Stench of corruption grows around Malloy

When running for re-election in 2014, Governor Dannel Malloy took a $6+ million public finance grant to pay for his campaign.  In exchange for the taxpayer funds, Malloy swore, under oath, that he would not solicit, accept or use other funds to pay for his campaign expenses.

But Malloy lied and solicited hundreds of thousands of dollars from lobbyists, state contractors and those who have benefited from his corporate welfare programs.  That money, which in the end totaled more than $5 million, was funneled through a special account within the Democratic Party.

Last week a plea bargain deal with the Connecticut State Elections Enforcement Commission ended with Malloy’s political operatives paying a fine of $325,000 to the state, rather than the $6 million Malloy should have paid.

Not only were Connecticut citizens saddled with four more years of Dannel Malloy, but Connecticut taxpayers are out more than $5.7 million.

See: Malloy’s Connecticut – Ripping off Connecticut while keeping citizens in the dark and NEWS FLASH – Malloy + Dems slammed with record fine for campaign finance violations but slip off the hook

Meanwhile, it a separate situation, David Sirota, the nationally renowned investigative reporter has been covering Malloy’s actions as they relate to the attempt by CIGNA and Anthem to merge.  Both entities, but especially CIGNA have close political ties to Malloy and the Democratic incumbent has benefited from significant campaign donations from CIGNA and its executive team.

David Sirota is the senior editor for investigations at the International Business Times.  Sirota’s investigation has led to the following stories in the International Business Times:

Each one deserves a complete read-through, but Wait, What? readers should pay special attention to those marked with ***

***Will Cigna And Anthem Merge? How Health Insurance Companies Pump Money Into Politics (6/1/16)

Connecticut Groups Call For Dan Malloy To Remove Insurance Regulator In Anthem-Cigna Merger (6/2/16)

***Connecticut Rejects Request For Records About Anthem-Cigna Merger (6/7/16)

Obamacare Architect Kathleen Sebelius Questions Proposed Healthcare Insurance Mergers (6/10/16)

Cigna-Anthem Deal: Democratic And Republican Lawmakers Demand Connecticut Gov. Dan Malloy’s Regulator Be Removed From Controversial Merger Review (6/10/16)

***Cigna-Anthem Deal: Connecticut Gov. Malloy Signs Secrecy Bill That Could Shield Insurance Information From Public Release (6/13/16)

Cigna-Anthem Deal: Connecticut Ethics Officials To Vote On Conflict-Of-Interest Controversy (6/14/16)

***Anthem And Cigna Boost Spending On Lobbying As Lawmakers Review Merger (6/16/16)

***Cigna-Anthem Deal: Connecticut Officials Vote To Launch Ethics Review Of Gov. Dan Malloy’s Insurance Regulator (6/16/16)

Cigna-Anthem Merger: California Insurance Regulators Call On Justice Department To Block Insurance Mega-Merger (6/16/16)

***Cigna-Anthem Deal: Connecticut Ethics Probe Spotlights Similar Conflict-of-Interest Charges From The 1990s (6/17/16)

Malloy’s Connecticut – Ripping off Connecticut while keeping citizens in the dark

When Dannel Malloy was running for re-election in 2014 he collected a $6 million+ taxpayer funded Clean Campaign grant from the state of Connecticut with the promise that he would not solicit, accept, coordinate or use private funds to benefit his campaign.

In the following months, not only did he benefit from more than $5 million from an account funded by the Democratic Governors Association, AFSCME and AFT, he and his political operatives directly raised another $5 million, much of it from state contractors, lobbyist and people who have benefited from Malloy’s outrageous corporate welfare program.

The law was clear, if you take money in addition to the state grant, you lose the state grant.

That is, if you take money, you must pay back the $6 million in public funds.

Earlier this week, Malloy’s Democratic Party agreed to a settlement with the Connecticut State Elections Commission in which they paid a fine of $325,000 – or 5 percent – of what the taxpayer were owed.

Fair?

When it comes to Malloy, fair and proper are two terms that simply aren’t used.

In a stunning, courageous and insightful commentary piece, followed by a CT Mirror story, the lead investigator for the State Elections Enforcement Commission – Charlie Urso –  now retired – explains some of the issues that took place behind the scene.

Charlie Urso’s commentary piece – Malloy campaign law settlement was a mockery and a sham and the CT Mirror’s article – Investigator says Malloy settlement keeps voters in the darkis a MUST READ for those who really want to about Malloy and the modus operandi that permeates his operation.

While some of the details won’t be new for Wait, What? readers, the two pieces shed critically important light on what has happened to Connecticut under Malloy’s reign.

In Investigator says Malloy settlement keeps voters in the dark, the CT Mirror Reports;

Not too many investigators have Charles Urso’s resume:

He investigated two governors of different parties in different decades for different agencies, first as an FBI agent and then as an investigator for the State Elections Enforcement Commission.

Near the end of his FBI career, he helped send Republican Gov. John G. Rowland to prison in 2005. He said Thursday his second career as an elections cop ended in frustration – getting stonewalled trying to find out if Democratic Gov. Dannel P. Malloy violated campaign finance reforms inspired by the Rowland scandal.

The investigation of whether Malloy and the Democratic Party circumvented Rowland-era reforms – a ban on state contractor contributions and strict contribution limits attached to a voluntary system of public financing – ended Wednesday with a settlement.

Without admitting wrongdoing, the party will pay a record $325,000 over 27 months to settle allegations of impropriety involving use of state contractor contributions that flowed through a federal campaign account to support the 2014 re-election Malloy, who accepted $6.5 million in public financing through the Citizens’ Election Program.

Urso said he understands why his former employer took the deal. Democrats challenged an SEEC subpoena with a legal argument that could have neutered the commission’s enforcement authority, saying federal law largely pre-empted the commission in federal election years – which happen to also be state election years.

But he complained that Democrats succeeded in stopping an examination of how Malloy’s campaign and the party systematically raised money from contractors – as much as $10,000 at a time – in a so-called era of “clean elections.”

At the time of the settlement, the commission and the Democrats were awaiting a decision by a Superior Court judge on a motion to compel the party to honor the SEEC subpoena, which demanded bank records, emails and other documents pertaining to fundraising.

In an interview and an article published on CT Mirror’s commentary website, CT Viewpoints, Urso said Malloy and the Democrats made a sham of the Citizens’ Election Program, the system of publicly financed campaigns created in 2005 after Rowland resigned and went to prison.

“The settlement was made without allowing SEEC the ability to conduct a reasonable investigation. Despite public pronouncements of cooperation, they made a mockery of the investigation,” Urso wrote. “In response to SEEC requests, they only provided 300 pages of evidence before they refused to cooperate including ability to interview witnesses. The last time I investigated a Governor, I reviewed hundreds of thousands of documents.”

The documents were sought to shed light on about $1 million in spending through the federal account maintained by the Democratic State Central Committee. Some of the money was used to hire staff who laid the groundwork for Malloy’s re-election campaign.

Federal law requires the federal account to be used for get out the vote efforts when there are federal offices at stake, even if those same efforts also serve candidates for state office.

But federal and Connecticut campaign laws are contradictory. State law bans contractor contributions and provides public financing to candidates who agree to accept donations of no more than $100 and abide by spending limits, while federal law permits contractor contributions to the parties’ federal accounts, up to $10,000.

When Malloy accepted the $6.5 million public grant, his campaign already had benefitted from the federal account, some of which came from contractors prohibited from giving directly to his or any other state campaign.

“The paperwork he signed certified he had not and would not receive contributions from prohibited sources,” Urso wrote.

David S. Golub, who clashed with Urso while representing the Democrats, did not immediately respond to a request for comment. A spokesman for the governor had no comment, referring all inquiries to the Democratic Party.

Michael J. Brandi, the general counsel and executive director of the commission, defended the settlement Wednesday, saying the Democrats agreed to rules that resolve a significant conflict in state and federal election law and it ended litigation that could have produced a court ruling curtailing the ability of state regulators to enforce campaign reforms enshrined in the Citizens’ Election Program.

The settlement lays out new accounting rules and other restrictions intended to keep campaign money prohibited by state law out of state campaigns. The party also dropped its claim that federal election law pre-empts the commission from issuing subpoenas to investigate alleged potential violations of state elections law.

Urso’s voice was only one of those heard Thursday.

“This is great news for the integrity of our elections,” said Karen Hobert Flynn, the president of Common Cause. “The settlement affirms that candidates for governor and the legislature cannot accept aid from companies doing business with the state; that was the intent of the law that we and our allies worked so hard to pass after the scandals of the Rowland administration.”

Hobert Flynn conceded there may be some who were frustrated that the Democratic Party was not found to have violated state law, but a protracted legal battle wouldn’t have ensured the integrity of the Citizens’ Election Program.  She said the deal sends a message that states can pass and enforce campaign finance laws that are tougher than federal law.

Senate Minority Leader Len Fasano, R-North Haven, strenuously disagreed.

“The settlement contains nothing innovative or groundbreaking. All this settlement says is that the state Democratic Party now promises to follow current state law – the same law they should have been following in the first place,” Fasano said. “The SEEC trying to sell this agreement as a creative and innovative approach is a slap in the face to those they are supposed to protect by defending transparency and enforcing the law.

“It’s an excuse for the obvious reality that they rolled over to the state Democratic Party and accepted a payoff instead of doing their job.”

In a statement issued before Urso released his opinion piece, Fasano said the commission owed the public a full investigation, making the same point as the retired investigator.

“If the SEEC was going to try to settle this case without a ruling, then they shouldn’t have wasted taxpayer resources to take it this far all to end up making a deal without knowing all the facts,” Fasano said. “They should have waited for a ruling, and a complete investigation, so that we could have a real, enforceable resolution.”

