s ability to takeover individual schools or school districts was extremely limited and could only occur after the state took a very specific set of actions.
A key provision of the law, now known as Public Act 12-116, was the creation of a Commissioner’s Network. As the State Department of Education explains on their website, the Commissioner’s Network is “designed to provide new resources and flexibilities to improve student achievement in the state’s lowest performing schools. The Commissioner’s Network is designed as a partnership between local stakeholders and the state and will serve as a vehicle for innovative initiatives, a platform for sharing effective practices, and a model for other schools and districts throughout the state.”
The spirit and the language of the law make it extremely clear that the Commissioner’s Network is based on the full participation of the local Board of Education and the local teachers through their union.
The language lays out a process for the development and approval of a “turnaround plan,” including provisions for how to deal with collective bargaining issues.
So now Commissioner Pryor is requiring towns to submit a document if they are interested in being part of the program.
But here is the problem.
Pryor’s first step doesn’t require the local superintendent to even communicate with the local Board of Education, let alone get their approval.
But as I’m sure every state legislator would attest too, the notion that the process would proceed without the full participation, or even knowledge, of the local Board of Education is inconceivable.
This is Connecticut and local education policy decisions are made by the local board of education.
If a school becomes part of the Commissioner’s Network, the local board of education loses full control of that program for three years. In fact, it is the Commissioner of Education and the State Board of Education that controls many of the management decisions related to Network Schools
And yet, in an effort to cut corners, Commissioner Pryor’s process by-passes the critically important early involvement of local boards.
The Commissioner’s Network Expression of Interest Form, official documents that were all filed by January 4, 2013 asked the applicant (the local superintendent of schools);
(1) Whether the Local board of education has been consulted and supports the school’s participation in the Commissioner’s Network and
(2) Whether the representatives of exclusive bargaining units have been consulted and support the school’s participation in the Commissioner’s Network
The superintendent of schools in Windham schools submitted the “Expression of Interest form” but reported that neither the local board nor the local teacher’s union had been consulted.
The superintendent of New Britain schools submitted the form and reported that neither the local board nor the local teacher’s union had been consulted.
And the superintendent of New Haven schools submitted the form and also reported that neither the local board nor the local teacher’s union had been consulted.
Paul Vallas, the superintendent of Bridgeport’s schools reported that his Board had been consulted and supported the effort – which wasn’t true. The issue wasn’t even raised to the local Board of Education until ten days later and at that point it was referred to a sub-committee for discussion.
The superintendents in Waterbury and Norwalk claimed that they too had the support of their boards and unions but the accuracy of that statement isn’t known.
In the highly charged environment of school reform, even an expression of interest is a major step for a town to make. Imagine the superintendent of a suburban school informing the state, without the approval of their board, that the town is interested in turning over partial control of one of their schools to the state. The superintendent would be tarred and feathered for treason.
So where are the voices of concern about this process?
In particular, where is the Connecticut Association of Boards of Education (CABE)?
Why are they silent on this gross violation of legislative intent?
CABE’s Mission is “To assist local and regional boards of education in providing high quality public education for all Connecticut children through effective leadership.”
In particular, “CABE advocates on behalf of boards of education at the state and federal level before the legislature, Congress, and state and federal agencies.”
No one but the local board of education should be offering up control of local schools.
Whether one agrees or disagrees with the concept of utilizing the so-called Commissioner’s Network System, the process demands the highest level of involvement by local elected leaders.
CABE is funded by the local school districts, meaning it is funded, in no small part, by the local taxpayers of the towns that make up CABE’s membership.
CABE should be out in front demanding that local boards of education aren’t being swept aside by Commissioner Pryor’s rush to line up schools for his Commissioner’s Network.
