New Haven Independent

Lamont raised the cap idea under sharp questioning from the press about his personal wealth. Earlier this week Lieberman ridiculed Lamont for his personal wealth — estimated at between $90 million and $300 million — and for contributing $1 million to his own campaign. In response, the Lamont camp has stressed that Lieberman has outraised them by a 3 to 1 margin, largely from corporate interests.

Lamont earned a spot on an Aug. 8 primary ballot — and increased national attention to his challenge to Lieberman — by collecting a surprising 33 percent of votes from delegates at last week’s state Democratic Party convention. No senator in Connecticut has faced a primary challenge since 1970.

At Wednesday’s press conference at his Meriden headquarters, Lamont fielded repeated questions from WTNH’s Mark Davis about his personal wealth. Davis asked him twice to cite the price of gasoline; Lamont finally answered pretty much correctly. (He said $3.20 a gallon.) He didn’t answer the question about the price of a quart of milk. Davis pressed him on whether he cashed in CDs or sold stock to contribute the latest $500,000 to his campaign. Lamont finally answered that he sold stocks. He added a gibe at Lieberman: He should have had to pay more tax on the profits from that stock sale, he said, but didn’t because of Lieberman- and Bush-supported capital gains tax cuts. “I don’t understand why we tax capital gains at a lower rate than the” salaries earned by factory workers at Sikorsky aircraft, Lamont said.

Lamont insisted that his money supplements an outpouring of grassroots contributions. According to campaign manager Tom Swan, the campaign has received donations from more than 7,200 individuals so far, mostly over the internet.

Lamont also vowed that he’d spend his money to respond to negative TV commercials by the Lieberman campaign. Then he floated a proposal: “Let’s have a cap. Let’s limit TV [commercials]. Let’s go around the state and have some old-fashioned Lincoln-Douglas debates.”

Lamont didn’t offer a specific figure for his proposed cap. He also didn’t offer a number of debates to which he was challenging Lieberman. “I’ll take as many debates as the senator is comfortable with,” he said.

Contacted afterwards, Lieberman spokesman Sean Smith said, “We’ll talk about debates later. We’re certainly anticipating entering into discussions with their campaign on the debate issue. I expect voters to see the two candidates together.”

Smith also responded to the proposed cap on raising and spending money.

“Look,” he said. “We’re open to thinking about this proposal. It would have to include personal contribution limits, too.”

“That’s them trying to make an issue of Ned giving money instead of all the money they’ve taken from Republican lobbyists,” countered Lamont manager Swan. But, Swan said, “I’ll take them up on. They’ve already raised $7 million. Let’s cap spending right there.”

Obviously, both campaigns were seeking to clip the other side’s strength: Lamont’s personal fortune versus Lieberman’s access to millions of dollars from corporate interests. How they proceed with this proposal — whether they take it seriously or just use it to emphasize their critique of the other side — will test how serious each candidate is about removing the influence of big money from American politics.

Lamont’s press conference offered a dramatic contrast to Lieberman’s convention post-mortem in Rocky Hill Monday. Lieberman came across as the polished, seasoned politician hewing to a tight schedule, limiting questions, avoiding schmoozing afterwards, prepared for every issue raised. He presented his convention performance as reflective not of broad dissatisfaction with him, but of a general dissatisfaction with Washington, unsupported complaints by some local politicos that he doesn’t visit their towns enough, and opposition to him on one issue alone — the war in Iraq. He’s been the most vocal Democratic supporter of President Bush on the war and has publicly called on critics to stop criticizing and rally around the president as a patriotic duty.

Lamont, on the other hand, continued to argue that his performance at the convention reflected a broader dissatisfaction with Lieberman for supporting or failing to challenge Bush on a wide range of issues, including not just the war, but right-wing judicial appointees, the recently passed energy bill, universal health care, and tax breaks for the rich. He also portrayed Lieberman as an out-of-touch longtime incumbent “senator who hasn’t been back in the state for years.” You could also feel Lamont’s tentativeness at diving for the first time into the unpredictable, sometimes unforgiving pool of pack-media scrutiny. Some questions he didn’t have an answer for.

The most striking difference between the two press conferences: Lieberman wouldn’t commit to supporting the Democratic candidate in November. He’s leaving open the possibility of running as an independent if Lamont wins the primary. Lamont Wednesday promised to support Lieberman if Lieberman wins.

Why would he do that if he feels so passionately about the war? the Register’s Mary O’Leary asked.

“It’s important to have that debate,” Lamont replied. Then, he said, “Democrats should stick together and go forward.” He added that supporting a Democratic Senate candidate at the top of the November ticket could help three other Democrats unseat Republican incumbent U.S. Congressmen facing tough reelection fights. He was referring to U.S. Reps. Rob Simmons, Chris Shays, and Nancy Johnson, all of whose races both national parties have targeted as close, especially the Simmons and Shays races.