You can read and comment on the original story at: http://ctmirror.org/2016/06/16/investigator-says-malloy-settlement-keeps-voters-in-the-dark/

You can read Charlie Urso’s commentary piece, Malloy campaign law settlement was a mockery and a sham, at: http://ctviewpoints.org/2016/06/16/connecticut-campaign-law-settlement-was-a-mockery-and-a-sham/

 

 

NEWS FLASH – Malloy + Dems slammed with record fine for campaign finance violations but slip off the hook

During 2013 and 2014, Wait, What? repeatedly reported on the outrageous campaign finance violations being perpetrated by Democratic Governor Dannel Malloy and his political operatives during his 2014 gubernatorial re-election campaign.  Wait, What? coverage included both original investigative pieces and detailed analysis of the outstanding reporting of the Courant’s Jon Lender.

Now, a year and a half latter, rather than face the full impact of their illegal activities, Malloy’s team “plea-bargained” a deal that was quickly voted on today by the Connecticut State Elections Enforcement Commission.  The deal, adopted by a 2-1 Commission vote , lets Malloy and his team off the hook, although they will be paying a record fine for their violation of Connecticut law.

Had Malloy and his operatives been found guilty of intentionally violating Connecticut’s public financing system, he could have been forced to return his $6 million taxpayer-funded public finance grant that he received in return for swearing, under oath, not to circumvent that law and accept outside donations.  Instead, the Democratic Party will pay a $325,000 fine to make the “problem” go away.

The Hartford Courant, in a breaking story entitled, Agency Approves Settlement That Would End Probe Of Democrats’ Spending On Malloy Re-Election reports;

State election regulators voted in favor of a negotiated settlement to a high-profile lawsuit in which they have been trying to force the state Democratic party to turn over documents including Gov. Dannel P. Malloy’s 2014 campaign emails.

The tentative agreement, by the State Elections Enforcement Commission by a 2 to 1 vote with one abstention, would end legal action between the commission and the Democratic State Central Committee dating back more than a year. The agreement is subject to approval by the court in the next day or so.

Final approval means the SEEC would shut down its long-running investigation into whether state Democrats illegally spent about $250,000 on Malloy’s 2014 re-election — as the state Republican party alleged in a complaint — without ever obtaining the documents and other information that SEEC has always said it needed to determine who did what and whether any laws were broken.

Under the proposed settlement, state Democrats would voluntarily contribute about $325,000 to a state fund, in a payment that would not be considered a penalty or fine — and there would be no admission by the party or finding by the commission of illegality or wrongdoing.

The SEEC would drop a pending lawsuit it filed in Superior Court last year seeking a court order that the party comply with an investigatory subpoena it slapped on Democrats in May 2015, and the Democrats would withdraw a suit claiming that the SEEC lacks legal authority to pursue the subpoena. The two sides are facing a deadline on Friday — the day on which their request for a delay in the court ruling runs out.

State Republican Party Chairman JR Romano said in a phone interview Wednesday morning that he thinks that the SEEC should not settle the case and should pursue the probe to obtain the Malloy emails and related documents.

“If the SEEC settles, I think they are wrong,” he said. It would signal that in the future violators of campaign financing laws will know “the SEEC will back down,” Romano said.

Republican state Senate leader Len Fasano agreed, issuing a statement saying: “The SEEC must continue to stand firm and reject the deal…The SEEC has the moral and legal obligation to enforce our clean election laws and protect taxpayers. They need to reject this proposed deal to show that our state cannot be bought. They must complete their fact finding to ensure that transparency and the law prevails.”

Republican state House leader Themis Klarides also issued a statement acknowledging the hefty fine.

“They can call it whatever they want but the $325,000 fine is unprecedented and proves the seriousness of this violation of the law,” Klarides said. “This matter should have been pursed to its conclusion but apparently the e-mails and communications between Gov. Malloy and his lieutenants were so highly damaging that they thought it best to settle the case quietly. Just another blow against transparency in state government that the Governor once bragged about.”

[…]

Talks toward a settlement so far have involved proposals such as state Democrats making a voluntary payment as high as the range of $750,000, but an agreement has been elusive until the current tentative one.

The SEEC’s subpoena demanded documents including potentially sensitive emails between Malloy and top political aides that might relate to 2014 campaign spending that the Republican state party chairman said in late 2014 was illegal.

At the center of the SEEC’s lawsuit is a set of clean-election laws that Connecticut legislators enacted in 2005 after Gov. John G. Rowland was convicted of corruption for receiving lucrative benefits from state contractors. Those laws created a system of public financing of state campaigns, along with a ban on state contractors contributing to the campaigns of candidates for state office.

The bargain for state taxpayers was that, in exchange for having to pay millions in grants to candidates under the public-financing program, they wouldn’t have to worry about contractors and their family members influencing state office-holders with their contributions.

But critics say that Democrats’ campaign spending in the 2014 gubernatorial campaign undid that bargain — by letting contractors’ money into the state campaign through a back door.

The Republicans’ complaint said that state Democrats broke the state’s clean-election laws by paying for pro-Malloy mass mailings with about $250,000 from its federally regulated campaign account, which is allowed by federal law to accept heavy contributions from state contractors despite the state’s ban on contractors’ money going to candidates for state office. Republicans said the expenditure on the Malloy mailings — out of the federal account — illegally circumvented the state ban on contractors’ contributions.

 

You can read more about the Malloy campaign’s action via the following Wait, What? posts

 Malloy’s “Final Destruction” of Connecticut’s Campaign Finance Reform Law

Three cheers for campaign finance corruption in Connecticut!

Malloy is a fraud on campaign finance reform issues

Malloy’s double dipping campaign finance gravy train

Campaign Finance Reform Malloy Style: NU CEO says support Malloy by giving to the Connecticut Democratic Party

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

Malloy, legislature continue to water-down Connecticut’s “landmark” campaign finance laws

Oh…Remember When Democratic Leaders were for Campaign Finance Reform

Dannel Malloy – Stonewalling an investigation by Connecticut’s State Elections Enforcement Commission.

When Connecticut Democratic Governor Dannel Malloy accepted $6.5 million in taxpayer funds to pay for this 2014 gubernatorial campaign he signed a contract promising not to accept any other funds to pay for his campaign.

But despite that commitment Malloy and his political operatives funneled millions of dollars through the Connecticut Democratic State Central Committee’s Federal Account in an unethical effort to beat his Republican opponent.  The money that flowed through the Democratic Party’s special account included hundreds of thousands of dollars from people who directly benefited from lucrative state contracts, a move that also violated Connecticut state law.

Connecticut’s bi-partisan State Elections Enforcement Commission authorized an investigation into the illegal activities engaged by Malloy and his political operatives.

But rather than address the issues, Team Malloy has been fighting to stop the investigation.

Not only has he ducked his legal responsibilities as governor and as a candidate for governor, but he is forcing the state to waste massive amounts of public funds trying to get the Malloy campaign and the Democratic Party to stop stonewalling the investigation by the Connecticut State Elections Commission.

The Connecticut State Elections Commission is hardly a partisan body.

Anthony J. Castagno of North Stonington was elected Chairman of the Connecticut State Elections Enforcement Commission in December 2012.  He was nominated to the Commission by the Speaker of the House. Salvatore A. Bramante was nominated to the Commission by the Minority Leader of the House. Patricia Stankevicius of Wolcott was nominated to serve on the Commission by Governor M. Jodi Rell.  Attorney Stephen T. Penny was nominated to serve on the Commission by the President Pro Tempore of the Senate. Attorney Michael J. Ajello was nominated to the Commission by the Senate Minority Leader.

All were confirmed by the Connecticut General Assembly.

Let’s re-state that point – ALL THE MEMBERS OF THE CONNECTICUT STATE ELECTIONS ENFORCEMENT COMMISSION WERE LEGALLY NOMINATED AND CONFIRMED BY THE MEMBERS OF THE CONNECTICUT GENERAL ASSEMBLY.

But rather than protect the State Election Enforcement Commission’s legal responsibility to investigate what appears to be a major crime, Malloy and his political operatives continue to do everything they can to stop what is an appropriate and necessary investigation into Malloy’s campaign.

Here is the latest news coverage of the effort to stop the duly authorized investigation.

From the Hartford Courant comes, “Final Arguments Turn Testy On Subpoena Of State Democratic Party Documents.”

Lawyers delivered at-times testy final arguments Tuesday in a trial over whether the state Democratic Party can continue to defy a subpoena that demands emails between Gov. Daniel P. Malloy and top aides, as well as other documents relating to the party’s support of Malloy’s re-election last year.

[…]

Central to the case are the clean-election laws that the General Assembly enacted in 2005, after Gov. John G. Rowland was convicted of corruption for receiving lucrative benefits from state contractors. Those laws created a system of public financing of state campaigns, along with a ban on state contractors’ executives and family members contributing to candidates for state office – all intended to banish contractors’ influence from elections.

According to the GOP’s complaint, state Democrats broke state law by paying for pro-Malloy mass mailings last year with about $250,000 from a federally regulated campaign account, which is allowed by federal law to accept heavy contributions from state contractors. Republicans said the expenditure on the mailings illegally circumvented the state ban on contractors’ contributions.

In court Tuesday, Golub reiterated past assertions that the Malloy mailers must be considered “federal election activity” – which federal law requires be paid for out of the federal account, he said.

“Federal election activity” is what Congress has decided “can influence the outcome of a federal election,” Golub said – adding that the mailers fell into that category because, even though they were dominated by photos and praise of Malloy, they included wording that urged people to vote, told them where polling places were and provided a phone number to call for a ride to the polls.

