“Local” Label Depends On Cash-In Or Cash-Out

The continued trend of Justin Elicker's donations coming from individual New Haveners at a rate of about 90% is amazing and are the type of donations that every campaign should strive for. This focus on individual New Haven residents speaks to the type of Mayor Justin Elicker will be.

Lets see if the democratic party drops a money bomb on the Harp campaign using their very sleazy election financing law just passed.

http://www.ctnewsjunkie.com/ctnj.php/archives/entry/heavy_hitters_ride_to_the_rescue_for_dems_under_new_fundraising_rules/

If my mailbox and the popup ads on my computer are any indication, AFSCME has already dropped a money bomb for Harp. Special interest politics at its worst!

Way to drop hundreds of thousands of dollars through a loophole and make city residents feel powerless, AFSCME!

By eliminating the Democracy Fund, Senator Harp wants to make sure that everyday city residents are even more powerless and voiceless - just as she has done with state residents, through the new law signed by Malloy in June.

Harp wants to make sure that the Statewide law firms that represent the multibillion-dollar companies that will be making millions of dollars in profit off of Keno terminals in our city's corner stores -- firms which directly donated to her campaign -- continue to call the shots here.

If I am reading these comments correctly, Elicker's brigade is latte-spitting mad that Harp can raise money in ways other than getting it from white people who have had historical advantages in acquiring their money.

The fact that they can't use wealth inequity to their advantage just chafes their East Rock hide in the same way standardized test scores once unfairly leveled a playing field. When the SAT eliminated bias from admissions offices, white folks created SAT camps and programs to reclaim their lost entitlement.

Just so ridiculous that they stick their royal noses in the air with some sense of moral superiority about this.

Citizen X,

That is insane. You think that allowing candidates to accept large donations from special interests balances out money coming in from rich white people? Seriously? Tell the Koch brothers that they have new spinmaster, the brilliant Citizen X. I guess that was the Supreme Court's take on Citizens United. Goodness forbid corporations can't make unlimited contributions to candidates, how on earth will they otherwise be able to compete with the incredible amassed wealth of university professors, engineers, retirees, and archivists?!?

The willingness of supporters of both Harp and Elicker (let's call them Hellicker from now on to express my basic disgust at this campaign season) to spin crazy friggin' arguments for their candidates is mindboggling.

Don't it always seem to go / That you don't know what you've got / Till it's gone

DeStefano 2013

Latte drinking reference? C'mon now, that's straight from the famous Club for Growth ad against Howard Dead in 2004, which is super ironic given you've tried to paint Elicker as the Republican previously.

Also I think I missed the point in the campaign where Harp's money wasn't coming 80+ from the suburbs and when the suburbs suddenly weren't 90%+ white people. Then again tonight's filing could be a sudden shift.

Citizen X-Ray Notes:

Tickets going on sale now, for the Whiners' Ball! Get em while they're hot! Don't know why anybody would complain about the Democratic Party talking steps to contribute to the Democratic Party Candidate for Mayor. If Justin hadn't lost the Primary race, he would have been in line to be the Democrat in the race. As it is, Independent Elicker is the best he can claim. At least its a step up the food chain from his Republican origins.

Well, not gonna lie, regardless of where it comes from that's some impressive fundraising by Harp.

It has been stunning and inspiring to see the level of sustained grassroots support that Justin Elicker continues to demonstrate. The breadth of his fundraising - $114 or so at a time - speaks to a broadly appealing candidate with a message that resonates across this great city.
The poison rhetoric of Citizen X, Inc. is - at its best - just the noise of partisans trying to stick to the message they drew up in a campaign boardroom, whatever the price to civility of that message may be. It is sad that they carry on with this spectacle, but they will fail to shadow the truly amazing story of this election season. It is the story of a city - post Citizens United - that is still able to speak up in favor of an honest, competent candidate.

I'm not really getting the connection between SAT scores and election financing in New Haven. Have to think on that one for a long while.

I didn't do particularly well on my SATs but still gave generously to the Elicker campaign and even canvassed for an afternoon. But then, I have mixed blood, not pure white, so perhaps I don't fit into the SAT-New Haven election financing paradigm. Putting this theory to the test, if there were several black people who did really well on their SATs, and who lived on East Rock, would they give to Elicker or Harp? Does SAT trump race or race trump SAT? Or does residence in that latte addicted haven of middle class academics and local young professionals known as East Rpck trump race and high SAT scores? Does a high SAT score predict intention to vote for Elicker?

