Connecticut’s Governor earns $150,000. Rank-and-file members of the U.S. House and Senate make $174,000 annually. Some of the individuals vying for those jobs can spend millions-of-dollars on their campaigns without feeling an impact on their bank accounts.
After our “The Running of the Rich” piece focusing on and comparing the candidates’ wealth was published earlier this week, it occurred to me we should have also asked the monied candidates whether they will accept a salary or follow the steps of New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg and serve for $1.
One gubernatorial candidate – Republican Tom Foley of Greenwich – has already taken the no-salary pledge. In what appears to be a very under-reported story, Foley in late January, buried within a plan for Connecticut’s future, promised if elected to work for nothing. Props to the new Connecticut Mirror for picking this up.
So who’s next?
Might it be former World Westling Entertainment CEO Linda McMahon of Greenwich, who during the March 2 televised Republican debate promised not to serve more than two, six-year terms if elected to the U.S. Senate?
How about Greenwich Democrats Richard Blumenthal, who is vying for the same U.S. Senate seat as McMahon, or Ned Lamont, who after losing the 2006 U.S. Senate race set his sites on the governor’s office?
I eagerly await responses, even if you intend to take the salary but donate it to charity. Your campaigns have my e-mail address and phone numbers.
This is ridiculous, Brian. According to this line of attack by you and your colleague Ken Dixon, you would not have wanted Benjamin Franklin to have had anything to do with the new American government, because Franklin was a wealthy entrepreneur who had established a string of franchised printing businesses in both continental America and the Caribbean. Nor would you have supported Ronald Reagan for president of the United States, because he’d made millions as an actor and pitchman for soap and other products. And you would have opposed Michael Bloomberg’s running for mayor of New York, and Jon Corzine’s running for governor of New Jersey and US Senator, because he’d been a vice chairman of Goldman Sachs, and Teddy Roosevelt for president of the United States, and FDR for president, and John F. Kennedy for president, and Andrew Jackson for president, and. Well the list is pretty long.
In other words, you and Ken Dixon and Hearst have determined that you are going to attack and snipe at any and every candidate in Connecticut who has either earned great wealth or inherited great wealth, regardless of their positions on the issues, regardless of their prior service to their communities, the state, or the country. You guys are just going to go on your little jihad to attack and bring down any candidate with money. Right?
It’s peurile and unprofessional. But you guys get that all the time, don’t you. But Hearst operates a monopoly in this part of the state, and there’s no one to take you guys to task. This probably won’t even get printed on this website.
In any case, it’s the most simpleminded approach to reporting on politics, it takes no account of the candidates themselves, or their policy positions, or their character. Which is why this form of reporting does a tremendous disservice to the communities whom you purport to serve as reporters. But what’s new about that?
Comment by Sean — March 16th, 2010 @ 8:02 pm
Brian,
You give props to the CT Mirror for picking this up, but what’s the real significance of Tom Foley choosing to forgo a salary? 150,000 is just a drop in the bucket in a state who’s budget is in the billions. Further, doing so requires almost no sacrafice for a man who owns a 100 foot yacht and is willing to spend millions just to get the job….
To be quite honest, I think it would be wise for the legislature to adopt a measure whereby the Governor MUST accept a salary (after they get paid, they can do whatever they want with it, like give it to charity if they wish). One person giving back a 150K salary makes little financial impact… it would require many public servants doing so. Thus, my concern is that if wealthy candidates start rejecting their salaries in great enough numbers to matter, then we will begin to see wealth as a qualifier for office. We will begin treading toward a situation where we have a landed aristrocracy controlling our corp. of public servants, not because they are better qualified, but simply because we don’t have to pay them.
Bottom Line: Taking the no salary pledge, at least for now, is completely symbolic, and carries almost no substantive significance.
Comment by Fuzzy Dunlop — March 17th, 2010 @ 7:58 am
Sean,
From today’s Quinnipiac University poll:
“Connecticut voters say 46 – 36 percent they prefer a candidate who relies on campaign donations, rather than a wealthy candidate who relies on his/her own funds. Results are similar among Democrats, Republicans and independent voters.”
Comment by Brian Lockhart — March 17th, 2010 @ 2:19 pm
Brian,
Don’t you think that the way that question was posed was somewhat dishonest? Most candidates who aren’t self funding, with the exception of Susan Bysiewicz, have publicly stated that they intend to use public financing, meaning they intend to take taxpayer money to fund their campaigns. So wouldn’t a more accurate question have asked whether voters prefer a candidate who relies on state funding, rather than a wealthy candidate who relies on his/her own funds?
Comment by Fuzzy Dunlop — March 17th, 2010 @ 10:54 pm
Brian, I am running for Governor of Connecticut. I am running with the idependent concerned citizens party, and if elected I am working towards not only a pay cut for myself, but for any gov employee making 75,000.00 a year or more. I am a middle class man who makes 35,000.00 a year. I don’t have the money that the other canidates have. Everything I’ve been doing to get my name out there has been as cost free as possible. From making my own website, brochures and soon a community access program. You can check out how I feel on the financial issue on my website. I am still working on the social issues post. I am researching daily to see where I can balance our budget.
Comment by Steven Daunis — March 18th, 2010 @ 9:08 am