Campaign Finance, Connecticut State Government, Corporate Viewpoint, DEEP Commissioner Dan Esty, Energy policy, Malloy, State Politics Campaign Finance, Energy Policy, Global Strategies Group, Lobbyists, Malloy, Occhiogrosso
Despite claiming he had no specific plans for work following his resignation as Governor Malloy’s chief advisor, spokesperson and ultra-ego, Roy Occhiogrosso is returning to become the Managing Director for Global Strategy Group’s Hartford Office.
Global Strategy Group is a campaign management and public relations company that specializes in helping companies and organizations push their legislative and political agendas. Occhiogrosso and the Global Strategy Group served as lead consultants in candidate Dan Malloy’s 2006 and 2010 gubernatorial campaigns. Occhiogrosso and other staff then moved to join the Malloy administration when Governor Malloy was inaugurated in January 2011.
The move is a classic reminder of how government really works and the not-so-clean anti-revolving door policies that are supposed to prevent public officials from personally and financially capitalizing on their public service.
Returning to Global Strategy Group will provide Occhiogrosso (and the company’s clients) with unique access to the development of government policy.
Take, for example, the case study of BNE Energy, which became a client of Global Strategy Group before Occhiogrosso left and has remained one of their primary clients throughout Malloy’s first two years in office.
BNE Energy, incorporated in Delaware, but owned by two Connecticut residents, has been trying to develop commercial wind projects in Prospect and Colebrook Connecticut. The firm is owned by Greg Zupkus, who serves as President and CEO and Paul Corey, who serves as the company’s Chairman of the Board.
Paul J. Corey is well known in Connecticut politics and government. During the Rowland years, Corey served as the Executive Director of the Connecticut Department of Public Utility Control, the organization that plays such a significant role in the development of energy policy in Connecticut. Corey also served as the Chairman of the Board of the Connecticut Lottery Corporation from January 2000 to December 2004.
Corey’s wife, Christine, was a high-ranking personal assistant to former Governor John Rowland. Together they gave Rowland the famous hot-tub that helped lead to the impeachment hearings and Rowland’s subsequent resignation and trip to federal prison.
After leaving public service, Corey joined the law firm of Brown, Rudnick to work in their Public Utility Practice Group.
In addition to the two corporate executives, BNE Energy operation is assisted by the law firm of Pullman & Comley, where former State Senator Andrew McDonald worked before becoming Malloy’s Chief Counsel. (Malloy has recently nominated McDonald to a seat on the State Supreme Court). Pullman & Comley was retained to help BNE get approval from the Connecticut Siting Council.
Meanwhile, lobbying and permitting tasks for the wind farms were given to the law firm of Brown Rudnick, LLP. The lead individual from Brown, Rudnick is Thomas Ritter, the former speaker of the Connecticut House of Representatives.
Finally, Occhiogrosso’s Global Strategy Group continued to assist with public relations and grassroots lobbying services.
In the last 24 months, Ritter and Global Strategy Group have received over $200,000 in fees from BNE.
Among the backers of the BNE project is Connecticut’s Clean Energy Finance and Investment Authority, a public entity created to “help ensure Connecticut’s energy security and community prosperity by realizing its environmental and economic opportunities through clean, energy finance and investments.” The authority is chaired by Catherine Smith, the Commissioner of the Connecticut Department of Economic and Community Development (DECD). Another Board member is Daniel C. Esty, Malloy’s Commissioner of the Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (DEEP).
According to public documents, the Finance and Investment Authority has given BNE Energy at least $500,000 in public funds.
In what could be described as an interesting coincidence, on June 21, 2012, BNE’s CEO Zupkus and the company’s president Corey both donated to Democratic Congressional candidate Elizabeth Esty, the wife of Commissioner Dan Esty.
According to BNE Energy, the project faced, “Fierce NIMBY opposition and a tumultuous regulatory environment…as well as heavy legislative scrutiny—particularly after a bill was introduced to place a moratorium on all wind projects in the state. In addition, opposition groups were well-funded and highly vocal, and the press was unsympathetic to the developers.”
