Comments

|

E-mail

|

Print

A new U.S. Senate primary campaign ad displays the side of Democrat Susan Bysiewicz ex-GOP Chairman Chris Healy recently wrote about – the tough campaigner who brings a gun to a knife fight.

Bysiewicz had gone up on television initially with a softer, gentler piece.

The new ad does a far better job summarizing Bysiewicz’s criticism that her opponent for the Senate nomination – U.S. Rep. Chris Murphy – is a Wall Street stooge than the candidate herself has done so far in press releases, interviews and debates.

But it’s also a line of attack that hasn’t helped Bysiewicz against Murphy, so I’ve got to wonder if this gun isn’t a half-empty Nerf Super Soaker left out in the yard since last summer…

But what do I know? Someone in the Bysiewicz camp believes the Murphy’s in bed with Wall Street criticism still has legs.

And if Bysiewicz does manage to pull off an August primary victory over Murphy and faces the GOP’s wealthy Linda McMahon in the general election, I’m sure we can look forward to some entertaining “show us your tax returns, Linda” ads.

UPDATE: Murphy responds.

UPDATE 2: Aaaannnnd Bysiewicz responds:

Bottom Line: Chris Murphy has taken more money from Wall Street than any other House Democrat

Wall Street is a place where they are focused on the bottom line. The bottom line in this race is that Chris Murphy has received more contributions from Wall Street than any other House Democrat this cycle according to Open Secrets. No matter how Chris Murphy’s PR team might try to spin it he is the top Democratic recipient of campaign cash from Wall Street in the House.

See the Open Secrets Note Here:

http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/summary.php?ind=F07&cycle=2012&recipdetail=H&mem=Y

UPDATE 3: Turns out the Bysiewicz campaign got some facts wrong.

Comments(1)

|

E-mail

|

Print

State Senator-turned-felon-turned-state Senate candidate Ernest Newton raised enough small donations to qualify for participation in Connecticut’s public campaign financing program.

As a result Newton will receive $80,550 to compete in a primary for his former seat, currently occupied by Sen. Ed Gomes, D-Bridgeport. Gomes also qualfied for the public cash, as did a third contender – state Rep. Andres Ayala.

The winner of the August primary is automatically eligible for an additional $91,000 for the general election.

But because of the criminal record Newton earned for abusing his office, when the Elections Enforcement Commission met Tuesday to approve grants for a total of 17 candidates, Newton’s was the only vote that was not unanimous.

Commission Chairman Stephen Cashman – a Republican appointee – cast the highly irregular “no” vote and issued the following statement:

“I do not believe that the legislature would have contemplated such a situation to put us in this position of approving taxpayer money for someone with Mr. Newton’s criminal record that involves a direct violation of the public trust, and for that reason it is my message to the legislature that this ought to be corrected. I am going to vote against this application.”

 Cashman

We wrote about this matter not long after Newton was endorsed by Bridgeport Democrats to run for his former Senate seat. Here’s that story, entitled, “Despite conviction, Newton can get public money.”

Comments(7)

|

E-mail

|

Print

After losing his party’s nomination in 2006, Democratic U.S. Sen. Joseph Lieberman formed his own third party and won the general election with the help of Republicans, unaffiliated/independent voters and some still-loyal Democrats.

So it makes sense that with Lieberman retiring and voters frustrated with gridlock in Washington D.C. the current Democratic and Republican nominees for his seat – U.S. Rep. Chris Murphy and ex-professional wrestling executive Linda McMahon – want to position themselves as independents willing to buck their party and get things done for the people.

McMahon’s even hoping her name appears twice on the November ballot as the Republican candidate and the Independent Party candidate.

Murphy has been touting his position as a chairman of the bi-partisan Center Aisle Caucus, a group aimed at promoting civility among members of the House of Representatives.

Murphy in late June hosted his co-chairman, U.S. Rep. Timothy Johnson, R-Illinois, at an event in New Britain.