Those voters could also vote for candidates for federal office – in the person of Democratic candidates for congressional seats who were on the same ballot with Malloy. Thus, Golub has said for weeks, the get-out-the-vote language on the pro-Malloy mailers could have affected the outcome of federal congressional elections. It didn’t matter that the pro-Malloy mailers didn’t contain the names of any of those congressional candidates, he said.

However, Osborne said the state and federal laws aren’t incompatible, as Golub claims, and that it might have been possible for the Democrats to comply with both. She asked Robaina to uphold the SEEC’s authority under state law, as “the election experts,” to “carry out a meaningful investigation.”

Her comments echoed what she wrote in a recent legal brief: “The far-reaching implications of [Golub’s] argument cannot be overstated; if the … pre-emption claim is permitted to prevail, in every election in Connecticut where there is a federal candidate on the ballot, which is every two years, the SEEC’s authority to regulate contributions to state candidates will be effortlessly circumvented,” Osborne wrote. “Such a conclusion will reverberate through state elections and even beyond the borders of Connecticut.”

[…]

Golub said that although U.S. Supreme Court decisions generally give deference to subpoenas from regulatory agencies such as the SEEC, they make an “enormous exception” in cases where a party organization’s First Amendment rights to associate politically are threatened.

In such cases – and he said this is one – the regulatory agency needs to make a detailed “showing of need” that goes “beyond just a general suspicion,” Golub said. He said the subpoena seeks two full years’ worth of internal party communications that could cover strategy and internal operations, as well as the names of people who solicit money to operate the party and expand membership, adding that information is constitutionally protected.

But Osborne disputed him, saying emails are often the source of information about improper activity, and the party shouldn’t be able to withhold them because they may be “embarrassing” on a personal level to those who wrote them.

In 2014, Connecticut taxpayers funded more than$33 million in campaign grants to state candidates who participated in the Citizens’ Election Program on the promise that they wouldn’t accept money from state contractors. Malloy received $6.5 million through the public-financing program.

The CT Newsjunkie story on the hearing was entitled, “Attorney For Election Regulators: Dems Tried To ‘Stonewall and Stymie’ Investigation.”

An attorney for state election regulators told Superior Court Judge Antonio Robaina that the Connecticut Democratic Party was trying to “stonewall and stymie” an investigation, while an attorney for the party told him they were seeking highly confidential party communications protected by the First Amendment.

Those arguments were made Tuesday in Hartford Superior Court. Robaina gave the attorneys two hours to make their closing arguments. He asked no questions. He has 120 days to make a decision, but told the attorneys he will make one as quickly as possible.

Assistant Attorney General Maura Murphy Osborne, who represents the State Elections Enforcement Commission, which is seeking to enforce the subpoena against the Democratic Party said the investigation regulators are trying to conduct “is seriously languishing” due to the lack of compliance.

The complaint against the Democratic Party, which spent more than $200,000 from its federal account on mailers featuring Democratic Gov. Dannel P. Malloy, was filed by former Republican Party Chairman Jerry Labriola back in October 2014.

The mailers that also included a get-out-the-vote message were paid for with the party’s federal account. The federal account can accept money from state contractors. That creates a conflict between federal and state law. State law prohibits state contractor money from being used on publicly financed candidates, even though publicly financed candidates are now allowed to accept unlimited amounts from political parties.

Osborne said if the party is allowed to get away with this it amounts to a “massive circumvention route” around the state’s campaign finance laws, which were adopted in 2005 in the wake of former Gov. John G. Rowland’s corruption plea for accepting gifts from state contractors.

And the CT Mirror added to the coverage in, “Assistant AG: Democrats trying to ‘stonewall’,” writing

How the Connecticut Democratic Party came to solicit state contractors, regulated industries and beneficiaries of state aid for campaign contributions in 2014 is “highly privileged and confidential,” the party’s lawyer told a judge Tuesday.

David S. Golub, defending Democrats against an investigative subpoena, told Superior Court Judge Antonio C. Robaina in Hartford that the party has no obligation to disclose its fundraising strategy or internal communications.

The State Elections Enforcement Commission has no right to the names of people who solicited campaign funds or the strategy for approaching donors, he said. Donors gave as much as $20,000 each in the two years prior to 2014 election, when the Democratic Party raised more than $7 million.

Assistant Attorney General Maura Murphy Osborne, representing the commission, said the Democrats were trying to “stonewall and stymie the investigation.”

The commission is attempting to investigate whether the party illegally supported the re-election of Gov. Dannel P. Malloy last year with contributions from donors barred from giving to state campaigns.

Robaina heard final arguments Tuesday on a motion by the attorney general’s office for the judge to compel the party to produce emails, bank records and other documents subpoenaed by the elections commission.

“This court should order the enforcement of the State Elections Enforcement Commission’s subpoena sooner rather than later,” Osborne said.

Robaina, who gave the two lawyers free rein to spar for two hours, has 120 days to render a decision. The judge asked no questions, made no comments and gave no hint of whether he would facilitate or hobble what might be the most politically sensitive investigation ever opened by the commission.

In trying to quash the subpoena, Golub made arguments aimed at ending the investigation. He is challenging the commission’s jurisdiction and accusing it of trying to reach too deeply into the inner workings of the state’s dominant political party, violating its First Amendment rights.

The case is testing the strength of sweeping campaign finance reforms passed in 2005 after a corruption scandal toppled Gov. John G. Rowland: a ban on donations from state contractors, limits on lobbyist contributions and a voluntary system of publicly financed campaigns.

A central issue is conflicts between state and federal campaign finance law.

While Connecticut law bars state contractors from donating to state campaigns, federal law dictates the rules for raising and spending money that is used for get-out-the-vote efforts in federal election years, when state elections are also held.

The result is state parties maintain state and federal accounts. They are free to deposit state contractor contributions in the federal accounts, which provide significant support for state campaigns by helping deliver voters to the polls.

Essentially, the state has two sets of contradictory campaign financing rules: one provides public financing to candidates who agree to accept donations of no more than $100 and abide by spending limits that vary by office; the other allows state parties to accept maximum donations of $10,000 a year and spend unlimited amounts supporting their candidates.

Malloy benefitted from both systems. He is Connecticut’s first governor to win using public financing, defeating wealthy, self-funding opponents who outspent him in the Democratic primary and general election in 2010.

He was re-elected in 2014 with $6.5 million in public financing and the support of a party that financed a sophisticated get-out-the-vote machine with funds Malloy helped attract, beginning with more than $1.5 million in 2013. That was triple what the Democratic Party had collected four years earlier in the runup to the 2010 election, when it did not control the governor’s office.

And so it goes…..

Apparently laws are for the little people….

Malloy Campaign’s effort to obstruct justice faces court appearance on Tuesday, October 27, 2015

In his effort to win re-election to a second term as Connecticut’s governor, Dannel Malloy certified that he would abide by Connecticut’s public financing program.  In return for raising $250,000 in contributions no greater than $100 per person, the State Elections Enforcement Commission provided Malloy’s campaign with $6.5 million in public funds.  As a requirement for taking those funds, Malloy swore, under oath, that he would not accept any other campaign donations.

However, in the course of the 2014 the campaign, and in conjunction with the Democratic State Central Committee, Malloy and his political operatives funneled more than $5.2 million dollars into a Democratic Party account.  That money was used, in part, to pay for a series of glossy mailings urging people to vote for Malloy.

Not only was the use of the campaign funds illegal, but the funds that were used were tainted by the fact that it included donations from state contractors and others who are prohibited, by law, from participating in a Connecticut gubernatorial campaign.

As Connecticut law requires, the State Elections Enforcement began an investigation into the allegation that Malloy violated the law through the illegal use of campaign funds.

But rather than come clean about their activities, or even fight the accusations on the merits, Malloy and the Democrats did what would have once been unthinkable in state that proudly had one of the nation’s premier public finance systems… they spent the past year stonewalling the investigation and obstructing justice.

Team Malloy even refused to abide by an official subpoena issued by the Connecticut Elections Enforcement Commission.

See: Malloy and the Democratic State Central Committee – In plain English it’s called obstructing Justice (Wait, What? 8/3/2015)

In a couple of months, Dannel Malloy will take over as the chairman of the national Democratic Governors Association.  The move will put him into the national spotlight.

Yet considering the legal precipice Malloy is sitting on, that light will be murky, at best.

In an article entitled, Court Fight Heats Up Over Subpoena Of Democrats’ Emails About Malloy’s Campaign, Jon Lender recently provided an update on the situation.

The state Democratic party’s latest move in its fight against an investigation by state regulators generated a flare-up this week with the office of the attorney general, as the case has suddenly gained momentum toward a courtroom confrontation on Oct. 27.

Democratic State Central Committee’s lawyer  David Golub, filed a revised complaint saying that the SEEC “is prohibited from investigating or imposing sanctions on a state political party” in situations like this one — where Democrats say federal campaign-finance laws “pre-empt,” or supersede, Connecticut’s clean-election laws.

“The SEEC is the state agency empowered to hear and investigate complaints of violations of state election laws,” said Jepsen’s spokeswoman, Jacqueline Falkowski. “The General Assembly has vested the SEEC with broad investigatory powers, and the SEEC unquestionably can investigate a complaint of state election law violations.”

Superior Court Judge Anthony Robaina has set a court hearing for Oct. 27 in Hartford Superior Court in SEEC’s suit against the Democratic Party. The suit seeks to force the party’s state central committee to comply with a May 29 subpoena that the SEEC issued in its investigation of whether Democrats spent money illegally last year to support Gov. Dannel P. Malloy’s re-election with mass campaign mailings.

Wait, What? and the Hartford Courant have written multiple stories about the Malloy campaign’s tactics.