BNE’s proposal for a project in Prospect was rejected by the Connecticut Siting Council by a vote of 6-2, but BNE’s plan for a wind farm in Colebrook was approved. Governor Malloy appoints the members of the Connecticut Siting Council, but the agency’s activities and budget report up through Public Utilities Regulatory Authority (PURA) which is part of Commissioner Esty’s Department of Energy and Environmental Protection.
In response to the developments with BNE Energy and the Connecticut Siting Council, at the beginning of the 2012 Legislative Session, Democrat State Representative Vicki Orsini Nardello, the House Chair of the General Assembly’s Energy and Technology committee, along with State Senator Joan Hartley acted on their concern that the State of Connecticut had never adopted appropriate regulations to manage the development of wind energy in the state. The legislators introduced legislation suspending the development of further wind power projects until state regulations were established.
Among those supporting Nardello’s bill was U.S. Senator Richard Blumenthal and a significant number of residents from northwestern Connecticut.
However, BNE CEO Zupkus was highly critical of the bill, saying, “It’s just a way the anti-wind is crowd trying to stop wind projects.”
The moratorium bill was eventually passed, but with effective lobbying from former Speaker Ritter the BNE project was exempted.
Meanwhile, in October 2012, a Connecticut Superior Court ruled that the Connecticut Siting Council’s approval of a Colebrook wind farm project was legal and BNE could move forward with construction. However, the judge did make clear that Connecticut’s wind farm siting system was “deeply flawed” and needed to be enhanced.
Meanwhile, as the 2012 legislative campaigns heated up, Lezlye Zupkus, Gregory Zupkus’ wife, announced that she was going to run against Democrat State Representative Vicki Orsini Nardello.
On Election Day, Representative Nardello was one of the only incumbents to lose. At the time, Nardello explained, “When you take on strong corporate interests, you make enemies.”
Although both Nardello and Zupkus abided by the state’s public financing laws, a new outside group, funded by a right-wing Greenwich billionaire engaged in a series of “independent” expenditures aimed at defeating some Democrats that the group claimed were not sufficiently pro-business. Nardello was one of those targeted by Voters for Good Government. The PAC spent over a quarter of a million dollars to try and defeat these candidates.
Voters for Good Government, a new “super-PAC” funded by Greenwich billionaire Thomas Peterffy also took in funds from the Roger Sherman Liberty Center, Americans for Job Security and the American Justice Partnership. According to a story in the Hartford Courant, Peterffy “hates socialism because he grew up in communist Hungary before coming to America and making his fortune in discount brokerage.”
For more on Voters for Good Government read the Wait, What? blog post: http://jonathanpelto.com/2012/10/26/anti-socialist-greenwich-billionaire-targeting-democratic-connecticut-state-senators/
Of course, it is unclear if Malloy or Occhiogrosso were involved in any of the developments related to BNE Energy, but one thing is clear. Occiogrosso’s Global Strategies was involved with BNE Energy before he joined Governor Malloy’s operation and he is now returning to Global Strategies on January 14, 2013.
For more on the interconnections and intrigue surrounding this issue, see the following:
Bridgeport, Campaign Finance, Ethics, Gubernatorial Election 2014, Malloy, Mayor Bill Finch, Prosperity for Connecticut PAC, State Politics Campaign Finance, Gubernatorial Election 2014, Malloy, Prosperity for Connecticut PAC
At least 15 family members and employees of a company that financially benefits from Connecticut public policy is one of the biggest donors to Malloy’s Political Action Committee, according to an article written by investigative reporter Jon Lender in today’s Hartford Courant.
Wait, What? readers are already familiar with Prosperity for Connecticut, a political action committee tied to Governor Malloy.
As a result of more than 14 fundraising events over the past year, the PAC has raised over $200,000.
