New Haven Independent

Public financing of mayoral elections would limit the influence of big campaign contributors and open the playing field to wider variety of candidates, argued Dan Weeks before the Finance Committee of the Board of Aldermen Tuesday. He urged members to approve the budgeted $200,000 for a Democracy Fund ordinance that would “change the very nature of democracy in New Haven.” Many fellow members of the Democracy Fund Coalition turned out to testify in support of the line item, which would mean the battle for a clean-elections pilot program in New Haven more than half won. The proposed system is the first one like it sent to the state since it opened the doors with a historic public-finance law this winter. The ordinance still needs a state stamp and a pass on the legislative side by the Board of Alderman — but “budgeting is the big hurdle to get over,” said Ted Fertik, another coalition member (pictured at left with Weeks, below).

“This $200,000 is only worth the investment” in our democracy, testified Weeks, who argued the return would be “long-term benefits”: not just a repaired political system, but financial benefits, too.

How? “The answer is a little academic,” said Weeks, a political science major at Yale. It didn’t sound it. It sounded like talk of the oldest public money drain in the books: corruption. Public finance means cutting down on the costly inefficiency that comes when city contracts go to the deepest-pocketed instead of the most qualified men for the job. “Over time [this ordinance] will save money as our candidates become independent from city contracts,” testified Weeks.

He recalled Connecticut’s starkest example of the dangers of unchecked private campaign finance: the tale of former governor Rowland and the Tomasso Group, who learned the “pay to play” rules of current politics when an approximate $400,000 contribution turned their city contracts from zero to almost 200 million. Weeks luckily couldn’t name the same names locally, but he could still worry about the estimated 40% of funds raised in the last mayoral campaign coming through contributions of $500 or more and from outside of the New Haven, instead of from average citizens.

“Rowland was the exception that broke current laws, but I would say that what is kosher” in campaign fundraising today “is legalized bribery,” said Weeks. “We believe that in instituting the Democracy Fund ordinance, we would see a gain in efficiency overtime.”

Corruption-busting was not the only reason supporters had for endorsing a clean-elections program. New Haven Green Party co-chair Charlie Pillsbury cited data from publicly-financed elections in Maine and Arizona showing jumps in numbers of women and minority candidates as a result. The system also creates the incentive for candidates to “go out in the community and knock on doors, engage with small donors,” said Ted Fertik. But with the public hearing chambers equally full with taxpayers like Nilda Aponte who called the predicted 4-mill increase “impossible” for single-mother homeowners like her, and with first readings of budget decisions right around the corner, all pitches for new funds had to look budget-savvy.

Some aldermen wondered if this tight fiscal year was the right time for the Democracy Fund. “I know there’s never a good time, but with a 4-mill increase” this budget-year might be especially hard, said alderwoman Andrea Jackson-Brooks (pictured with the Mayor’s Deputy Chief of Staff, Rob Smuts). “How many of the people who spoke for the Democracy Fund are taxpayers?”

Democracy Fund liaison to the Board Elizabeth Addonizio said the approval had to come now for 2007 mayoral candidates to be able to start in Jan. first raising the minimum 200 qualifying small contributions. “We’ve been working on this program for four years,” she said.

Jackson-Brooks will hear more on the proposed public-finance system at public hearings in upcoming weeks, but she expressed initial doubt at the thought of mandatory tax dollars to fund all qualifying candidates, with taxpayers denied the option of directing where that money went. “I like having the choice. I don’t want to give money to candidates if I don’t like them.” She said before the Democracy Fund, she would support the other cause much-touted in the aldermanic chambers Tuesday night: animal control.

Dog Protection

Dog and cat advocates, pleading for extra animal control staff, pitched the idea as a revenue-builder. Anna Schildroth, a volunteer at the Friends of New Haven Animal Shelter, told dark tales of puppies half-starved on diets of infant formula and crushed canines found in dumpsters. But at budget crunch time, Schildroth knew she had to talk money.

“We estimate that there are 25,150 dogs in this city,” said Schildroth, a member of the city’s Humane Commission and long-time ally of this city’s pets. “Only 663, or 3 percent, are currently licensed. Licensing more dogs would absolutely bring in revenue,” Schildroth said. Adding an extra animal control staff member to the city budget, at the price of $30,000, would enable more licensing, she said.

Even more money, she said, could be collected through already-legislated fines for animal mistreatment, which another funded employee — maybe one already accounted for in the police department’s budget for new hires, she proposed — could call in. More than a dozen shelter volunteers, like Lauren VanBlarcum and Stephanie Harris (pictured), joined her in support.

Ticking Clocks

After the public testimony, aldermanic conversation strayed from dogs and public finance to the Tweed-New Haven airport and job programs for youth.

On Tweed: What is the city-subsidized airport lobbyist doing if not securing state permits for the runway safety zones needed to attract more airlines? “Am I getting any returns at all on this money?” asked Alderman Jorge Perez.

On youth: Are budget demands like the Democracy Fund more urgent than a plan to create opportunities for local kids? “We’ve been crying about our youth, crying about the crime rate, but it seems like we come up with money for everything else but our young people!” said Alderman Charles Blango.

Both Perez and Blango were frustrated, finally, that certain city departments’ budget information, which the board had requested, was still missing. “We’re voting on peoples lives without all the facts,” said Blango.

“We always get concerned when we’re voting on the budget, the 4-mill tax increase, but we should be doing this a year ahead,” said Perez. He suggested it was late in the game to entertain ideas to increase revenue like a surcharge on monthly parkers and a commuter tax, on the agenda for another budget-hearing Thursday. “They’re all good ideas, but being honest, they’re not going to give us revenue this year. We would not be able to implement” proposed plans until next fiscal year, he reasoned.

Chair of the Finance Committee Joe Jolly agreed that “the timing could be better.”