So perhaps citizen x is arguing that intelligent people support Elicker. Should we assume, using his/her logic, the inverse, that people who don't do well on the SATs (who aren't so smart), will support Harp?

At this moment I am truly proud to be an Elicker supporter. But not just because his ideas are far better than harps, and not because he did not resort to lies to get votes like harp. And not just because his donations are from people that LIVE in this city and not special interests and rich suburbanites looking to control our city!

BUT because he is fighting so that ANYONE that wants to run for a government position should not need a big daddy bank roll to run! Citizens should not need to be anointed by ANY GROUP let me repeat ANY GROUP! to be able to be the voice of the people. He IS the American dream! And he IS fighting to restore it for ALL of us to have that same opportunity. And he is making it so that the issues are what we should be voting on not the Popeye's they feed people at "fundraiser". I for one love good food but my vote is not for sale and I would be dammed if a free meal is the price! Remember once elected, that all ends and what are you left with?

Elicker a candidate that from day one has been about the issues and the people.

or a candidate that has been bought and paid for and will forget about 80% of the people that live here after election day, and will be rewarding all those big money supporter from out of town?

I AM PROUD TO BE supporting the ONLY candidate that ran a campaign that was REALLY about the PEOPLE OF NEW HAVEN! Thank you Justin! Elicker has EARNED MY VOTE!

I can hear Sal Brancati, Tony Avalone and Bob Proto all licking their chops from miles away.

CITY FOR SALE! Line up at Harp HQ!

I have an apartment on Farnham ave.... Orange is work. For the record

Citizen x: I don't live in East Rock, I wouldn't touch a latte and I grew up poor. My SAT scores were just fine, without prep courses and I support Elicker. Your stereotypes are growing old and offensive. The reality is that people who object to pay to play politics support Elicker. His campaign donors are people who pay taxes in New Haven. Harps donors are people who want to profit from those tax dollars. We pay. They play. The game has to stop before they bankrupt all of us.

You do me proud Justin Elicker!

This is disingenuous:

"Thanks to thousands of dollars from union-affiliated political action committees, Toni Harp's mayoral campaign reaped in $100,000 in the past three weeks leading up to next Tuesday's election."

It was 10 percent of her take, but if it fits the Elicker narrative, the writer will write it. Here's an idea, why not let Elicker write his own stories on the NHI.

Or how about something more honest like: "In spite of whining from the Elicker camp about financing, Toni Harp drew nearly three times as much money from individual contributors as Elicker in the last three weeks."

I wonder whether NHI wants to rejig its comments policy again. Any article nowadays seems to be hijacked by partisan insults from both sides. The best comments are those that add information relevant to the article not already in the public domain, or make an argument that has not already been made ad nauseam. Jonathan Hopkins's Ph.D. quality-dissertations on urban history are a good example. The reflex comments about Harp's taxes, Elicker's experience, and both candidates' donor bases aren't that interesting any more, and certainly won't sway anyone who hasn't already been swayed. I'm not sure how the public debate is helped here.

[Editor: Thanks for the feedback. I share your concern. Two years ago the campaign nastiness from all sides hijacked all threads in a way that polluted the site irreparably for months after the election. We then suspended commenting for a while while rejiggering our approach. We're stricter now. We have been deleting many, many more comments from all sides of the campaign, despite the howls of the partisans. Still, I agree the tone continues to be tough to keep under control. (And we're again spending way too much of our limited staff hours doing battle with the trolls.) I recognize that passions run highest during campaigns, and important ideas are at stake. We'll try to do better in the moderating and keep an eye on the post-election fallout. Perhaps we should get stricter again in deleting some more of the reflexive nastiness and repetitive personal point-scoring. I do feel matters haven't sunk to the level of two years ago. Every day many superb comments are posted from all sides in a way that adds so much to the stories, and I appreciate the time so many thoughtful people put into reading articles and commenting on them. I think our commenters overall produce by far the most productive, diverse, and intelligent debate on the web in Connecticut. My hope is we won't have to go into shutdown mode again. The onus is on us at the Independent to stay vigilant. Perhaps we could ask as well that readers who have decided the candidate they oppose is the devil who must be dressed down for her/his personal evil 30 times a day no matter what the subject at hand take a deep breath before posting. It's our fault when we slip up and let through comments that should be removed; we're more likely to make that mistake when the torrent includes so much harshness and repetitive name-calling and ad hominem nastiness.]