Now, according to Jon Lender, “State campaign finance records show that at least 15 contributions — mostly at the maximum annual amount for an individual, $750 — were made in May and September to the Prosperity for Connecticut PAC by people with ties of employment or kin to Capt. Brian A. McAllister of New York City. He is the head of McAllister Towing and Transportation Co. and the Bridgeport & Port Jefferson Steamboat Co., which operates the ferry between those two ports…he McAllister ferry business has been unsuccessful so far in its effort to expand to a larger boat terminal that would be built on the east side of Bridgeport Harbor, opposite from its current location.
But a new consultant’s study on the future of Connecticut’s deep water ports, commissioned in mid-year by the Democrat-controlled legislature and released in October by Malloy’s office, recommends that the state “protect and enhance private ferry services.” And, in a section relevant to the McAllister business, it says: “the State should support the Phase 1 relocation/expansion of the Bridgeport ferry” to the location sought by the company on the east side.”
The full story can be found here: http://www.courant.com/news/politics/hc-lender-column-pac-contributions-1209-20121208,0,1249593.column
Issues about the political action committee were highlighted in an article here at Wait, What? in a post entitled, “If money is the “mother’s milk of politics”, Governor Malloy’s cup runneth over” (see http://jonathanpelto.com/2012/12/06/if-money-is-the-mothers-milk-of-politics-governor-malloys-cup-runneth-over/)
The Courant’s Jon Lender then wrote a story for the Hartford Courant. See http://jonathanpelto.com/2012/12/07/courants-jon-lender-sheds-light-on-malloys-pac/
Lender’s latest story raises extraordinarily serious issues related about the inter-connection between Malloy’s fundraising activities and state policy.
Having now spent a significant amount of time analyzing the PACs fundraising reports, I’m reminded of the interesting fact about icebergs…” approximately 90 percent of an iceberg is found under water.”
I can guarantee this isn’t the last time we’ll be reading about the Prosperity for Connecticut Political Action Committee.
In the “small world department,” Wait, What? readers may also remember that McAllister’s Port Jefferson Steamboat Co., was one of the largest contributors to Mayor Bill Finch’s Bridgeport referendum political committee that was campaigning to do away with a democratically elected board of education and replace it with one appointed by the Mayor.
Moving the Port Jefferson Steamboat terminal in Bridgeport, as was recommended by the Malloy Administration’s study, would require the approval of both the State of Connecticut and the City of Bridgeport.
Campaign Finance, Gubernatorial Election 2014, Malloy, State Politics Campaign Finance, Malloy, Prosperity for Connecticut PAC
For Wait, What readers who were intrigued by yesterday’s blog post entitled, “If money is the “mother’s milk of politics”, Governor Malloy’s cup runneth over,” Jon Lender, the courant’s legendary investigative reporter, has taken an even more detailed look into the recent activities of Governor Malloy’s Political Action Committee…or the political action committee that appears to be connected with Malloy.
As noted in my blog yesterday, Governor Malloy, and a number of Connecticut’s highest ranking public officials, attended a fundraiser last night at the home of Alan Lazowski. Lazowski is the owner of LAZ parking, and the recent recipient of a multi-million dollar development contract given out by a commission that the Governor controls.
As the Courant notes, “Lazowski is CEO of Hartford-based LAZ Parking, one of the biggest parking operators in the country. In May, LAZ began a $990,980 contract to provide valet parking for patients at the University of Connecticut Health Center in Farmington – a pact that has several renewal options that could extend it six years beyond its initial one-year term…”
Prosperity for Connecticut PAC has already raised over $200,000 thanks to more than a dozen fundraisers over the past year.
Lender’s news article sheds new light on a variety of issues associated with the PAC and its activities, but the most interesting part of the whole article was the official response from Malloy’s gubernatorial spokesperson.
In response to a statement of concern about the PAC by the Republican State Chairman Jerry Labriola, Malloy’s media staff told Lender, “Jerry’s histrionics aside, this fundraiser was not set up by the governor, but he agreed to attend along with many other political, business and community leaders. He’s attending this event for the same reason he attends any number of similar events: he is the chief elected official of the state,” said Andrew R. Doba, Malloy’s director of communications.
