Your defense of your newspaper campaign against wealthy candidates that in a recent poll a plurality of voters, not a majority, and a relatively small plurality at that, favors candidates who “rely on campaign donations” is both self-serving and distorted. Once again, I agree with Fuzzy that the question was asked in a misleading fashion. And to try to justify biased attack reporting by pointing to a poll, while ignoring journalistic ethics that certainly would disapprove of what you’re doing is also wrong.

But examining the poll question you use to justify Hearst’s attacks on wealthy candidates, if the question were rephrased to ask voters whether they would be more inclined to vote for a candidate who was beholden to corporate and other special interests by financing their campaign with big campaign contributions (as Joe Lieberman did in 2006), or for a candidate who is not beholden to special interests because he is able to finance a large part of his campaign with his own funds (like Ned Lamont then and today), I am certain that the response would have been tremendously different. And that would have put the kibosh on your anti-wealthy campaign.

And if the question, as Fuzzy suggested, were phrased to ask voters whether, in these difficult economic times it would be better for a candidate who has personal wealth to rely on his own resources rather than on scarce taxpayer funds to run his campaign, I’m sure that the response would have been very different from the one you quoted. And again, your justification for the Hearst anti-wealthy candidate crusade would whither away.

Furthermore, what does it say about a governor if he holds the job of governor, but isn’t being paid for his work? Is he really working for the citizens and taxpayers of the state? Do we really want our governor to be paid nothing for his work? And do we then expect all of our elected officials to work for us for free? If so, then it disqualifies everyone but the wealthy from elective office. Is that what you want to see, Brian? There is precedent for not receiving a salary, or course. Michael Bloomberg receives a salary of just one dollar a year for his three terms in office. And he spent over $60 million of his own money on his re-election campaign. And he has remained relatively popular with New Yorkers. But John Rowland’s problem was that he wasn’t paid enough to support his second wife and alimony, and turned to bribes to get by, though Nutmeggers elected him three times. I want my elected officials to be paid a fair salary for the work they do, and to accept that salary in recognition of the fact that they are working on behalf of the people of the state and are answerable to the people who pay his salary.

Brian, you and Hearst are grasping at straws to justify your attempts to sink the campaigns of wealthy candidates this year. I would also point out, Brian, that you have refused to answer the criticism of that campaign that our country has turned out some tremendous political leaders who happen to have been wealthy. But instead of examining honestly and objectively the policy positions and qualifications of those candidates, you and Ken Dixon and Hearst have simply decided that you will attack them for their wealth alone. And that is wrong.

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.”

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.

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?