That prompted a June 29 news release from McMahon that mocked the Center Aisle group as “a made up caucus” and a “political ploy” and alleged Murphy votes with Democrats 98 percent of the time.

It is hard to envision Murphy as some sort of bi-partisan statesman and independent thinker when he just earned the endorsement of MoveOn.org.

But will McMahon really be any different?

After I received McMahon’s release about Murphy’s voting record I emailed her campaign spokesman and asked for examples of how the candidate, who first ran unsuccessfully for U.S. Senate in 2010, would have bucked her party over the past two years.

The question went into the McMahon campaign and took about two weeks to make it back out. I’ll be charitable and say there was a holiday and a switch in communications staff in the middle of that.

McMahon’s new spokesman, Tim Murtaugh, this week responded. He said she would have:

1. Voted with Democrats to repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly in the military.

2. Voted in 2010 for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s, D-Nevada jobs bill.

Murtaugh also said McMahon is pro-choice, although NARAL defines her as mixed choice.

“She’s obviously not a favorite of the ‘good ol’ boy’ network and going to Washington she’s not going to be able to be controlled or corralled by a particular group,” Murtaugh said. ”She will do what she thinks is best for Connecticut and the U.S.”

And that’s when the same alarm that goes off in McMahon campaign HQ whenever Murphy talks about bi-partisanship triggers for me.

McMahon is adored by the “good ol’ boy (and girl)” network that runs the state’s Republican Party. Just look at her list of endorsements. These are not the kind of people who think they’re sending anyone but a loyal Republican who will support their causes most of the time to Washington. In fact some of those folks likely cracked a “good riddance” smile when ex-U.S. Rep. Chris Shays, a moderate derided by some as a Republican In Name Only (RINO), finally lost a race in 2008. Shays is also running for Lieberman’s seat, challenging McMahon’s nomination for U.S. Senate in a primary in August. Why’s he in that position? ‘Cause those “good ol’ boys (and girls)” now have McMahon.

And, since as a political reporter my email is packed with press releases from various candidates, I’ll make another observation: McMahon’s don’t really stand out as particularly independent.

When gas prices were climbing and Republicans were pointing the finger at Democratic President Barack Obama and his party, McMahon was quick to hop on board.

And for someone who is tired of political stunts by career politicians, McMahon had no problem with the GOP-controlled House of Representatives’ recent attempt to again try to repeal the Affordable Care Act.

“I applaud the House action in voting to repeal the Affordable Care Act in light of the recent Supreme Court ruling, and I urge the Senate to move forward so that we can begin discussions on common-sense reforms that the American people want and the economy needs,” McMahon said in a statement this week.

Now Joe Lieberman, there’s an independent. The one-time vice presidential candidate became so unpopular with Democratic leaders in the state that he lost the nomination in 2006.

After winning one last term (with support, by the way, from McMahon), Lieberman went on to further confound expectations, championing some Democratic causes while proving an impediment to others.

Oh yeah, and Lieberman campaigned against Obama in 2008.

It would be fun to cover a rogue McMahon who wins the race, heads to Washington, says “so long suckers” to Connecticut Republicans and proceeds to forge coalitions that pursue some sort of Repub-emocrat agenda that neither major party loves, but a lot of Democrats, Republicans and independents can live with.

It’s actually too bad McMahon didn’t decide to pursue the Lieberman path and form a third party or really take a run at the U.S. Senate as the true Independent Party candidate in the race.

From a reporter’s perspective it would have made for a really interesting three-way campaign. And having dropped $50 million of her own money on her 2010 bid, McMahon certainly could have afforded the challenge of carving a truly independent, bi-partisan route to Washington.

Comments

|

E-mail

|

Print

Here’s the link to CNN’s coverage of our travelin’ governor.

Comments

|

E-mail

|

Print

Hearst Connecticut Media Group is co-sponsoring a debate between Democrats U.S. Rep. Chris Murphy and former Secretary of the State Susan Bysiewicz, who are competing in August’s primary to run for the U.S. Senate seat being vacated by retiring Sen. Joseph Lieberman.