As usual, it seems the people who speak for the Governor can’t utter a single statement that doesn’t begin or end with bullying, threatening or insulting language.
Not to mention, this is definitely NOT just another PAC, nor was it an event that the Governor just happened to stop by at.
The invitation made it clear the event featured the Governor and the Governor has been the primary draw at the PAC’s other fundraisers. Furthermore, it is well-known among the power elite that this is “the Governor’s PAC.” An observer need only look at the names of the high-ranking lobbyists who have given to this PAC.
Definitely take the time to read Lender’s piece. Although many of the quotes are in “political speech,” some of them are extremely telling. There is absolutely no doubt that between what they said to Lender and what shows up in these political action committee reports we’ll be hearing more about this group and its activities.
You can read Lender’s piece here: http://www.courant.com/news/politics/hc-pac-fundraiser-malloy-1207-20121206,0,3461857.story
Campaign Finance, Gubernatorial Election 2014, Malloy, State Politics Campaign Finance, Malloy, Prosperity for Connecticut PAC
Later today, movers, shakers, lobbyists, the political elite, and anyone else ready to plunk down $750 a person can have a cocktail with Governor Malloy and a host of “featured guests” including Lt. Governor Nancy Wyman, U.S. Senator Richard Blumenthal, U.S. Senator-elect Chris Murphy, Congressman John Larson, Congresswoman-elect Elizabeth Esty and Hartford Mayor Pedro Segarra.
The ticket price will also get you into the upscale home of Alan Lazowski, owner of LAZ Parking. Lazowski is also part of the investment team whose company just received a major contract from the Connecticut Housing Finance Authority to develop more housing and retail space in downtown Hartford.
And while handing over the check may not get you onto Santa’s “good” list, the proceeds go to Governor Malloy’s political action committee, called Prosperity for Connecticut.
If you were one of those who thought Connecticut’s landmark campaign finance reform law put an end to the co-mingling of Connecticut politics and public policy, apparently you’d be wrong. Since its creation about 15 months ago, Malloy’s Prosperity for Connecticut PAC has raised over $200,000, as a result of at least eleven fundraisers held in Connecticut, New York, and as far away as Washington DC.
If you weren’t on the invitation lists, you might not have known about the fundraiser at the exclusive Rue 57 on Manhattan’s West 57th Steet, or the even more exclusive event at 1455 Pennsylvania Ave, across from the White House and next to the legendary Willard Hotel.
Or maybe you missed the fundraiser at the home of Jonathan Sackler, education reform aficionado and co-founder of Achievement First, ConnCAN, ConnAD and 50CAN. The same Jonathan Sackler who helped Malloy’s Education Commissioner Stefan Pryor build Achievement First into one of the largest charter school management companies in the country.
And you probably didn’t get the invitation to the “meet and great” at Vision Financial Markets LLC, where an impressive number of their employees had the opportunity to meet Governor Malloy after donating only $750 per person to his PAC.
And then there was the New York City event where it appears that more than a dozen members and employees of the McAllister family joined together to generously support Governor Malloy’s PAC.
You don’t know the McAllister family? Why they own McAllister Towing in Brooklyn, New York.
Over the past year, while the Governor has helped orchestrate the passage and death of dozens of pieces of legislation, more than a dozen Connecticut lobbyists have donated to Malloy’s PAC, as have some of Connecticut’s other political action committees.
Of course, it takes money to make money, some more than $40,000 of the money raised was paid out to O’Neill & Associates, Boston’s #1 lobbying firm. The a company is headed by Thomas O’Neill III who is not only Tip O’Neill’s oldest son, but also a former Massachusetts State Legislator and former Lt. Governor in the Bay State.
Finally, in the good news department, since it would be illegal, under Connecticut law, for Governor Malloy’s PAC to use its funds to help Governor Malloy’s political endeavors, we can be sure that all these donors never thought the money they were donating was going to benefit the Governor, so at least there isn’t that whole, awkward conflict of interest.