AFSCME designing, printing, and mailing glossy two sided full page propaganda to the entire city stamped with "This message was made independent of any candidate or committee" cost WAY more than $120. Its a campaign finance loophole that averages about $14k per mailing. I hope their workers appreciate having the dues from their mandatory membership used in this way.

DOWNTOWN DWELLER,

Maybe insults should be censored but inconvenient facts such as the Harp family's tax evasion shouldn't be censored (especially repeated reminders) because they're germane to this city and this election.

DAVID BAKER,

On this same subject, the democratic controlled legislature has recently eviscerated our campaign finance laws with loopholes. The Harp campaign is emblematic of this "pay to play" state of mind in the legislature.

If you wonder what Toni Harp's out of city donors want in exchange for their vote buying money - one need only read the CT Post this morning where Connecticut Democratic Party Chairwoman Nancy DiNardo is fuming that former Bridgeport Mayor John Fabrizi has crossed party lines -- by appearing at Trumbull First Selectman Tim Herbst's fundraiser last Thursday and making an endorsement speech.

There must be a quid-pro quo, DiNardo said.
"In politics, nobody does something for nothing," said DiNardo.

Necessary to note that the Harp campaign padded/manipulated their finance report with more than a hundred micro contributions that didn't need to be reported. ($10, $5, $2, $1...)

The only other candidate I've ever seen do this is Linda McMahon.

Perhaps Elicker spent less $ on New Haven staff because he didn't need to. Most of the canvassing and other work that I've seen has been done by scores of New Haven volunteers working literally around the clock. Proud to be one of them.

@Downtown Dweller and Editor -

Overall, the comments are more restrained than the last election. But this is politics and comments can be harsh due in no small part to choices a candidate makes. That news evolves and those choices are what make the headlines in the NHI. When it comes to politics, the absurdity of some of these choices, positions, and actions fuel the harsh reaction of readers.

For the first time in 20 years, we are guaranteed a change in who sits in the most powerful slot of the city. There is much at stake and a clear choice between status quo and more of it vs. principled reform, restraint and refocus on customers (taxpayers.)

Some of the comments are clearly over the line but I have had some of my comments rejected that not only took a lot of time to draft, but in my opinion were far from offensive. Acceptability is a very subjective decision. Monitoring comments is good but it should be done with a loose hand not a tighter fist. Either community engagement is wanted or it isn't. It's a lot like transparency in government. Either you believe in it or not. You can't have a half open government while suppressing information regardless of community response.

We don't read the NHI or any newspaper for Ph.D. quality comments and most of us don't have doctorates. If we wanted those kinds of routine dissertations, we could spend our time elsewhere.

The comments of readers reflect the community we are, and the people who live in it today. If the intent is to build an online utopia, with sanitized, always courteous, always advancing comments that fit a pro forma concept, good luck. It comes down to whether the NHI will reflect the community or try to shape it. My suggestion is that it reflect and chronicle. If we have political leaders who engage citizens, solve problems, raise standards and are proportional and rational, who don't have a special set of standards for themselves, I think we'll be surprised how the community reflection changes.

I understand (and am thrilled) that people are passionate about these candidates, but the vitriol on these comments is unwarranted. People need to stop taking such a black-and-white view of these things.

Whether or not people want to accept it, Harp clearly has many supporters across New Haven who may not have the disposable income to donate to a campaign. Is it wrong of her to seek money from suburban donors? Is it wrong of people living outside of New Haven to care about New Haven? A city they may frequent and enjoy?

Elicker may get his money from predominantly New Haven residents, but they are generally affluent residents who are only a small representative of New Haven as a whole, and he clearly isn't rejecting any out of town donors, either. I sincerely doubt he would reject all the money Harp can get out of town.

The truth is that they are both smart candidates and the hatred which is spewing forth from both sides of the fence over what are essentially both similar liberal candidates in a liberal city is unnecessary.

Either way I think we're going to end up with a great mayor and someone who cares deeply about this city. Maybe we should spend more time worrying about the issues themselves and less time worrying about who went to what school and who came from what background and whose family member did what.