Just last week, Ken Dixon at the Connecticut Post added another detailed report about the issue.

In Political campaigns rake in cash despite ban, Dixon wrote;

Connecticut’s clean elections law prohibits those who do business with the state from contributing to the campaigns of politicians who could award or influence state contracts — including the governor and legislators.

But that hasn’t stopped the relentless flow of state contractor cash. It has merely diverted it.

[…]

Nearly 25 percent of the money collected in the Democrats’ federal account since January, 2013 has come from more than 460 builders, lobbyists, lawyers and others who are prohibited from contributing to statewide and/or General Assembly races, the investigation has shown.

Of the $4.8 million the Democrats’ federal PAC raised in those 32 months, $1.1 million of it came from businesses and individuals who are on a state list of 5,500 outlawed contributors, according to Federal Election Commission records.

And yet, just days before the election last year, the Democrats raided the fund for more than $318,000 to pay for mass mailings supporting Gov. Dannel P. Malloy. This spending is the focus of a Republican complaint to the State Elections Enforcement Committee and a lawsuit filed by Democrats to stop the investigation. The case, in state Superior Court, is headed for trial October 27.

National election watchdogs say the use of the federal account is simply a backdoor system of pay-to-play.

“This is an old game,” said Meredith McGehee, policy director at Washington-based Campaign Legal Center. “Strip away the legalese and this money comes from a party that intends to curry favor with public officials. Politicians are just as complicit. Contractors feel like they’re in a shakedown.”

[…]

Connecticut’s campaign-finance reforms were created after John G. Rowland, the disgraced former governor, was sent to prison for taking kickbacks from companies that won lucrative tax breaks and contracts.

Michael J. Brandi, executive director of the SEEC, noted it was 10 years ago this month that the bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2005 was signed into law.

“So far it’s been enormously successful and we’re committed to seeing it succeed for a long time into the future,” Brandi said in a statement. “But it’s also had a lot of challenges along the way, and this current lawsuit is another direct challenge to its survival.”

Under the rules of the Citizens Election Program, candidates for governor who want public funding must agree to limit their campaign spending to a set state grant after raising $250,000 in small contributions. Candidates who accept public financing and then take outside money face penalties ranging from fines and forfeiture of their grants to criminal prosecution.

Traditionally, state parties’ federal accounts were not used for state races at all, but only congressional and national campaigns. Democrats last year, however, facing a tough challenge from GOP gubernatorial candidate Tom Foley, decided to take the chance and transfer hundreds of thousands of dollars for Malloy’s end-game push.

Generous contributors

The Hearst investigation has found that among the big check signers are officials from HAKS Engineers, a major design firm that is banned from contributing to both statewide and General Assembly races. Executives at the New York and Connecticut-based company contributed at least $75,000 to the Democrats’ federal account, including $32,500 from Husam Ahmad, president and CEO, and his wife. HAKS had more than $8 million in state contracts in 2013 and 2014, according to state records.

The owners, employees and families at Viking Construction in Stamford, which has done major state-financed work throughout Southwestern Connecticut, and is also prohibited from donating to statewide and General Assembly campaigns, contributed $77,500 to the federal account. The firm is currently part of a consortium awaiting the go-ahead on a half-billion-dollar contract to rebuild the Stamford train station, led by the JHM Financial Group, whose president, John H. McClutchy Jr. of Darien, and his family, contributed $65,000 since 2013.

Officials from HAKS, Viking Construction and the JHM Group did not return multiple requests for comment. James A. Manafort Jr. president of Manafort Brothers Inc. of Plainville, declined comment on $14,000 in family contributions to the DSCC. The company had 91 state contracts, mostly with the Department of Transportation, in 2013-14, totaling $29.1 million.

The contractors’ contributions are legal. Individuals are allowed to give up to $10,000 a year to the federal account.

But, if any of the $318,000 transferred from the federal account was used to supplement Malloy’s $6.5-million public-financing grant, as Republicans allege and as the SEEC wants to investigate, the state Democrats could have violated the law.

Democrats say the mailing in question was a legal Get out the Vote (GOTV) flyer that happened to feature Malloy and required funding from the federal account. To stonewall the SEEC’s investigation, which would reveal tactics and strategy in their high-stakes campaign fundraising operation, the Democrats filed the lawsuit.

You can read the Connecticut Post’s entire story at Political campaigns rake in cash despite ban

Malloy and the Democratic State Central Committee – In plain English it’s called obstructing Justice

Connecticut’s MUST READ news article of the weekend, in case you missed it, was Jon Lender’s “Delay In Enforcing Subpoena Of Democratic Party Records Raises Questions.”

As Wait, What? readers will recall, in the fall of 2013, it became increasingly apparent that Governor Dannel Malloy and his political operatives were intent on undermining Connecticut’s campaign finance law.  The issues began to surface in an October 31, 2013 post entitled, Malloy/Democrats make mockery of Connecticut’s once prominent role in campaign finance reform.”

That article was followed by many more…. (See partial list below)

The inappropriate tactics engaged by Malloy and Connecticut’s Democratic State Central Committee generated multiple campaign finance complaints and a major investigation by the State Election Enforcement Commission.

In a virtually unprecedented step the Connecticut’s State Elections Enforcement Commission issued a subpoena for records and documents related to Malloy’s campaign.

As Jon Lender explained,

The SEEC’s May 29 (2015) subpoena sought records that might shed light on the GOP’s claim that Democrats illegally circumvented the state’s ban on contractor contributions last year by collecting state contractors’ money in a “federal account” and using it to pay for mass mailings on behalf of Malloy.

But instead of complying with the subpoena, the lawyer representing Malloy’s political operation refused to hand over the required documents and they have done everything they can to delay, derail and prevent a fair, open and thorough investigation.

The Governor who will become the head of the Democratic Governors Association in January 2015 is engaged in a blatant effort to obstruct justice.

Jon Lender writes,

“The State Elections Enforcement Commission voted June 25 to go to court to enforce a subpoena that the state Democratic Party has defied rather than hand over the party’s records of communications between Gov. Dannel P. Malloy and top aides about allegedly illegal spending in his 2014 re-election campaign.

The SEEC’s extraordinary action generated a flurry of news reports. But now, more than a month later, all the noise has died down and no such action has been filed in state Superior Court.

What’s going on?

Government Watch addressed that question a few days ago to the office of state Attorney General George Jepsen, which has the responsibility of filing any court action in behalf of the SEEC. A Jepsen spokeswoman responded with a written statement saying that although the attorney general’s office is aware of the SEEC’s June 25 vote, it hasn’t yet received a written “referral” that formally requests the court action.”

This would be a good time to say…. What the ­­­­­______?

When Lender contacted Jepson’s office he got this,

“In response to your inquiry, our office has not yet received a formal referral from the SEEC. We have been in communication with SEEC — though those communications are subject to attorney-client privilege and we are, therefore, unable to provide details of those communications — and we have designated significant staff resources in anticipation of the referral,” said the statement. “It would be inappropriate to comment further at this time.”

It would be inappropriate to comment?

The State Elections Enforcement Commission is investigating whether the Democratic State Central Committee broke the law by using money from its “Federal Account” to benefit Dannel Malloy.

Malloy’s lawyer claims that even though the direct mail pieces were all about Malloy they were actually intended to benefit the entire Democratic Ticket – a Democratic Ticket that included Attorney General George Jepson.

However you look at it – the money was either spent to support Jepsen’s colleague – Dannel Malloy – or it was spent to benefit Jepsen … or both!

And Jepsen’s Office is hardly in a position to “lead” the investigation.

One person who is speaking out is Connecticut’s Republican Party Chairman J.R. Romano.

It was the Republican Party’s original complaint that led to the investigation into the Malloy campaign’s inappropriate use of the Democratic State Central Committee’s Federal Account.

Lender adds,

“Romano said he’s not only been wondering what delayed the court action concerning his party’s pending complaint, but he also questions whether the SEEC should be represented by the office of Jepsen — a former state Democratic party chairman who successfully ran for re-election on the same statewide ticket as Malloy.

By statute, the attorney general represents administrative agencies such as the SEEC in court, unless some actual or perceived conflict of interest results in the hiring of an outside, independent law firm. The SEEC has not asked to be represented by legal counsel outside of Jepson’s office — and such a request would be controversial and probably would be viewed as impolitic.

Romano had no qualms about that, though. “The SEEC is doing the best job they can,” he said, but “the people in charge of this” — the handling of the court case, that is — are all allied and were elected along with members of the same party.”

That party, he said, lately has been “doing everything, at all costs, not to have the public look at their records.”

What is clear is that Democratic State Central Committee and their lawyer, David Golub, are working non-stop to derail the investigation.

As background, Lender notes,

“The Republicans’ complaint was filed after the Democrats sent out mass campaign mailings last October that were dominated by photos and assertions aimed at re-electing Malloy. The mailings also contained some small print telling voters when polls would be open on Election Day and providing a phone number to call to get a ride to the polls.

Democrats said that the inclusion of the small print turned the pro-Malloy mailings into “get-out-the-vote” materials — and that because those get-out-the-vote efforts also would help Democratic candidates for Congress who were on the ballot, the mailings had to be paid for using the party’s “federal account.”

Republicans called that a dodge, saying that state contractors were permitted to contribute heavily to the state party’s “federal account” — and that this was a means for Democrats to pump contractors’ money into campaigns for state offices and skirt the clean-election laws that they once championed. Good-government groups such as Common Cause have agreed.

A month before last November’s election, state Democrats requested a legal opinion from the Federal Election Commission on the legality of their plan to use money from their “federal account” to pay for the Malloy mailings. But within a week or so, they went ahead with the mailings and withdrew their request for the FEC’s opinion.