Gubernatorial Election 2014, Malloy, State Politics Gubernatorial Election 2014, Malloy, State Politics
In Monday’s Capitol Watch, the Hartford Courant’s foothold in the political news blogosphere, Courant reporter Rick Green posted a piece that successfully portrayed the most fundamental element of the Malloy administration’s approach to governance – their dedication to political gamesmanship 24/7.
The headline read, “Roy v. Rob: Twitter Trash Talk Over Budget Deficit,” and included the text, “Who won this Twitter scrap between state Sen. Rob Kane and Malloy advisor Roy Occhiogrosso? You decide, but I’d call it a draw. Read from the top down.”
Green was recounting a twitter squabble that took place over a three-hour period on Monday between Republican State Senator Rob Kane and Malloy’s top advisor, Roy Occhiogrosso.
In response to a “tweet” from the Republican State Senator about State Comptroller Kevin Lembo’s announcement that this year’s projected budget deficit had skyrocketed to $415 million and counting, Malloy’s $160,000 chief advisor (he makes more than the Governor), took the time out of his busy schedule to turn to twitter to trash the Republican State Senator.
At 10:33 am, the famously thuggish and bullying Occhiogrosso tweeted, “@SenatorKane32 yep still saying steady, strong, leadership beats running around w/ your hair on fire. You hiding in a bunker somewhere??”
At 11:00 am, Occhiogrosso added, “@SenatorKane32 we don’t take anything lightly but also don’t get hysterical. Rs tried this rap w/ voters last month – how’d that work out?”
And five minutes later, at 11:35 am, Occhiogrosso yelped, “@SenatorKane32 you tried pinning the state’s problems on him and voters rejected that argument. Thankfully they’re smarter than you think.”
Another two minutes and Occhiogrosso tweeted, “@SenatorKane32 Deficit is 1/10 what it was, unemployment is down, govt is smaller. You’re entitled to your own hysteria, not your own facts.”
Starting back up at 1:34 pm Occhiogrosso sent out a tweet saying, “@SenatorKane32 http://www1.ctdol.state.ct.us/lmi/ctnonfarmemployment.asp …
And then again at 1:39 pm added “@SenatorKane32 @ComptroLLembo nope, just you. Just like you were here: http://www.ctmirror.org/story/17858/mcmahon-christie …, and here: http://www.ctmirror.org/story/17673/roraback-esty-race-study-different-strategies …”
Of course, right off the bat, two issues become apparent.
First, as an aside, this year’s $415 million dollar deficit and next year’s 1.1 billion shortfall IS NOT “1/10th what it was,” when Malloy took office. (Occhiogrosso’s tweeter feed reveals that he made similar claims when he attacked CT Mirror reporter Keith Phaneuf for writing a piece, a couple of weeks ago, about the growing budget deficit).
But more to the point, Occhiogrosso’s tirade is more than a commentary on the Malloy Administration’s sense of propriety and priorities. Engaging in political activities, while on state time, is rather frowned upon under Connecticut state law. In fact, it is illegal and people have been fired for the offense.
And as if the exchange with State Senator Kane wasn’t a strong enough indication that Occhiogrosso uses his twitter account is engage in political activities during work hours, his twitter record is ripe with other examples.
A few days earlier, upon news that Tom Foley was considering running for Governor again, Occhiogrosso again took time out from his state job to send out a flurry of tweets including one that read “…”Tom Foley=Mitt Romney http://www.ctmirror.org/story/6930/fedele-hits-foley-hard-new-ad-over-business-failure …” and another in which Occhiogrosso tweeted a picture of Foley and Romney writing, “a match made in heaven: pic.twitter.com/3EEkdbEd”
In fact, Occhiogrosso’s tweeter feed tells a lengthy story of political positioning and dialogue while he is supposed to be doing the people’s business.
