Commentary –

Politicians, Money, And Videotape

By Bill Curry

Some Connecticut politicians are on television a lot this year even when they’re not making any news. Governor Rowland, Bridgeport Mayor Joe Ganim, and George Jepsen, a state senator from Stamford and the Senate’s Democratic majority leader, have all burnished their images by appearing as pitchmen in “public service ads” of doubtful purpose and effect.

It used to be that, outside of campaigns, politicians popped up on TV only intermittently and then only when doing something noteworthy. Now they are ubiquitous. On a single morning newscast recently, Rowland appeared in three separate ads – promoting tourism, physical fitness, and bus travel – all brought to you by your own tax dollars.

Ganim has promoted Bridgeport as a tourist destination in ads of such high gloss that they succeed in making Bridgeport look like Orlando. In the ads the mayor acts as host. He too looks great. Dollars being fungible, you can argue whether the money for the ads comes from the city’s overburdened property tax base or from all state taxpayers by way of state municipal assistance.

The latest entrant, Jepsen, is doing a star turn in ads paid for by the fireworks industry that purport to promote “sparkler safety.” Not long ago Jepsen sponsored the legislation that legalized the sale of sparklers in Connecticut. Now he’s on TV, courtesy of a grateful industry, warning the public of its product’s dangers. How’s that for symmetry?

Jepsen once sponsored a bill seeking to limit Rowland’s and Ganim’s taxpayer-financed ads. But is it really any better to let special interests foot the bill?

State ethics laws prohibit lobbyists from spending more than $50 on gifts to any legislator. Campaign finance laws limit personal contributions to $500 and prohibit corporate contributions altogether. The pioneering dodge of the sparkler ads rests on the theory that as long as an ad is a “public service,” any special interest can sport any officeholders to $100,000 worth or more of the gift they care about most: television exposure.

Make no mistake. These ads are intended first and foremost to showcase the politicians appearing in them. (Though a secondary purpose here may be to clean up the industry’s own image, as the new sparkler law comes under withering attack from state fire marshals.)

The industry case resembles that made by defenders of so-called soft money: as long as an ad doesn’t contain the magic words “vote for,” the money spent falls outside all laws regulating political contributions.

At least soft money gets reported. Not so this money. If we allow the practice to stand, private interests will be able to shower incumbents with unlimited, unreported advertising dollars, making a mockery of the meager ethics and campaign finance laws now on the books.

In all of this I have a clear interest. I soon may face any one of these men in a political campaign. But you, the reader, have an interest as well. These are your tax dollars. This is your legislature and your democracy.

The use of federal tax dollars for political propaganda is prohibited. (That’s why you never saw ads saying, “Hi. I’m Janet Reno. You know here at the Department of Justice we work hard every day to protect you...”) One reason Congress prohibited such ads is that they are a waste of money. No one ever vacationed anywhere because of a politician. Any athlete would be better than any politician to preach physical fitness to kids.

Everyone knows the real purpose of such ads is political.

Which brings us to the second reason Congress restricted them: They are bad for democracy. When officials use the public purse or the power of their positions to wallpaper society with vacuous self-promotion, they subvert democracy. They construct an insiders’ cartel able to drive competition from the marketplace of ideas.

Congress sought to protect us from this brave new political world. Now we must protect ourselves.

What was pioneered in Connecticut is rapidly spreading. New Jersey’s Republican gubernatorial primary included a bitter dispute over the victor’s use of $800,000 taken from a children’s scholarship fund to purchase ads touting, ironically, his compassion for children. A New Jersey judge ruled it an illegal political contribution, but the primary came and went without the money being repaid.

It is time to crack down on those who raid the government treasury or funnel special interest money outside of the lawful channels for political contributions. The General Assembly must enact new rules for itself and the executive branch ending all such abuses.

We have set a bad precedent for ourselves and for the nation. Now we must set things right.

(Bill Curry is a former Connecticut state senator, state comptroller, and Democratic nominee for governor. He lives in Farmington.)