In June, The Courant disclosed that a draft of the legal opinion had been written at the FEC but had not been approved by the time the Democrats withdrew their request. If issued, it would not have been good news for the Democrats; one of its findings was that the mailings appeared to be part of an attempt to “avoid” and “bypass” Connecticut’s clean election laws.

“It would be absurd,” the draft opinion said, “to allow the [Democratic State Central Committee] to circumvent the anticorruption measures of state law by using a federal law that is intended to prevent circumvention of anticorruption measures.”

You can find Jon Lender’s full story at:  http://www.courant.com/politics/hc-lender-democrats-subpoena-delayed-0802-20150801-column.html#page=1

For more about the issue check out the following Wait, What? posts;

Malloy/Democrats make mockery of Connecticut’s once prominent role in campaign finance reform (10/31/2013)

Did you see the “For Sale” sign that the Malloy Administration put up? (12/4/2013)

Campaign Finance Reform Malloy Style: NU CEO says support Malloy by giving to the Connecticut Democratic Party (12/5/2013)

Malloy pulls in $36,000 plus from Connecticut nursing home industry (12/6/2013)

Democratic response to Malloy’s fundraising strategy is absurd and insulting… (12/8/2013)

Lobbyists ponied up more than $95,000 for Malloy campaign operation (1/6/2014)

State Contractors can’t make political donations – oh – except to benefit Malloy (1/15/2014)

Connecticut Democratic Party Leaders: It is okay to lie, as long as it’s to raise money… (1/18/14)

Malloy’s double dipping campaign finance gravy train (4/11/2014)

Malloy political operation sidesteps Connecticut law limiting contributions from lobbyists. (4/19/2014)

Malloy is a fraud on campaign finance reform issues  (5/1/2014)

Three cheers for campaign finance corruption in Connecticut! (9/15/2014)

CT Democratic Chair – The pot that called the kettle black 9/17/2014)

The Democrat’s sanctimonious claims about campaign money (10/7/2014)

Malloy and Democrats are violating Connecticut law with use of Federal PAC funds (10/13/2014)

Breaking News: 3rd Malloy mailing paid for with dirty money arrives in mail boxes (10/19/2014)

State Contractors can’t make political donations – oh – except to benefit Malloy

The driving force behind Connecticut’s successful effort to reform its campaign finance system ten years ago was the revelation that disgraced Governor John Rowland had used his position to solicit gifts and campaign donations from state contractors and others who directly benefited from the expenditure of taxpayer funds.

Following its passage in 2005, Connecticut’s new campaign finance law was heralded as one of the strongest in the nation.

Putting aside the way the new law unfairly treated third party candidates, Connecticut’s lawmakers passed, and Governor Jodi Rell signed, a sweeping piece of legislation that systematically outlawed state contractors from making campaign donations to benefit a political candidate.

Whereas John Rowland’s campaign finance reports were filled with the names of major state contractors such as the Tomasso Brothers Corporation, the Gilbane Company and the Manafort Brothers, as a direct result of Connecticut’s landmark campaign finance reform legislation, every governor and gubernatorial candidate after Rowland would be prohibited from accessing state contractor money.

However, as the final round of campaign finance reports are submitted for Connecticut’s 2014 gubernatorial campaign, it is becoming increasingly clear that when it came the prohibition on state contractor donations, Governor Dannel Malloy and his political operation fundamentally violated the spirit of Connecticut’s campaign finance law and, quite possibly, the letter of the law as well.

As has been widely reported, in addition to collecting the $6.5 million taxpayer funded check from the State Elections Enforcement Commission, the Malloy campaign funneled at least $5.1 million into the Connecticut Democratic State Central Committee’s “Federal Account,” where a significant portion of those funds were used for the exclusive benefit of Malloy’s campaign for re-election.

A review of the list of those who donated that $5.1 million includes dozens of state contractors including the some of the very companies associated with John Rowland’s downfall, including the Tomasso Brothers Corporation, the Gilbane Company, the Manafort Brothers and others whose campaign donations tarnished Connecticut’s reputation and sent a sitting governor to prison.

The role state contractor donations played in the Malloy campaign has received a fair amount of media coverage, such as Jon Lender’s investigative series in the Hartford Courant’s reporting on how top executives at Northeast Utilities donated more than $50,000 to benefit Malloy’s campaign.  The head of NU instructed subordinates that they could support Malloy by making their checks out to the Connecticut Democrat’s “Federal Account.”  (See details about the NU story via NU Chief Asks Subordinates To Support Malloy By Giving To Democratic Party and Election Agency Probes Legality Of NU Chief’s Solicitation For Malloy.)  The latest campaign reports indicate that NU officials helped Malloy by donating at least $56,750 to that Democratic account, as instructed.

But the full extent of the Malloy campaign unethical use of state contractor donations goes well beyond the Northeast Utilities example.

HAKS Engineering of New York collected more than $18 million from the State of Connecticut since Dannel Malloy took office.  Some of their work was part of a new contract to inspect overhead power lines on the New Haven Line of Metro North.  A May 2014 article in the CT Mirror reported that executives of HAKS Engineering had donated $45,000 to the account the Malloy campaign was using to sidestep Connecticut’s law prohibiting state contractors from giving funds to benefit Connecticut candidates.

In fact, by the end of the 2014 campaign cycle, HAKS executives and their families, along with their related companies, had actually donated about $80,000 the Democrat’s “Federal Account,” including $32,000 from Hasam Ahmad and his wife, $10,000 from Shahida Akhtar, $10,000 from Elliot Gene Sander, and donations in the range of $5,000 or more from other HAKS employees including Franco Balassone, Mahmood Mohammed, Louis Torelli and Mubbashir Rahman.

Another example of the Malloy campaign collecting campaign donations from those who have directly benefited from the Malloy administrations actions is Winstanley Enterprises, the lead developer of New Haven’s Downtown Crossing.  The publicly funded project is now home to Alexion Pharmaceuticals, the company that received a $51 million corporate welfare package from the Malloy administration to move to that property.  Adam and Carter Winstanley each donated to $20,000 to the Democrat’s Malloy oriented “Federal Account,” while David Winstanley pitched in $10,000 for a total of at least $50,000 from the Winstanley family.

Another key source of campaign funds for the Malloy operation was the law firm of Pullman & Comley whose attorney provided more than $45,000 during the recent campaign.  The Bridgeport based law firm has snagged a series of extremely lucrative contract with various state agencies including the Attorney General’s Office, the State Treasurer’s Office, the University of Connecticut, the State Airport Authority and the Department of Transportation.  Since Malloy became governor, the firm has collected in excess of $2.7 million and that doesn’t even count the money billed in this fiscal year.

Yet another example is the one the CT Mirror noted in their May 2014 article where they wrote, “The Simon Konover Company, which the state pays $4.7 million annually to rent 55 Elm St. in Hartford, is up to $51,000 in donations, with $30,000 from three executives last month on top of $21,000 last year. Its tenants include the attorney general, treasurer and controller.” As the Malloy’s re-election campaign came to a close, the total raised from those directly associated with the Simon Konover Company reached $71,000.

And what about those big construction companies that were so generous to John Rowland.  The Malloy operation also managed to collect donations from officials the Tomasso Brothers Corporation, the Gilbane Company and the Manafort Brothers Company.   The Manafort Brothers Company led the pack with $22,000 in donations.

Check back tomorrow for even more examples of the role state contractors inappropriately played in Malloy’s re-election effort.

Illegal Political Action Committee donations will haunt Malloy’s campaign

A Wait, What? blog earlier this week entitled, “Lobbyists ponied up more than $95,000 for Malloy campaign operation,” explained how Governor Malloy, his campaign committee and the Democratic Party appears to have violated what remains of Connecticut’s once prominent campaign finance law by accepting more than $95,000 in contributions from registered lobbyists.

As noted, Connecticut state law prohibits registered lobbyists from contributing more than $100 to any candidate participating in the state’s Citizens’ Election Program.

As a candidate for governor, Dan Malloy participated in Connecticut’s public campaign finance program.

Not only did Malloy accept the $6.5 million grant in public funds that comes with Connecticut’s “Clean Election program,” but he signed an oath promising to abide by all of the aspects of the Citizens’ Election Program, which includes the provision prohibiting candidates from taking larger contributions from lobbyists and from accepting any contributions from Political Action Committees and those who have state contracts.

However, as has been reported here and elsewhere, in an effort to augment their campaign war chest, not only did Malloy take the $6.5 million in public funds to pay for his campaign, but his political operation funneled another $5.1 million in donations through the Democratic State Central Committee’s “Federal Account.”

Considering a significant amount of those funds were spent on activities designed to directly promote Malloy’s re-election campaign, it appears that Malloy and the Democrats violated both Connecticut and Federal law.

In response to the allegations of wrongdoing, Malloy’s campaign has consistently claimed that while their effort to launder money through the Democratic Party may have violated the spirit of the law, their actions were “technically” legal.

But one area where their legal theory collapses relates to the extremely serious legal violation associated with running over $559,000 in political action committee contributions through the Connecticut Democratic Party’s “Federal Account.”

Connecticut State law is extremely clear about what political action committees must do before they can donate money to benefit a candidate running for a state office in Connecticut.

Section 9-605 of the Connecticut State Statutes requires political action committees to register with the Connecticut State Elections Enforcement Commission before donating funds that will benefit a candidate running for office in Connecticut.