Two days after the election, for example, Malloy’s top advisor engaged in more than a dozen exchanges with a Republican political operative while he was supposed to be working. In one he tweeted, “ just admit your strategy was wrong, and that you got waxed. Rs facebook status: back @ the drawing board.”
While these violations of law are relatively minor, they speak volumes about how important political positioning is to this administration.
Occhiogrosso’s actions are quite a commentary about how the Governor and the Governor’s Chief of Staff are either unwilling or unable to keep the office staff focused on the role of governing, letting them instead waste time and taxpayer funds engaged in arrogant and mean-spirited efforts to attack anyone and everyone who criticizes this administration.
Gubernatorial Election 2014, Malloy, State Politics, Tom Foley Foley, Gubernatorial Election 2014, Malloy
Last week, Republican Tom Foley told CT Newsjunkie Christine Stuart, “I’m planning to run for governor because I’m concerned about our state.” Apparently Foley has been meeting with various newspaper editorial boards to talk about his plans.
Two years ago, Candidate Dan Malloy became Governor Dannel Malloy after getting 49.5 percent of the vote to Foley’s 48.9 percent.
According to the CTNewsjunkie article, it would appear the battle line will be between Malloy, whose stance is,” I enjoy this job a whole lot. I enjoy the challenge of the hard work and I’m pretty proud of what we’ve accomplished,” against Foley whose argument will be, “I told you so.”
In reality, the discussion about the 2014 gubernatorial race started heating up on election night 2012.
Even before the concession speeches had been given, the Chair of the Connecticut Democratic Party issued a press release saying, “Now that voters have spoken, here’s what we know — Governor Malloy wins, the Republicans lose, and the people of Connecticut win,”
Malloy himself told reporters that he felt vindicated by the election results.
Those events prompted a Wait, What? blog post on November 12, 2012 entitled, “Malloy sees vindication in 2012 election results” – Really?
Using the most recent Quinnipiac Poll (Q-Poll) results, I presented data the indicated why Governor Malloy should be especially concerned about his re-election chances.
In fact, I concluded that he might even face a difficult Democratic primary should a fellow Democratic candidate decide to challenge him for the party’s gubernatorial nomination.
As if by magic, the next day, the Harford Courant’s Rick Green came to the Governor’s defense with his own blog post entitled, “What’s With That Malloy Surge!”
With no mention of my blog or the Quinnipiac Poll, Green found (or was given) a copy of pre-election poll conducted by a company called Public Policy Polling (PPP).
Unlike the Quinnipiac Poll who uses people to make the calls, the PPP poll uses an automated system in which the recipient of the call responds to the questions by touching numbers (i.e. if yes, hit 1).
Nonetheless, both the Quinnipiac Poll and the PPP poll were fairly accurate in their pre-election predictions.
Focused on just one of the questions the PPP poll asked, Rick Green wrote, “Public Policy Polling, which emerged as one of the most accurate pollsters of the 2012 campaign, now sees Gov. Dannel Malloy as a good bet for re-election. That’s quite a bump for a guy considered one of the more unpopular governors in the country over the last year and a half. In an interesting twist, Malloy can legitimately claim he pushed a reluctant state to accept the sort of increased taxes and cuts in spending that Congress and the president now face.”
“A good bet for re-election” was certainly a very different conclusion than the one I had reached the day before, when I wrote, “The truth is that Malloy and his political operation should be extremely worried about this year’s election results. When one in five Democratic voters has a negative opinion of Malloy’s job performance, it is definitely time to worry about the level of support among the Democratic base. This should come as no surprise to Malloy’s people, considering the way he has treated state employees, teachers and other core Democratic constituencies.”
At the time, some readers asked why there was a difference, considering both polls had the same projections for the Obama/Romney election?
I’ve been meaning to provide readers with a response.
Here is a quick summary of the situation;
The Courant’s Rick Green and Malloy’s operatives were relying on a question in the Public Policy Polling (PPP) survey that wasn’t asked on the Q-Poll Survey. The question read, “Generally speaking, if there was an election for Governor today, would you vote for Democrat Dan Malloy or his Republican opponent?”