Other sponsors are the Connecticut League of Women Voters and Cablevision.

The July 22 debate at Bridgeport’s Klein Memorial Auditorium will feature questions built on the best of readers’ submissions.

If you have a question you’d like to offer, please email it to Senatedebate@ctpost.com by Thursday, July 19.

Murphy is the endorsed candidate.

Bysiewicz had been trying, unsuccessfully, to convince various progressive groups and unions that Murphy is a Wall Street stooge.

Both campaigns recently launched television ads that ignore each other and attempt to focus on their own strengths/accomplishments.

Bysiewicz aired her first ad in late June and last week launched a second.

Susan Bysiewicz – “We Can” from Susan's Plan on Vimeo.

And here’s Murphy’s ad.

Comments

|

E-mail

|

Print

Folks involved in politics often complain the atmosphere is so poisoned by partisanship and a general disdain for elected officials that it is hard to recruit candidates.

But according to Secretary of the State Denise Merrill, the number of uncontested General Assembly seats in Connecticut is the lowest since 1998.

———-

Hartford: Secretary of the State Denise Merrill is reporting today that the number of General Assembly races not contested by a major party in 2012 is nearly 41% lower than the same figure reported in 2010. Only 32 of 187 seats for State Senate or State House lack either a Democratic or Republican candidate this year as compared with 54 total contests unchallenged by a major party in 2010 (a decline of 40.7%).  The 17.1% of General Assembly races uncontested by a major party marks the lowest such figure since these numbers were first tracked in 1998 when 26.7% of races were uncontested by a major party.

“I am very encouraged to see so many candidates stepping up and running for office, especially in a year when there are numerous retirements from the Connecticut General Assembly,” said Secretary Merrill, Connecticut’s chief elections official. “The decline in State Senate and State House races not contested by a major party means more Connecticut citizens are becoming involved in our elections.  We would still like to see even less seats left unchallenged by a major party.  It is probably not a coincidence that the sharp decline in uncontested General Assembly seats since 2008 has happened with the introduction of clean campaign financing of legislative races through the Citizen’s Election Program. It is clear that public campaign financing is having its intended effect, which is to motivate more of our citizens to take ownership of the political process. Connecticut must continue to be a national leader when it comes to clean election laws.” 

In State Senate races, five of 36 (13.9%) contests lack a major party candidate, the lowest since 1998 when again just five of 36 races went unchallenged. In races for the State House, only 27 of the 151 district races (17.9%) are uncontested, the lowest percentage of unchallenged elections in that same time period.  

The number of General Assembly races uncontested by a major party for 2012 has decreased significantly from those of the past several election cycles.  The number of races in which a major party has not fielded a candidate for the State Senate has diminished considerably from 2006 when nine of 36 races (25%) went uncontested.  In 2008, seven (19.4%) State Senate races were uncontested by Republicans or Democrats and in 2010 that number dropped to six (16.7%).  The most dramatic decline in races uncontested by a major party, however, can be seen in elections for the State House of Representatives. In 2006, 62 races for house seats (41%) lacked a major party candidate, while in 2008, 53 races (35%) remained uncontested.  In 2010 the number of uncontested races by a major party was still high at 48 (31.8%). This year, however, that percentage has been cut significantly to 27 (17.9%).  In 2008, public campaign financing for Connecticut General Assembly races became available for the first time through the Citizen’s Election Program.  That year some 250 of 343 General Assembly candidates, equivalent to 73% of those running, elected to use the clean elections program to finance their campaigns. In 2010, 252 of 362 General Assembly candidates, equivalent to approximately 70% of those running, elected to use the program. Thus, the vast majority of sitting legislators came to office free of special interest money. 

