I often write about the controversy surrounding the Connecticut Democratic Party‘s spending practices during the 2014 gubernatorial campaign. Infamously, the Democrats used money from their account for federal races to fund mailers that urged people to support Gov. Dannel P. Malloy‘s re-election bid. The State Elections Enforcement Commission (SEEC) is investigating because the federal account included many contributions from executives at companies with state contracts, who are banned by a 2005 state law from contributing to candidates for state office and party accounts for state races. At least some of the executives who contributed to the federal account did so to covertly benefit Gov. Malloy. (Contractors are allowed to contribute to federal accounts and candidates.)
Famously, the Democrats refused to comply with a May SEEC subpoena for records of meetings their former executive director, Jonathan Harris, may have had about the mailers with Gov. Malloy and others in the governor’s political brain trust. This resulted in the SEEC asking the office of state Attorney General George C. Jepsen to take the Democrats to court and force them to comply. The litigation presently is pending. (Mr. Jepsen, a former Democratic chairman, is not personally participating in the case.)
To say the least, the Democrats’ obstinacy is suspicious. The Democrats have offered a nonsensical justification that, as we will note in a coming editorial, has been widely panned and even ridiculed. Gov. Malloy, the titular head of the state Democratic Party, has been reluctant to publicly speak about the matter and as of now, he hasn’t encouraged his party to give the SEEC what it wants.
The SEEC/Democrats saga featured prominently in an Oct. 7 column by The (Stamford) Advocate‘s Angela Carella. Ms. Carella, whose columns I enjoy, noted that under Gov. Malloy, the 2005 clean-election law has “unraveled.” Read more about it here, courtesy of The Advocate.
I can’t help but marvel at the irony at work here. The 2005 law was passed in large part to prevent a re-run of the 2003-04 contract-steering scandal that forced Republican Gov. John G. Rowland to resign from office, plead guilty to a federal corruption charge and serve a prison sentence. Democrats were vigorous champions of the law, yet they are under investigation for disrespecting it in boosting the political prospects of Connecticut’s first post-Rowland Democratic governor.
That that governor is Dannel P. Malloy increases the irony: During his ultimately unsuccessful 2006 gubernatorial campaign, he promised reforms that would deter Rowland-esque malfeasance.