LobbyComply Blog

Gov. Dannel Malloy’s administration announced they are cutting the budgets for the state’s watchdog agencies. The Office of State Ethics, the Freedom of Information Commission, and the State Elections Enforcement Commission will be subject to shrinking budgets at a time when the governor’s office is facing investigations from two of the agencies.

Just months ago, Malloy’s administration stated the agencies would not face cuts, but reversed its position soon after the Office of State Ethics voted to investigate the administration’s hiring of a former lobbyist to lead the regulatory review of a former client’s proposed merger. The timing has led to talk of the cuts being a form of retribution.

The State Elections Enforcement Commission also just levied a $325,000 penalty against Malloy’s state Democratic Party for pay-to-play violations, the subject of a new federal grand jury investigation. Heads of the agencies argue, however, the cuts are illegal under a 2004 law meant to prevent unilateral action by the governor.

A veto session is scheduled to convene next week; however, lawmakers in the Senate have already decided not to challenge Gov. Dannel Malloy’s line-item veto cutting more than $20 million in municipal aid.

Democratic leadership in the House will instead hold a closed-door caucus during the June 20 session. An override of the veto needed to start in the Senate because the budget bill originated there.

Most lawmakers are unhappy with the cuts, but Democrats, who control both houses, have chosen not to fight this particular battle with the governor.

The Connecticut General Assembly adjourned its regular session yesterday, May 4, 2016, without reaching a deal on the state budget.

As time ran out on the session, constitutionally mandated to end at midnight, Democratic leaders postponed a vote on the budget and will return next week for a special session. The Senate announced the special session will begin on May 12.

Gov. Dannel Malloy announced he will be calling the General Assembly into special session after reaching a tentative deal with fellow Democrats on the state’s budget deficits. The session will begin December 8, 2015.

While the governor and Democrats have, for the most part, come to an agreement, Republican members of the legislature are not yet on board. It is unclear whether the lack of bipartisan support will hamper passage of any bill introduced.

Photo of the Connecticut State Capitol courtesy of Ragesoss on Wikipedia.

Lawmakers returned Monday, July 20, 2015 for a one-day, constitutionally mandated session to consider overrides of the governor’s vetoes.

Democratic majority leaders of both chambers announced there was not enough support for any such override, stating it would be best to revisit any points of contention during the next regular session.

Photo of the Connecticut State Capitol by jglazer75 on Wikimedia Commons.

The General Assembly will convene a special session today, June 29, 2015, to complete work on the state budget and other unfinished bills from the regular session.

Lawmakers will also address reforms to the prison and parole system as well as a bill dealing with excessive use of force by law enforcement.

Legislative leaders hope to wrap up the session in one day.

The General Assembly adjourned sine die on June 3, 2015, shortly before its midnight deadline.

Both chambers voted to return for a special session, however, to finish work on bills related to the budget.

A date for the special session has not yet been set.

Gov. Dannel Malloy has signed a bill amending the code of ethics.

Senate Bill 850, now known as Public Act 15-15, creates an additional exception to the definition of expenditure, adds to the list of who is not included in the definition of a lobbyist, and raises the threshold for lobbyist registration from $2,000 to $3,000.

The new provisions are effective January 1, 2016.

The state’s legislature has agreed to a bill amending the code of ethics.

Senate Bill 850, now known as Public Act 15-15, creates an additional exception to the definition of expenditure, adds to who is not included in the definition of a lobbyist, and raises the threshold for lobbyist registration from $2,000 to $3,000.

After passing both chambers, the measure awaits the governor’s signature. If signed, the new provisions will be effective January 1, 2016.

Photo of the Connecticut State Capitol by jglazer75 on Wikimedia Commons.

The Citizens Ethics Advisory Board has levied a $10,000 penalty against a lobbyist for accepting illegal contingency fees. Robert M. Silverberg had a contract with Clean Power Public of New Haven paying him 15 percent of the gross value of contracts he obtained from the state governments of Connecticut and Pennsylvania.

Silverberg did not disclose any administrative lobbying from January 2013 to January 2014, stating he was unaware his activities were subject to lobbying laws. He believed he was only engaging in sales activities.

The fine will be suspended pending Silverberg’s compliance with a consent order requiring him to attend annual training for five years and

The State Elections Enforcement Commission (SEEC) used unusually strong language while asking the Federal Election Commission (FEC) to prevent the Connecticut Democratic State Central Committee (CDSCC) from using federally designated funds for a state race. The state party has requested an advisory opinion from the FEC approving the use of funds in a federal campaign account to pay for a mailing encouraging the reelection of Gov. Dannel Malloy.

In a letter to the FEC, signed by all five members, the SEEC denounced the inquiry stating it would violate both the letter and spirit of state campaign finance laws. In response, the CDSCC argued it is simply seeking clarification where federal and state laws are in conflict.

Federal law requires certain “federal election activity,” potentially including mailings, be paid for with a minimum of 15 percent federal funds whereas Connecticut law requires state candidates be supported exclusively with state funds. The CDSCC believes, should its reading of the law be confirmed, federal law will preempt state statutes and the use of federal funds will be required.

Former Gov. John G. Rowland was convicted Friday in federal court on seven counts of corrupt political acts. The charges, including obstructing justice, conspiracy, and falsifying documents, followed Rowland’s connection to the congressional campaigns of Lisa Wilson-Foley in 2012 and Mark Greenberg in 2010.

Foley pleaded guilty to related crimes earlier this year and is awaiting sentencing. The obstruction charge in relation to Greenberg’s campaign centered around a contract presented to Greenberg by Rowland. Greenberg testified he was not interested and tore up the contract.

Facing a maximum of 57 years in prison, Rowland will be sentenced on December 12.

Photo of former Gov. John G. Rowland by CT State Library on Wikimedia Commons.

A group called Grow Connecticut recently paid $193,000 to produce a television ad targeting incumbent democratic governor Dannel Malloy. The conservative super PAC made the ad buy on the same day the state’s Republican Party filed a complaint against the Governor’s campaign and Connecticut Forward, a similar group, for illegal coordination.

Connecticut Forward, created and funded by the Democratic Governor’s Association, has also paid over $100,000 in support of Governor Malloy. The recent activity by these two groups brings to light the influence of outside groups on publicly funded campaigns.

Both Governor Malloy and the Republican nominee, Tom Foley, are participants in the Citizen’s Election Program, which caps their campaign funds to a $6.5 million grant from taxpayers. The program was created in an attempt to insulate state campaigns from special interest groups. Groups like Grow Connecticut, however, are allowed unlimited independent expenditures, increasing the call for greater transparency through disclosure to the voters.

U.S. District Judge Janet Hall has denied an injunction request by the Democratic Governors Association (DGA) to enjoin the state’s campaign finance laws.

DGA argued Connecticut’s campaign finance law limits the ability of political groups to buy independent ads supporting candidates by treating such spending as a contribution to the candidates supported, thus making it subject to campaign finance limits.

In denying the injunction, Judge Hall found the DGA did not establish a likelihood it would prevail in its challenge of the law.