Secretary Merrill is also reminding voters that statewide primaries for registered Democrats and Republicans are quickly approaching on August 14^th.  To register to vote by mail, voter registration cards must be received by the local Registrar of Voters by August 9^th.  The last day for in person registration at town offices is Monday, August 13^th at 12:00 p.m.  Unaffiliated voters face those same deadlines if they wish to register with a major party and vote in the primary. Voters can go to www.sots.ct.gov to learn how to register to vote, find polling locations, and download absentee ballots and candidate lists.

Comments(2)

|

E-mail

|

Print

As I type this at 5 p.m. Friday, these final two weeks of June have generally been good for Chris Donovan, particularly compared to how the month began for the 5th District candidate.

On May 30 federal authorities arrested the retiring House Speaker’s congressional campaign finance director for alleged fundraising misdeeds. Donovan subsequently fired Robert Braddock Jr. as well as his deputy finance director and his campaign manager, long-time political ally and friend Joshua Nassi.

Then Donovan took some lumps for waiting until June 3 to meet with the press and failing to answer questions to critics’ satisfaction when he did.

Donovan recused himself from presiding over the June 12 special legislative session because a roll-your-own cigarette measure up for a vote was related to the arrest. It was an embarrassing situation for a retiring politician whose career was celebrated by legislative colleagues a few weeks earlier.

But, as I said at the start of this post, things have since been looking up.

News broke that the feds had not just singled out Donovan’s campaign but were eyeing alleged Republican shenanigans in the 5th District involving former Gov. John Rowland.

Donovan’s union and progressive friends continued to show they have his back with endorsements from the Service Employees International Union, the AFL-CIO and MoveOn.org.

Then today the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, which also backs Donovan, released a poll by Public Policy Polling showing Donovan ahead in the 5th District primary:

———-

The poll was conducted by Public Policy Polling (PPP) on June 22-24, 2012 for the Progressive Change Campaign Committee (PCCC). 400 Democratic primary voters, MOE of +/-4.9%.

Which Democrat do you think would be the strongest candidate in the general election: Chris Donovan, Elizabeth Esty, or Dan Roberti?

Chris Donovan ………………………………………… 45%

Elizabeth Esty …………………………………………. 25%

Dan Roberti…………………………………………….. 12%

Not sure …………………………………………………. 17%

In general, do you have a favorable or unfavorable opinion of Speaker of the House Chris Donovan, who is running for Congress?

Favorable……………………………………………….. 51%

Unfavorable ……………………………………………. 24%

Not sure …………………………………………………. 25%

———-

In Donovan’s own words, issued in a fundraising email to supporters, “What a week.”

Of course the federal probe continues to dog Donovan.

A probable cause hearing is pending on Braddock’s arrest.

We in the media will continue to pressure Donovan to release the findings of an independent investigation of campaign finances the campaign commissioned in the wake of the scandal.

Oh, and just in time to wrap up this blog on Donovan ending June better-off than he began the month, The Hartford Courant is reporting one Donovan supporter has decided to postpone a fundraiser because he wants to learn more about what happened.

Comments(1)

|

E-mail

|

Print

Ex-Secretary of the State Susan Bysiewicz’s campaign just provided the media with a preview of an advertisement the campaign will begin airing Saturday morning.

Bysiewicz is competing with fellow Democrat U.S. Rep. Chris Murphy in their party’s August primary for U.S. Senate.

She’s been attempting to portray Murphy as a friend of Wall Street executives and millionaires. According to the latest poll from Quinnipiac University, that line of attack hasn’t been working.

The ad makes no mention of Murphy, Wall Street, a primary or Linda McMahon, the GOP’s endorsed candidate for U.S. Senate.

It instead focuses on mastectomy legislation Bysiewicz co-sponsored in 1997 as a member of the General Assembly, two years before she became Secretary of the State.

Bysiewicz’s campaign manager, Jonathan Ducote, in a statement said, “Tomorrow morning, our campaign will be launching its first television ad to highlight Susan’s record of getting things done and show how her advocacy has impacted the lives of so many people around Connecticut in real and meaningful ways.”

Susan Bysiewicz – “Proud” from Susan's Plan on Vimeo.