Tuesday, October 25, 2005

Interesting Numbers

This is from a New York Times article released yesterday about Rell's fundraising:

If Mr. DeStefano followed Mrs. Rell's rules, he would have had to decline about 17 percent of the $2.6 million he has raised, according to a breakdown of state campaign finance records. Mr. Malloy would lose about 4 percent of the $1.7 million he has raised, records show.

If Mrs. Rell had applied her current rules in 2002, she would have rejected about $160,000 of the $768,278 she received. That number may actually be higher, but contributors of less than $1,000 were not required to disclose whether they had state contracts.

More than a fourth of what Mr. Rowland raised at the top of the ticket in 2002 came from the same kinds of sources. He would have had to reject at least $1.6 million of the $5.6 million he raised. (Yardley)

No one seriously thinks that Rell is going to be significantly handicapped by her fundraising rules, but it's interesting to see how much of DeStefano and Malloy's respective war chests comes from lobbyists, PACs and those associated with state contracts. Actually, it's most interesting to note how little of Malloy's money is from those sources.


Yardley, William. "Rell's Fund-Raising Rules Put Her at Risk." New York Times 24 October, 2005.


Independent1 said...

What's impossible to read from the State reports is how much comes from contractors doing business with their respective cities. Now that would be an interesting figure.

FrankS said...

Rell is hardly at risk, but it's amazing that she raised so much money in 2002 to run for an office that is not elected independently.

She is now clearly following Blumenthal's example, he has run statewide four times since 1990 without PAC, lobbyist or contractor money, but has shown in his elections that given positive recognition gained in office, a candidate can overcome the loss of those contributions.

Rell's conversion to this position now, sort of a do as I say now, not as I did position, could also work to diminish questions on her actions. Rell's veto of the school nutrition bill comes to mind here, ("We are extremely disappointed that Governor Jodi Rell vetoed the school nutrition bill,” said CSPI (Center for Science in the Public Interest) nutrition policy director Margo G. Wootan. “By siding with soda companies, Governor Rell has undermined parents' ability to feed their children healthful diets.), and I'll guess that lobbyists representing these interests donated to her in 1990, so she is also exposed to the negative recognition of office.

DeStefano or Malloy will have to overcome the positive.

DeanFan84 said...

Rell the Reformer???

I can't stop laughing.

And Genghis,-- while I know you are intent on continuing to do all you can to help elect Republicans, (a special thanks to you, Nader, and your Green brethren, btw), --don't you think you should note that DeStefano has been a strident backer of Campaign Finance Reform?

Rell is being politically opportune, and you give her a pass. DeStefano has been a solid proponent, and you take potshots at him!

Independent1 said...

DeanFan84, "DeStefano has been a solid proponent?" It's easy to talk the talk, but it doesn't mean a heck of a lot if he won't walk the walk.

Genghis Conn said...


That would be interesting.


It is interesting that she raised that amount of money to run for Lt. Gov., and that she would turn her nose up at over 20% (probably more, given the kind of people her boss kept company with) of it now.

I also remember hearing that Rell has a close associate in the junk food industry.

FrankS said...


Another thought, How many of those individuals contributing to Rell in 2002 had also given to Rowland? Rowland/Rell running as a team allows them to double-up donors, but then I doubt Tomasso's money is worth the trouble today.

Anonymous said...


DeStefano has been a solid proponent of Rowland-style shakedowns of city contractors. DeStefano has been a solid proponent of pointing a finger with one hand and grabbing everything he can with the other. DeStefano has been a solid proponent of talking the talk and running, not walking, away from the walk. (The less than thoroughly artful "I'll play by the rules as they exist now" dodge is wearing thinner by the day.)


The Rell-junk food lobbyist canard is, well, sour grapes. Don Williams knows it and the Coke and Pepsi lobbyists know it, too. It makes a cute soundbite and it beats having to explain why parents might have to actually expect their own kids adhere to some honest-to-Pete household rules instead of leaving it up to the local loco parentis to handle it for them. But that don't make it so.

Dave Mooney said...

Since we're talking about the junk food bill Rell vetoed.. maybe it did have some problems. Here's my position: no processed foods in school cafeterias unless they are brought in by students for their own consumption. Locally grown food is preferred. Students should get minimum 30 minutes of education on nutrition every week.

In Japan kids of all ages are involved in some kind of sport or excercise from 3-5 every single day. Not a lot of fat kids in Japan.

What's wrong with this proposal? Is the complaint that it should be left up to the school boards?

Franks said...


I'm not so sure the "Rell-junk food lobbyist canard is, well, sour grapes", since you couldn't really go out and get a cold soda and it bring into school and it's doubtfull that school meal programs are much better.

The idea that you have a captive customer base in students for a soda company is very appealing, most of the stories I have seen note the exclusive use of their product and with repeated use, a product change is unlikely.