[Little did they realize that Dan Malloy and Governor Dannel Malloy are two different people].
The results were 48 percent said they would vote for Dan Malloy, his un-named Republican opponent received 37 percent, and 15 percent saying they weren’t sure who they would vote for.
Those numbers were interpreted as being positive for Malloy.
The truth is that political pollsters approach future elections in a variety of different ways.
When no likely opponent has been identified, some pollsters use the question that Public Policy Polling used. A question that asks whether a voter will vote for the named incumbent or some unnamed challenger.
An alternative technique, that often gets a different result, is to ask voters whether they will vote for the named incumbent or whether it is time for someone new to be Governor.
A third technique is to recognize that the head to head election is simply too far away to solicit meaningful results and instead those pollsters look at the incumbent’s favorability rating. If their rating is below fifty percent, most political consultants will say the incumbent is vulnerable and the more the incumbent’s popularity is over 50 percent the “safer” they will be perceived.
What Green and the Malloy people overlooked, although it was especially interesting, is that the Quinnipiac Poll and the Public Policy Polling Survey had very similar results when voters were asked about Malloy’s favorability.
In the Q-poll, Malloy’s job approval was a low 45 percent.
In the PPP poll, Malloy’s job approval was a similarly low 46 percent.
Of even more concern for the Malloy operation is that among Democrats, Malloy only had a 66 percent favorability rating in the Q-poll AND AN EVEN LOWER 62 percent favorability rating among Democrats in the PPP poll.
The Q-poll found that an unprecedented 1 in 5 Democrats disapprove of the job Governor Malloy is doing, while the PPP poll was even worse. The PPP poll found that a stunning 1 in 4 disapprove of Malloy’s job performance.
Below you’ll find a two part table that outlines the data in more detail. The first table is Malloy’s job performance rating from the Quinnipiac poll, while the second is Malloy’s job performance rating from the Public Policy Polling poll.While it is not “wrong” to test an incumbent’s rating against an unnamed opponent, the data suggests the results would have been different had the question been whether to re-elect Malloy or was it time for someone new.
Malloy Job Rating October 2012
Public Policy Polling POLL
Malloy Job Rating October 2012
The results would have been different still had the question been, would you vote for Malloy or Foley?
However, the one thing we know is that both the Q-Poll or the PPP poll reveal that Malloy’s job performance rating is extremely low, and that was before voters had heard about the this year’s deficit and next year’s billion dollar budget shortfall.
In particular, for the general election, the most troubling point of all is the low favorability rating among independent or unaffiliated voters (Only 39 percent on the Q-poll and 40 percent in the PPP poll).
To win a statewide race in Connecticut, the Democratic candidate must carry virtually all the Democrats and a significant number of the unaffiliated voters. While a candidate doesn’t need to win a majority of the unaffiliated voters, he or she must do better than 40 percent.
President Obama, for example, received over 90 percent of the Democrats and, according to both the Q-Poll and PPP poll, was projected to get at least 45 percent of the unaffiliated.
Finally, as I said more than once, in my original post, there is still time for Governor Malloy to re-build his relationship with the Democrats and win over a larger percentage of the unaffiliated.
That said, there is simply no way to get around the fact that as people look to the 2014 gubernatorial election, Governor Malloy is very vulnerable in the general election and, as already mentioned, could even face a serious challenge if an aggressive Democratic candidate decided to take him on for the Democratic nomination.
The latest CTNewsjunkie article on Foley is here: http://www.ctnewsjunkie.com/ctnj.php/archives/entry/foley_vs._malloy_2014/
Rick Green’s “What’s With That Malloy Surge!” post can be found here: http://courantblogs.com/capitol-watch/ppp-whats-with-that-malloy-surge/
And my previous Wait, What post can be found here: “Malloy sees vindication in 2012 election results” – Really?