The law reads,

 “The chairperson of each political committee shall designate a campaign treasurer and may designate a deputy campaign treasurer. The campaign treasurer and any deputy campaign treasurer so designated shall sign a statement accepting the designation. The chairperson of each political committee shall file a registration statement described in subsection (b) of this section along with the statement signed by the designated campaign treasurer and deputy campaign treasurer with the proper authority, within ten days after its organization…

Subsection (B) of the statute adds, “The registration statement shall include: (1) The name and address of the committee; (2) a statement of the purpose of the committee; (3) the name and address of its campaign treasurer, and deputy campaign treasurer if applicable; (4) the name, address and position of its chairman, and other principal officers if applicable; (5) the name and address of the depository institution for its funds; … (10) if the committee is established by a business entity or organization, the name of the entity or organization; (11) if the committee is established by an organization, whether it will receive its funds from the organization’s treasury or from voluntary contributions; (12) if the committee files reports with the Federal Elections Commission or any out-of-state agency, a statement to that effect including the name of the agency; (13) a statement indicating whether the committee is established for a single primary, election or referendum or for ongoing political activities; (14) if the committee is established or controlled by a lobbyist, a statement to that effect and the name of the lobbyist; (15) the name and address of the person making the initial contribution or disbursement, if any, to the committee; and (16) any information that the State Elections Enforcement Commission requires to facilitate compliance with the provisions of this chapter or chapter 157. If no such initial contribution or disbursement has been made at the time of the filing of such statement, the campaign treasurer of the committee shall, not later than forty-eight hours after receipt of such contribution or disbursement, file a report with the State Elections Enforcement Commission. The report shall be in the same form as statements filed under section 9-608.”

The net impact of this law is that in order to make political donations in Connecticut, a Political Action Committee MUST register with Connecticut’s Election Enforcement Commission.

Yet despite this law, according to documents filed with the Federal Election Commission, a total of $400,475 of the $559,063 deposited into the Connecticut Democratic Party’s account came from Political Action Committees that WERE NOT registered with the Connecticut State Elections Commission.

Only $60,853 (10.8 percent) of the PAC money funneled through the Democratic State Central Committee’s “Federal Account” came from Political Action Committees appropriately registered with the state.  It is unclear how the law applies to an additional $97,735 that was deposited into that account.

What is certain is that over 70 percent, and potentially as much as 90 percent, of the PAC money the Malloy campaign raised and put into the Party checking account came from political action committees that could not legally donate to a candidate running for governor and yet that is exactly how those funds were used for.

While Malloy and his operatives can try to claim that their campaign activities didn’t actually violate Connecticut law, by raising and depositing contributions into the Democratic Party’s “Federal Account” from Political Action Committees that were not registered in Connecticut and then using all or some of those funds to support the governor’s re-election campaign raises extraordinarily serious legal questions.

Not only can intentionally violating the state’ campaign finance laws led to criminal charges, but by raising and spending illegal PAC money, the Malloy campaign openly violated the core requirement of Connecticut’s Public Financing Program and if found guilty should be required to reimburse the public for the $6.5 million campaign finance grant he took to pay for the rest of his campaign.

It is now up to the State Elections Enforcement Commission to pursue this vital issue.

Non-Connecticut Registered Political Action Committee State Amount
HARTFORD FINANCIAL SERVICES GROUP INC ADVOCATES FU CT $15,000
COZEN O’CONNOR PAC PA $11,000
UAW V CAP MI $10,000
UNITEDHEALTH GROUP, INC. PAC MN $10,000
THE TRAVELERS COMPANIES PAC CT $10,000
SHEET METAL WORKERS’ INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION POL DC $10,000
ROBINSON & COLE FEDERAL PAC CT $10,000
PFIZER INC. PAC NY $10,000
NEA FUND FOR CHILDREN AND PUBLIC ED DC $10,000
GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTE DC $10,000
COMCAST CORPORATION PAC – FEDERAL PA $10,000
CIGNA CORPORATION PAC DC $10,000
BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM PAC CT $10,000
AMERICAN FEDERATION OF TEACHERS – COPE DC $10,000
COVANTA ENERGY PAC NJ $8,500
SPECTRA ENERGY CORP PAC TX $7,500
INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF IRONWORKERS PAC DC $7,500
WELLPOINT, INC. WELLPAC IN $7,000
INTERNATIONAL UNION OF PAINTERS AND ALLIED TRADES PAC DC $7,000
DRIVE COMMITTEE DC $7,000
XEROX CORPORATION PAC DC $5,000
WAL-MART STORES INC. PAC FOR RESPONSIBLE GOVERNMENT AR $5,000
UFCW INTERNATIONAL UNION PAC DC $5,000
THE WALT DISNEY PRODUCTIONS EMPLOYEES PAC DC $5,000
SYNERGY PAC VA $5,000
SEIU COPE PAC PCC DC $5,000
PURDUE PHARMA PAC CT $5,000
PRAXAIR, INC. PAC CT $5,000
NEW DEMOCRAT COALITION PAC DC $5,000
MAXIMUS INC. PAC VA $5,000
MACHINISTS NON-PARTISAN POLITICAL LEAGUE MD $5,000
INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF HEAT & FROST INSULATORS AND ASBESTOS WORKERS P A C MD $5,000
INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FIRE FIGHTERS PAC DC $5,000
IBEW PAC VOLUNTARY FUND DC $5,000
IBEW PAC VOLUNTARY FUND DC $5,000
HUMANE SOCIETY LEGISLATIVE FUND PAC DC $5,000
HNTB HOLDINGS LTD. POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE MO $5,000
GHC ANCILLARY CORPORATION POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE PA $5,000
GENERAL DYNAMICS PAC VA $5,000
FOXPAC DC $5,000
ENGINEERS PAC DC $5,000
DEMOCRATS FOR EDUCATION REFORM PAC DC $5,000
COMPUTER SCIENCES CORPORATION PAC VA $5,000
BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION PAC (FKA MBNA CORPORATION FEDERAL DE $5,000
AT&T INC. FEDERAL PAC TX $5,000
AMERICAN FEDERATION OF STATE COUNTY & MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES DC $5,000
AMERICAN ASSOCIATION FOR JUSTICE PAC DC $5,000
AMALGAMATED TRANSIT UNION-COPE DC $5,000
ALVAREZ & MARSAL HOLDINGS LLC PAC DC $5,000
AFL-CIO COPE PAC DC $5,000
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF BOILERMAKERS CAMPAIGN PAC KS $4,000
THE PHOENIX COMPANIES PAC CT $3,500
PITNEY BOWES, INC. PAC CT $3,500
DOMINIONPAC VA $3,500
WEBSTER BANK PAC-FEDERAL CT $3,000
NATIONAL AIR TRAFFIC CONTROLLERS DC $3,000
PULLMAN & COMLEY PAC CT $2,850
WALGREEN CO PAC IL $2,500
UNITED ASSOCIATION PAC MD $2,500
OLDCASTLE MATERIALS INC. PAC DC $2,500
NORTHEAST UTILITIES PAC-FEDEDERAL DC $2,500
NATIONAL CONFECTIONERS ASSOCIATION OF THE UNITED STATES, INC. PAC DC $2,500
MINERALS TECHNOLOGIES INC. PAC NY $2,500
FUELCELL ENERGY PAC CT $2,500
CERNER CORPORATION PAC MO $2,500
ALEXION PAC CT $2,500
ALCOA INC. PAC – FEDERAL NY $2,500
AETNA INC. PAC DC $2,500
THERMO FISHER SCIENTIFIC INC. PAC MA $2,000
THE NESTLE WATERS NORTH AMERICA INC. POLITICAL ACT CT $2,000
SAFELITE GROUP INC. PAC OH $2,000
O’NEILL & ASSOC. PAC MA $2,000
INTL UNION OF BRICKLAYERS & ALLIED CRAFTWORKERS PAC DC $2,000
AMERICAN MEDICAL RESPONSE, INC. PAC CO $2,000
XL AMERICA. INC. – PAC CONTRIBUTION ACCOUNT CT $1,500
COHNREZNICK LLP PAC MD $1,500
PUBLIC SERVICE ENTERPRISE PAC NJ $1,000
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CHAIN DRUG STORES  PAC VA $1,000
MARYLAND ASSOCIATION FOR CONCERNED CITIZENS PAC MD $1,000
LOCKHEED MARTIN PAC VA $1,000
HEALTH INSURANCE PLAN OF GREATER NEW YORK FEDERAL NY $1,000
GREENBERG TRAURIG, P.A. PAC NY $1,000
ENTERPRISE HOLDINGS INC. PAC MO $1,000
CBS CORPORATION PAC DC $1,000
AMERICAN OPTOMETRIC ASSOCIATION PAC VA $1,000
REPAC- REINSURANCE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA PAC DC $500
UNITY9 PAC DC $250

 

*Note:  A number of major Connecticut companies have failed to register Connecticut PACS and only have Federal PACS.

In addition, some organizations that have Connecticut PACs still made the contribution using their Federal account and some organizations that have both Connecticut and Federal PACS made contributions from both organizations, such as the AFL-CIO.

Lobbyists ponied up more than $95,000 for Malloy campaign operation

Connecticut state law prohibits registered lobbyists from contributing more than $100 to any candidate participating in the state’s Citizens’ Election Program.  A gubernatorial candidate who violates that law would be prohibited from getting the $6.5 million grant in public funds that comes with Connecticut’s “Clean Election program.”

However, tomorrow – January 7, 2015 – when Governor Dannel Malloy is sworn into office for a second term, there will be nearly sixty registered lobbyists in the Capitol beaming with pride that they were able to funnel more than $95,000 to help fund Malloy’s re-election effort.

The fact is that some of these lobbyists donated well over $5,000, even $10,000, to help cover some of the governor’s recent campaign expenses.

How did Malloy and the lobbyists do it?