Go Elicker!

Alternate spin / take/ headline for this article could be "Toni Harp pays her workers on the ground in this election whereas Justin Elicker's volunteer."

The facts:

Harp has raised a total of $503,496 during the campaign, including contributions of up to $1000 from individuals and committees.

55% of Harp's donations come from out-of-town sources (it is likely that this 55% has contributed more than 55% of Harp's total dollars).

Harp's average donation is $214.04.

Harp has spent over $14,000 hiring out-of-town consultants.

Elicker has raised a total of $308,480.67 during the campaign, including matching funds from the Democracy fund (I assume), but not including contributions over $370 or from committees.

87% of Elicker's donations come from individuals living in New Haven.

Elicker's average donation is $114.13.

Elicker has spent less than $11,000 on 16 consultants, of which 7 are from New Haven, one is from West Haven and one from East Haven, the rest from New Haven, New London and Fairfield Counties.

How in the world does the author arrive at this conclusion?

"Justin Elicker used mostly locally-raised contributions to place an ad on craigslist and hire nine out-of-town campaign staffers. Toni Harp used thousands of dollars from out-of-town donors to help hire 60 New Haveners to her campaign, including everyday people from Newhallville and West Rock."

Harp hired more out-of-town and out-of-state staffers than Elicker. Elicker has raised more money in New Haven than Harp. The one thing this article's conclusion seems to be based on is that Harp have a few hundred bucks to some New Haven residents from work (hardly qualifies as "hiring") and does little to nothing to help "a depressed community", as Harp refers to us as.

Citizen X,

I agree. If only NHPS would pay for every students SATs, cover the costs of summer programs and Choate, Yale and Hillhouse, and pay for college courses at Southern and Yale, and pay in-state tuition for graduating seniors....oh wait

downtown dweller,

My guess is that it will die down a bit after the election.

NHI commenting policy should be,

"Be accurate, be concise and if you can't be those, at least be funny."

Speaking of local cash payments, has the Harp family gotten around to paying the $20,000 or so they owe to the City of New Haven in building fees on their 10,000sf mansion?

As we near the election it'd be good to know that they are current with what they owe the City government, despite the million-dollar debt to the State.

Paul and the NHI provide a public service with the comment board, and don't have to accept any comments. My view is that the comments should add to a debate; the reader should want to read the comments. I really don't see how repetitious attacks against either candidate do so, and I read comments less frequently now, because I have to pick through the vitriol to find something that adds to my understanding. Therefore, I disagree with Noteworthy's view about whether the comment board should reflect or shape the public discussion, though I appreciate his or her view, and realize that the ultimate choice is Paul's.

As to what partisans get out of this, I'm kind of lost. I'm a strong supporter of Elicker, but I've no idea how repetitious out-of-context attacks on Harp help him. They just tend to turn people off (even assuming that people who read comments haven't already made up their minds). Replying to allegations that he's a Bush agent is one thing, but making attacks all the time is another. As Hopkins notes, this will hopefully stop in a few days' time.

In the closing stretches, Independent Justin Elicker has continued to focus his fundraising efforts on citizens of the lighter persuasion, with ample financial means to pop $370 x 2 at the drop of a hat. In contrast, The Democratic Party continues to show its support for its standard bearer -- Sen Toni Harp -- who has also displayed an ability to reach all voters of every ethnicity and income level. Women, blacks and lower income voters have responded to her candidacy in impressive numbers. The business community has also weighed in with a resounding vote in favor of Sen Harp's Small
Business and Economic Development plans for the New Haven of the future. Even the previously racially bias-challenged NHReg has weighed in with a surprising editorial endorsement of a minority political candidate for mayor against a young, well-heeled candidate from New Canaan CT money.

Toni Harp ... a Mayor for ALL of New Haven! (Not just East Rock).

The complement to vitriolic attacks on the opponent must be sycophantic raves for your own candidate. But then, I'm not sure what to do with all the indifferent approval ("I've heard nice things about her").

http://foxct.com/2013/10/30/new-haven-mayoral-race-5/

RAZZIE,

Jumping to a conclusion about the race of this group or that group and then on top of that, concluding that this conclusion means something is exactly what's wrong with New Haven. The most racist place in this county isn't East Haven, its right here in New Haven.

