How the unopposed spent taxpayer money

Public funds went to T-shirts, hats, jackets

The legislators acquired funds through the state’s Citizens’ Election Program, a system of public campaign financing designed to limit the influence of special interests and increase participation in politics.

Two dozen state lawmakers spent a total of more than $200,000 in taxpayer money on races in which they faced no opposition last November, according to a review of campaign finance records by Hearst Connecticut Media.

In most cases, lawmakers who took public funds through the program returned surpluses back to the state or made charitable contributions, after cruising to victory without opponents on the ballot.

But some gave leftover funds to campaign employees as bonuses. Others spent cash on swag like campaign clothes.

For example, in the final weeks of the campaign state Sen. Kevin Kelly, R-Stratford, who has called for spending cuts targeting government waste, spent $2,456 in campaign funds to reimburse himself for hats and jackets he bought from companies in Massachusetts and Tennessee.

Kelly said Friday such spending is an important way to connect with voters.

“You want to run a campaign that you can see, feel and touch,” he said. “As much as we become more of a digital society, I think there’s a retail aspect of campaigning, so you want to have as much of a presence as you possibly can.”

Kelly eventually returned $9,177 of his original $31,186 public campaign finance grant back to the state.

He and other lawmakers who ran uncontested and participated in the program said when their campaigns begin there’s

no guarantee they won’t face opposition on the ballot.

“The process starts way before (nominating) conventions,” Kelly said. “At that time when you commence your candidacy you don’t know whether you have an opponent or not, and you assume that you do.”

Even after finding out they won’t face a major party opponent, Kelly and others also pointed out, there always exists the chance a write-in or petitioning candidate could oppose them late in the campaign.

The Stratford state senator wasn’t the only unopposed legislator to spend on campaign clothing. Two weeks before the election, Rep. Robyn Porter, D-Hamden, paid $1,436 to Guilford-based DNA Campaigns for T-shirts, among a total of $11,814 she paid to the firm last year.

Public funds

The legislators acquired funds through the state’s Citizens’ Election Program, a system of public campaign financing designed to limit the influence of special interests and increase participation in politics.

How it works is candidates running for state office apply for the grants after raising a minimum amount of qualifying donations — $16,000 for senate campaigns and $5,300 for the house — of between $5 and $270.

Contributions in excess of the qualifying amounts — buffer payments — are sent to the Citizens’ Election Fund from which the program is financed. Candidates receive varying amounts of public funds to use for their campaigns depending on when their applications are filed, whether they’re running for House or Senate, and whether or not they face opposition.

In total, three of the four state senators who ran uncontested last year participated in the program. In the house, 21 of 28 representatives who faced no opposition in November took grants.

In total, the candidates received $341,581 in public grants, according to SEEC data online. They sent in buffer checks totaling $34,282 and returned surpluses totaling $68,028, resulting in what in essence was $239,271 in net spending from the grants.

In one case — that of state Rep. Christie Carpino, a Republican representing the 32nd District of Cromwell and Portland, — the state ended up getting more than it gave.

“While Rep. Carpino qualified for the CEF program, ultimately taxpayers did not underwrite the costs of her campaign,” Carpino spokesperson Catherine Thomas said in an email. “She only spent the amount that she raised through campaign contributions and the rest was returned to the CEF program.”

Carpino also spent on things like T-shirts and jackets. But the $8,922 public financing grant she received was offset by a $1,655 buffer check representing contributions over the qualifying amount, and $7,496 in leftover funds she returned the program in January — meaning the state actually ended up $229 better off due to her participation.

Carpino’s was the only such case from last year’s election cycle.

Campaign spending

At the other end of the spectrum, state Sen. Saud Anwar, DSouth Windsor, took a $31,186 grant after sending the state a $960 buffer check. But the only record of surplus payments from his campaign committee in the State Elections Enforcement Commission’s database is a $993.75 check he cut to his campaign treasurer a month after the election.

Between October and December, Anwar’s campaign spending to one PR firm alone eclipsed the total amount of his public grant: $33,327 in payments to New York Citybased BerlinRosen, for direct mailers, web ads and printing costs.

“All of my campaign's expenses were in accordance with CEP rules,” Anwar said through a spokesperson.

He said he was first elected to the senate via a 2019 special election and that in gearing up for re-election last year, he expected to have an opponent in November.

“It was important to inform the public about my perspectives and positions on issues,” he said. “Voters have a right to be informed about any candidate, regardless if they have an opponent or not.”

“The CEP has done tremendous work to keep special interests out of Connecticut elections and I plan to continue to participate in this best-in-the-nation program in future years,” Anwar said.

Hearst Connecticut Media reached out to each of the two dozen lawmakers who ran unopposed and participated in the public financing program for comment on this story, either directly or through their spokespeople.

A handful responded, most of whom said participation in the program helps them steer clear of undue influence from special interests and lobbyists.

Several lawmaker pointed out that they spent CEP cash on paying campaign workers.

Rep. Dorinda Borer, D-West Haven, said in an email that of the grant she received, most of the money — $5,185, according to SEEC data — was spent on wages for campaign workers, many of whom were high school and college students, to make calls to voters drumming up awareness and gathering concerns.

“At a time when we were restricted and could not communicate in person, this was a good use of funds to perform virtual outreach and at the same time get the younger generation engaged,” she said.

Late opponents

Borer and others also noted that while the two major parties nominate candidates months before the election, petition and write-in candidates can launch challenges later, “therefore outreach and communication with residents begins when you start to receive the funds but before you know you are unopposed.”

While write-in and third party candidacies are often long shots, Rep. Susan Johnson, D-Windham, said that her 49th District “has numerous successful third party elected officials,” including a former Windham mayor who ran against her in 2014 as a member of the Bottom Line Party. Johnson won 3,175 votes to her opponent’s 1,226.

Johnson said in an email that much of her campaign literature also told voters about changes to last year’s elections due to the COVID-19 pandemic. “Additionally, once I receive the nomination from the local major Democratic Party I have a duty to conduct a campaign that lets constituents know what I have done, what issues I support and ask them to contact me with their concerns,” she said.

Rep. Michael DiMassa, a Democrat who represents West Haven and New Haven, echoed the sentiment.

“When you start that whole process, you don’t know that you’re not going to have an opponent,” he said in a phone interview, adding he might have re-thought participation if he knew for sure last spring he would be unopposed. “I expect an opponent.”

In an email sent via a spokesperson, Rep. Gregg Haddad, DMansfield, said that “standing for election is about more than winning.”

“I have gone door-to-door during uncontested elections and sent a limited number of mailings to explain to my constituents what I believe, what I intend to do when elected and what progress I’ve made towards my goals,” Haddad said. “In short, I work to be accountable to my district.”

At the same time, Haddad said he might not participate in the public financing program if he runs uncontested again, noting that in prior uncontested elections, “I have sometimes spent all funds I am granted, and other times, I have returned all funds in excess of the qualifying contributions contributed to the campaign by my supporters.”

He said he doesn’t regret any of the specific spending. “I work to use the funds to contact voters directly. I’ve never purchased pencils, pens, potholders, rulers or sponges.”

Kelly said the nature of the last election cycle made participating in the program important from a party perspective after noting presidential and congressional races were above his on the ballot — and were won handily by Democrats.

“The tide of Democrat votes were all going in one direction. While I may be uncontested, there were contested races below me on our ticket,” he said, calling his race a “firewall to bring voters off that Democrat line and onto the Republican line.

“You want to make sure you’re running and campaigning and working for the ticket,” Kelly said.