In the closing weeks of the 2014 gubernatorial campaign, the Malloy campaign sent out a series of direct mail pieces that were aimed at winning back the support of Democratic households.

Like any candidate mailing, the pieces featured pictures and quotes from the candidate, including lines like, “DEMOCRATIC GOVERNOR DAN MALLOY HAS PUT US ON A PATH OF PROGRESS,” and “On November 4th, Vote for Progress, Dan Malloy for Governor.”

But the pieces weren’t paid for by Dan Malloy’s campaign committee, even though they featured Malloy and included his campaign website, Facebook and Twitter Account.

The money for the mailings came out of the Democratic State Central Committee’s “Federal Account.”

Last summer, Malloy and his campaign committee collected and cashed the $6.5 million check they received from the State Elections Enforcement Commission for agreeing to participate and abide by Connecticut’s public financing system.  The campaign committee used those funds to pay for television ads and a variety of other campaign expenses.

During the last two years, however, Malloy’s fundraising operation also collected just over $5.1 million for the Connecticut Democratic State Central Committee’s “Federal Account.”

Under Federal law, the Democratic Party is allowed two accounts.

A “State Account” that is used to pay for state and local level campaign activities and the other, called the “Federal Account,” which is supposed to be used to support candidates who are running for federal offices and for other “party building activities.”

Of the $5.1 million raised into the “Federal Account” during 2013-2014, a significant portion came from Connecticut lobbyists, state contractors, political action committees and large donors who had directly benefited from Malloy’s corporate welfare program.

By depositing the funds into the Democratic Party’s “Federal Account,” the Malloy campaign claimed that it could legally circumvent the state law that clearly prohibits large contributions from lobbyists and those who do business with the state.

Whether the maneuver was illegal has yet to be determined.

The repercussions from the Malloy campaign’s antics will be play out as the State Elections Enforcement Commission and the Federal Elections Commission investigate the issues and potentially take action against the abuses.

But one thing is certain.

When Malloy was facing possible defeat and public opinion polls indicated that a majority of Connecticut residents didn’t like the governor or approve of the way he was doing his job, a group of generous lobbyists and state contractors came through with the money Malloy needed to fund various political operations including a series of campaign mailings aimed at persuading Democrats to cast their vote for Malloy.

The sad reality is that the political landscape has changed significantly since Connecticut adopted its landmark 2005 campaign finance reform legislation.

The original concept, which passed following the first conviction of Governor John Rowland in 2005, was that in return for a multi-million dollar grant in public funds, gubernatorial candidates would agree to forgo private funds raised from state contractors, lobbyists, political action committees, the wealthy and other special interests.

When the legislation passed, Speaker of the House Chris Donovan wrote,

 “Almost 230 years ago, the founding fathers took a huge risk when they signed the Declaration of Independence and set the wheels in motion for the world’s greatest democracy. Today, this historic campaign finance reform legislation reaffirms that this is a government for the people, not special interests. This campaign finance reform bill is our declaration of independence. We can look our constituents in the eye and say we created the strongest campaign laws in the United States.”

At the same time, State Senator Don Williams changed his official biography to read,

“Since his election as Senate President, Senator Williams has been a leading advocate for cleaning up government. He authored legislation to reform the State Ethics Commission and supported sweeping changes to the campaign finance system and the state contracting process. With the creation of a publicly funded campaign finance system in 2005, Connecticut now has the strongest reform laws in the nation.”

Even Governor Malloy claimed allegiance to Connecticut’s campaign finance law, telling Connecticut Magazine in 2011, “Quite frankly, anyone who is not willing to participate [in Connecticut’s campaign finance program] is really just attacking the system.”

When writing about Malloy’s first year in office, The American Prospect magazine observed,

“[T]he secret behind the Democrats’ success was sweeping campaign-finance reform enacted six years earlier. Reeling from the embarrassment of a corruption scandal that landed a governor in federal prison, Connecticut legislators grabbed the national spotlight in 2005 by stopping the flow of millions of special-interest dollars, banning lobbyist contributions, and instituting a public-financing system that record-setting numbers of candidates have embraced.”

But all that was before Malloy and the Democrats in the Connecticut General Assembly torpedoed many of the most important elements of the law over the past three years.

So, while Malloy swore off special interest money in his 2010 campaign, he embraced the tainted funds in 2014.

The final campaign finance reports have yet to be filed, but according to the reports that are available, at least 58 Connecticut lobbyists or their spouses donated a total of more than $95,000 to the Connecticut Democrats “Federal Account” during the 2014 campaign cycle.

At least four lobbyists donated in excess of $5,000 including Craig LeRoy and Tom Ritter, and about a dozen more helped Malloy’s campaign by donating at least $2,000 to the Democrats’ “Federal Account”.

Even lobbyist David O’Leary, who served as disgraced Governor John Rowland’s former chief of staff, kicked in $250 to the effort.

As disturbing as the lobbyist money is, just wait till you see what political action committees, state contractors and those who have benefited from Malloy’s corporate welfare program kicked into Malloy’s campaign operation.

Malloy and Democrats are violating Connecticut law with use of Federal PAC funds

With Election Day eleven days away, one thing is certain.  One of the biggest losers this year is the integrity of Connecticut’s once promising campaign finance reform law.

In addition to collecting $6.5 million in public funds for his campaign, Governor Dannel “Dan” Malloy and his political operation have raised over $4.3 million into the Democratic State Central Committee’s “Federal Account.”  This $10.8 million doesn’t even count an additional $4.4 million that is being funneled into Connecticut in support of Malloy via a Super PAC ironically named “Connecticut Forward.”

Opposing Malloy’s $15.2 million is Foley’s campaign with $12.2 million, $6.5 million in public funds and another $5.7 million through the Grow Connecticut Super PAC.

As has been widely reported in the media, the ethical and legal controversy underling the 2014 gubernatorial campaign is the fact that the Democrat Party’s “Federal Account” received hundreds of thousands of dollars from people who have state contracts or have directly benefited from Governor Malloy’s corporate welfare program.

The use of campaign donations from state contractors to support Malloy’s re-election effort destroys the fundamental purpose of Connecticut’s landmark 2005 campaign finance reform law, a law that passed and signed into law to prevent any future governor from doing what helped send disgraced Governor John Rowland to prison.

However, less than ten years after Rowland went to prison and Connecticut adopted its sweeping campaign reform law, Malloy is using state contractor funds to pay for a series of campaign mailings to promote his re-election effort.

Even worse, the on-going violation of the spirit, and probably the letter, of Connecticut law goes well beyond the use of campaign donations from state contractors.

Malloy and his operatives have collected and deposited more than $425,000 from political action committees into that same Democratic Party “federal account.”

And the vast majority of those donations came from Federal Political Action committees THAT ARE PROHIBITED from using their funds to benefit a state-level candidate in Connecticut.

Connecticut law clearly requires that a political action committee (PAC) must register with the Connecticut Elections Enforcement Commission before it can give money to benefit state candidates.

According to Connecticut law and the State Elections Enforcement Commission,

“A political committee registered with the Federal Election Commission under federal law or with another state other than Connecticut may not make contributions or expenditures to or for the benefit of a Connecticut state or municipal candidate or a Connecticut political committee or party committee. A separate committee must first be registered in Connecticut (by filing a SEEC Form 3, designating a treasurer and a depository institution situated in Connecticut) and then must solicit funds specifically for use in Connecticut campaigns in accordance with Connecticut’s campaign finance laws”

However, the Malloy campaign has been directly benefiting from money donated by political action committees that are registered with the Federal Election Commission BUT HAVE NOT registered with the State of Connecticut.

The following chart lists political action committee donations that have been deposited into the Connecticut Democratic State Central Committee’s “Federal Account” and identifies contributions that have come from PACS that are prohibited from helping the Malloy campaign because they are not registered in Connecticut.

While it is appalling that Malloy and his campaign would use money donated by state contractors and people who have directly benefited from Malloy’s corporate welfare program, it is equally disturbing that Malloy and the Democratic State Central Committee would utilize PAC funds that violate one of the most fundamental aspects of Connecticut’s campaign finance law.