Oh puuhhleez people. It's called a robust, energetic and engaged democracy. We're not Quakers here, reflecting quietly in the meeting house. It's rough and tumble, northeastern urban politics. I for one truly enjoy the vibrant and colorful debate (though have to admit I was banned under another screen name for reasons not quite clear to me).

@robn & Editor:

I thought Citizen X's first comment was accurate, concise, and funny.

SOA,

If someone referred to an AA as "watermelon seed spitting" I think we'd both agree that was racist. In the same way, the terms " royal" and "latte-spitting" are racist and moreso classist. I don't find them very funny, especially since there are many people in East Rock of limited means (Cedar Hill, Goatville, many grad student renters). And as far as accuracy, the federal census is very clear that the suburbs surrounding New Haven ( where 80% of Harps funding is from ) is predominantly white. In that respect, CITIZENXs suggestion that Harps fundraising is more in tune with the demographics of our city is patently false.

@ robn,

It took me a few minutes to decode "AA," but yes, we would agree that such a comment would be racist. The problem in several of the NHI comment threads is the misguided effort for false equivalency between these very different statements.

No, Toni Harp saying that the boys like their toys when talking about firefighter requests for new trucks is not the same thing as if Harp were to say "preserving teacher spots or school nurses was a "girl thing,'" as anonymous attempted to argue on another thread. No, Citizen X saying that "Elicker's brigade is latte-spitting mad" is not the same thing as "if someone referred to an A[frican] A[merican] as 'watermelon seed spitting.'" And no, Harp being endorsed by black female firefighters is not the same thing as white firefighters endorsing a candidate.

Too often white people's advocating "color-blindness" is used to either "whitesplain" racism, mask inequalities, or worse, make false claims that whites are being discriminated against. Like BET is somehow a racist channel against white people, or "Django Unchained" is racist because whites couldn't make an equivalent movie with the racial roles reversed. And that's not even to touch the claims of sexism against men and classism against the privileged that are made here.

History brought us to where we are here today. We cannot simply reset the clock and say we should all be colorblind now. Contrary to claims I see being made in NHI comments, this election did not create racism and racial divides in this city--it has exposed them. It is actually an incredible opportunity to stare those disparities and places of incomprehension in the face and wrestle with them. Together. But that requires asking questions, listening, and taking other people's positions seriously, not simply explaining them away by claiming reverse racism or some vast suburban-union conspiracy that has brainwashed your fellow residents. Give people some credit.

SOA,

Then we have a fundamental disagreement.

I believe that racism and sexism exist, not "reverse-racism" or "reverse sexism".

Racist and sexist views may spout from different places and go in different directions but they all have the same results; that is "bad" results.

robn,

Well, we agree that racism & sexism exist. That's a good starting point.

I also believe that white privilege, male privilege, and class privilege exist as perpetual systems of racism, sexism, and classism that insidiously structure our everyday lives. When people work collectively in racial struggle, gender struggle, and class struggle against that systematic production & perpetuation of inequality, or say things to jolt us into recognizing the existence of the unmarked privilege that tries to go unnoticed, they are not simply replicating the terms of those oppressive systems "in different directions."

The kind of flattening out of "racist and sexist views" you seem to advocate--in what I take to be an admirable desire for color-blindness--nevertheless seems to confuse critique & activism for racism, sexism, and classism. It flattens out real differences in power & privilege, sweeps those differences under the rug, and refuses the opportunity for self-reflection that comments like Citizen X's may be calling us to consider.

Again, it is fundamentally WRONG to equate "watermelon seed spitting" and "latte spitting" as somehow being nothing more than different directionalities of racism & classism. Understanding why that is the case is an ethical obligation for all of us, not in the least those of us (myself included) who might be relatively accurately branded as "latte spitting" (although I prefer pour-over or cappuccino).

SAO,

Great, then we both agree that tools of racism and sexism are being manipulatively implemented by white suburban union bosses who intend to wield influence through the Harp administration.

SteveOnAnderson

2 of the BEST posts I've ever seen here on NHI concerning racism and the "flattening out" of the issues terms and definitions. Thank you !!

SteveOnAnderson

I wish I could talk like that...Bravo!! Yours was perhaps one of the few posts that both sides can embrace.

BTW -- I prefer mine as latte.