NOT Registered in CT Political Action Committee Name City State Amount
X AMERICAN FEDERATION OF TEACHERS COMMITTEE ON POLITICAL EDUCATION (COPE) WASHINGTON DC $15,000
X COZEN O’CONNOR POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE PHILADELPHIA PA $10,000
X HARTFORD FINANCIAL SERVICES GROUP INC ADVOCATES FU HARTFORD CT $10,000
X IBEW PAC VOLUNTARY FUND WASHINGTON DC $10,000
X JOBS AND INNOVATION MATTER PAC (JIM PAC) WASHINGTON DC $10,000
X PFIZER INC. PAC NEW YORK NY $10,000
X THE TRAVELERS COMPANIES PAC HARTFORD CT $10,000
X UNITEDHEALTH GROUP, INC. PAC HOPKINS MN $10,000
X SHEET METAL WORKERS’ INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION PAC WASHINGTON DC $9,500
X ROBINSON & COLE FEDERAL POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE HARTFORD CT $8,000
X UAW V CAP DETROIT MI $7,875
X BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE RIDGEFIELD CT $7,500
X COMCAST CORPORATION POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE- FEDERAL PHILADELPHIA PA $7,500
X COVANTA ENERGY CORPORATION POLITICAL ACTION COMMMITTEE MORRISTOWN NJ $7,500
UNITED BROTHERHOOD OF CARPENTERS/JOINERS OF AMER NEW ENGLAND REG CARPENTERS LEGIS EMP CMTE NORWALK CT $7,500
X INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF IRONWORKERS WASHINGTON DC $7,000
X NEA FUND FOR CHILDREN AND PUBLIC ED WASHINGTON DC $6,850
X GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTE WASHINGTON DC $6,000
X ALVAREZ & MARSAL HOLDINGS LLC PAC WASHINGTON DC $5,000
X AMALGAMATED TRANSIT UNION-COPE WASHINGTON DC $5,000
X AT&T INC. FEDERAL POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE (AT&T DALLAS TX $5,000
X BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION PAC (FKA MBNA CORPORATION FEDERAL PAC WILMINGTON DE $5,000
X CIGNA CORPORATION POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE WASHINGTON DC $5,000
X COMPUTER SCIENCES CORPORATION PAC FALLS CHURCH VA $5,000
X DEMOCRATS FOR EDUCATION REFORM WASHINGTON DC $5,000
X FOXPAC WASHINGTON DC $5,000
X INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FIRE FIGHTERS PAC WASHINGTON DC $5,000
X INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF HEAT & FROST INSULATORS AND ASBESTOS WORKERS P A C LANHAM MD $5,000
X INTERNATIONAL UNION OF PAINTERS & ALLIED TRADES POLITICAL ACTION TOGETHER POLITICAL COMM LEESBURG VA $5,000
X MACHINISTS NON-PARTISAN POLITICAL LEAGUE UPPER MARLBORO MD $5,000
X NEW DEMOCRAT COALITION POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE WASHINGTON DC $5,000
NEW ENGLAND REGIONAL COUNCIL OF CARPENTERS LEGIS EMP CMTE BOSTON MA $5,000
** NUTMEG PAC STAMFORD CT $5,000
OPERATING ENGINEERS LOCAL 478 POLITICAL ACTION COM HAMDEN CT $5,000
X PRAXAIR, INC. PAC DANBURY CT $5,000
X PURDUE PHARMA PAC STAMFORD CT $5,000
X SEIU COPE PAC PCC WASHINGTON DC $5,000
X SYNERGY PAC MCLEAN VA $5,000
X THE WALT DISNEY PRODUCTIONS EMPLOYEES PAC WASHINGTON DC $5,000
X WAL-MART STORES INC. PAC FOR RESPONSIBLE GOVERNMENT BENTONVILLE AR $5,000
X WELLPOINT, INC. WELLPAC INDIANAPOLIS IN $5,000
DOMINION POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE RICHMOND VA $3,500
X PITNEY BOWES, INC. PAC STAMFORD CT $3,500
X THE PHOENIX COMPANIES PAC HARTFORD CT $3,500
X GHC ANCILLARY CORPORATION POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE KENNETT SQUARE PA $3,000
WEBSTER BANK PAC-FEDERAL WATERBURY CT $3,000
X PULLMAN & COMLEY FEDERAL PAC BRIDGEPORT CT $2,850
SENATE DEMOCRATS VICTORY PAC WEST HARTFORD CT $2,655
X AETNA INC. POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE WASHINGTON DC $2,500
ASSOCIATION OF COMMUTER RAIL EMPLOYEES PAC NEW YORK NY $2,500
X CERNER CORPORATION PAC KANSAS CITY MO $2,500
CT STATE COUNCIL OF MACHINISTS PAC KENSINGTON CT $2,500
X FUELCELL ENERGY PAC DANBURY CT $2,500
X GENERAL DYNAMICS VOLUNTARY POLITICAL CONTRIBUTION FALLS CHURCH VA $2,500
X MINERALS TECHNOLOGIES INC. POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE (MTI PAC) NEW YORK NY $2,500
X MURPHPAC WASHINGTON DC $2,500
X NATIONAL CONFECTIONERS ASSOCIATION OF THE UNITED STATES, INC. POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE WASHINGTON DC $2,500
X NORTHEAST UTILITIES EMPLOYEES POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE-FED WASHINGTON DC $2,500
X OLDCASTLE MATERIALS INC. PAC WASHINGTON DC $2,500
X SPECTRA ENERGY CORP POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE (SPECTRA-DCP PAC) HOUSTON TX $2,500
X UNITED ASSOCIATION POLITICAL EDUCATION COMMITTEE ANNAPOLIS MD $2,500
X WALGREEN CO PAC DEERFIELD IL $2,500
X XEROX CORPORATION POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE (XPAC WASHINGTON DC $2,500
CONNECTICUT BANKERS ASSOCIATION PAC, BANKPAC FARMINGTON CT $2,000
X DRIVE COMMITTEE WASHINGTON DC $2,000
X INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF BOILERMAKERS CAMPAIGN KANSAS CITY KS $2,000
X INTERNATIONAL UNION OF PAINTERS AND ALLIED TRADES WASHINGTON DC $2,000
X INTL UNION OF BRICKLAYERS & ALLIED CRAFTWORKERS PAC WASHINGTON DC $2,000
LD PAC FARMINGTON CT $2,000
X O’NEILL & ASSOC. PAC BOSTON MA $2,000
X THERMO FISHER SCIENTIFIC INC. PAC WALTHAM MA $2,000
CEUI PAC MIDDLETOWN CT $1,850
DREW PAC MIDDLETOWN CT $1,685
CT STATE EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION PAC HARTFORD CT $1,615
DEMOCRATS FOR NEW LEADERSHIP WETHERSFIELD CT $1,500
X XL AMERICA. INC. – PAC CONTRIBUTION ACCOUNT HARTFORD CT $1,500
PROPEL PAC ( PRO PROGRESSIVE ENERGETIC LEADERSHIP ) PAC NEW BRITAIN CT $1,430
X CBS CORPORATION PAC WASHINGTON DC $1,000
CONNECTICUT STATE UAW-PAC COUNCIL FARMINGTON CT $1,000
X DAVID WEPRIN FOR CONGRESS HOLLIS NY $1,000
X GREENBERG TRAURIG, P.A. PAC ALBANY NY $1,000
X HEALTH INSURANCE PLAN OF GREATER NEW YORK FEDERAL NEW YORK NY $1,000
X LOCKHEED MARTIN CORPORATION EMPLOYEES’ POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE ARLINGTON VA $1,000
X MARYLAND ASSOCIATION FOR CONCERNED CITIZENS POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE PIKESVILLE MD $1,000
X THE NESTLE WATERS NORTH AMERICA INC. POLITICAL ACT STAMFORD CT $1,000
LOCAL 387 CHESHIRE CORRECTION COMPLEX PAC MILLDALE CT $875
SEIU STATE COUNCIL PAC HARTFORD CT $875
** URBAN LEADERSHIP COMMITTEE BLOOMFIELD CT $850
** O’BRIEN ’13 WEST HAVEN CT $775
A BETTER CONNECTICUT PAC ROCKY HILL CT $725
C.P.F.U. (CONNECTICUT POLICE & FIRE UNION) PAC HARTFORD CT $600
** EILEEN HEAPHY FOR MAYOR STAMFORD CT $600
** MATT PAC WEST HARTFORD CT $570
STAMFORD PROFESSIONAL FIREFIGHTERS PAC FUND STAMFORD CT $525
THE GREATER HARTFORD PROGRESSIVE DEMOCRATIC WOMEN’S CLUB SOUTH WINDSOR CT $525
AQN PAC BRIDGEPORT CT $500
CENTRAL CONNECTICUT CARPENTERS LOCAL UNION 24 PAC YALESVILLE CT $500
CONNECTICUT ASSOCIATION OF OPTOMETRISTS INC PAC ROCKY HILL CT $500
** PROJECT DEMOCRACY WEST HARTFORD CT $500
UNIFORMED PROFESSIONAL FIRE FIGHTERS ASSOCIATION OF CT PAC WEST HARTFORD CT $500
139TH DISTRICT DEMOCRATIC PAC WEST HARTFORD CT $450
30 PAC MARION CT $370
CWA LOCAL 1298 PAC HAMDEN CT $370
HERE LOCAL 35 PAC NEW HAVEN CT $350
SHEET METAL WORKERS LOCAL 40 PAC ROCKY HILL CT $350
CONNECTICUT YOUNG DEMOCRATS HARTFORD CT $300
AFT CONNECTICUT PAC ROCKY HILL CT $250
CHARTER OAK PAC HARTFORD CT $250
CONNECTICUT HISPANIC DEMOCRATIC CAUCUS NEW HAVEN CT $250
UCPEA PAC STORRS MANSFIELD CT $250
X UNITY9 PAC WASHINGTON DC $250
CENTRAL CONNECTICUT DEMOCRATS ROCKY HILL CT $200
WORKING WOMEN AND MEN OF CENTRAL CONNECTICUT ROCKY HILL CT $200
MIDDLESEX COUNTY LEADERSHIP PAC CLINTON CT $185
CT FEDERATION OF DEMOCRATIC WOMEN EAST HARTFORD CT $175
SOJOURNER NETWORK OF DEM. WOMEN PAC HARTFORD CT $175
STAMFORD GREEN LEADERSHIP COMMITTEE STAMFORD CT $175
X COMMITTEE TO RE-ELECT BRIAN CURTIN BURLINGTON MA $100
GUARDIAN FREEDOM PAC STAMFORD CT $100
SHORELINE LEAGUE OF DEMOCRATIC WOMEN POLITICAL ACCOUNT GUILFORD CT $100
THIRD STREET PAC WEST HARTFORD CT $100
COLCHESTER DEMOCRATIC WOMENS CLUB COLCHESTER CT $50
DEMOCRATIC VOICES FOR CHANGE LAKEVILLE CT $50
DEMOCRATIC WOMEN’S CLUB OF EAST HARTFORD GLASTONBURY CT $50

** = Not registered with Connecticut State Elections Enforcement Commission but may be registered with local town clerk.