Round Four: Harp Loans Harp $13.5K

by Thomas Breen | Oct 11, 2019 12:54 pm

(25) Comments | Commenting has been closed | E-mail the Author

Posted to: Politics, Campaign 2019

Share this story with others.

Post a Comment

Commenting has closed for this entry

Comments

posted by: BFLY on October 11, 2019 8:50am Choo Chooo… The runaway train is experiencing some engine problems..the operator is working to get the engine started while its resting on a kick stand. Mismanaging the city funds has been a major concern so to do this to her campaign fund..

This does not surprise me at all..Not one bit.. The city finances are in shambles lying about surplus when they are probably obtaining loans. For New Haven to really bounce back when need qualified folks governing those 557M fiscal budgets…including qualified alders…its time to change some bylaws/ordiances..No where in history do we have a cook overseeing a 557M budget.. It needs to stop…people needs to stay in their lane… As the operator have to use the people campaign to push the train back on the track.

posted by: brownetowne on October 11, 2019 8:54am All these lawn signs are illegally placed on public property. Would someone from the State Elections Enforcement Commission please take notice!

posted by: alex on October 11, 2019 11:11am This doesn’t show mismanagement, this shows Elicker hypocrisy and the misleading nature of his campaign. Elicker’s campaign outraised Harp’s by over $75,000

Elicker’s campaign outspent Harp’s by nearly $50,000 The fact the mayor had a $4,000 shortfall is besides the point—except that it IS the point of the fundraiser, not to “fund the campaign” as Elicker and his supporters are misleadingly saying. According to the Elicker campaign’s detailed expenditures, $76,972.28 worth of the mayoral challenger’s expenditures (59 percent) went to a Manchester-based consultancy called Blue Edge Strategies, owned by Michael Farina. He’s the same person who the Mayor of Hamden was using for his mailers. Very interesting.

posted by: Ravenclaw on October 11, 2019 12:15pm @ Alex: The article may err by emphasizing the Harp campaign’s shortfall as if it reflected mismanagement. But that has nothing to do with the Elicker campaign. Nor does your insinuation (that because the Elicker campaign hired a consulting firm, they are somehow sinister or corrupt) make any sense whatsoever. Serious political campaigns hire consultants. That’s been true for over a century. Harp did so herself - and her consultants produced very misleading attack ads that probably contributed to her electoral defeat. If in fact Mayor Harp is NOT running an active campaign and wants to raise funds only to fill the hole in her campaign war chest (so she doesn’t lose #13K of her own money), then she should simply say so. And if the Elicker campaign continued saying that she was going back on her stated intention to suspend operations after she made that clear, then yes, it would be misleading. But if she is telling people to vote for her on the Working Families line and raising funds for future operations, then they are not being misleading at all - just responding appropriately to the news that they’ve still got a serious opponent, one whose word may not be very trustworthy.

posted by: 1644 on October 11, 2019 12:20pm Alex: So, somehow the fact that the sitting Mayor is inviting folks to put money directly into her pocket is a good thing? Normally, it illegal for candidates to use campaign funds for personal purposes (ask the Dodd family), but the ability of candidates to loan their campaigns money and then be repaid from donations is a loophole for corruption. When the campaign repays the candidate, the money is flowing directly into the candidate’s pocket. If the candidate wins, or is an incumbent, the donations have the strongest stink of bribery.

As far as Elicker outraising and outspending Harp, perhaps he just has broader support, as the primary showed. Harp, like Elicker, lives in a wealthy neighborhood, and as a long-time resident, should have lots of friends and acquaintances who can donate $300, and even more who could donate $10. As it is, her present fundraiser has a minimum give of $100.

Farina’s group claims to be 100% in-state, while Mission Control is national, so I don’t understand your point on Elicker’s choice of mailer assembler.

https://www.norwichbulletin.com/news/20161105/consulting-group-making-big-money-on-election-campaigns

posted by: Dennis Serf on October 11, 2019 12:21pm We have 3 people on the ballot, and actually running. But apparently no planned debate? Should there be a debate? Let your voice be heard by voting at the link below. https://app.involved.mobi/question/905/ Dennis Serfilippi [Ed.: Seth Poole’s name is not on the ballot. However, he has filed paperwork to qualify as a write-in candidates, so people can write his name in and the vote will be counted.]

posted by: Patricia Kane on October 11, 2019 12:51pm Let me stand with Dennis serf on this one.

so far we have one endorsed Dem, one WFP and one write in candidate, but no forum to update us on their positions.

Is winning the Dem. Primary the end of the process?

If it is, then just save the money to be spent on Nov. 4 and tell us that the votes of Greens, Independents, Republicans, Libertarians, etc. don’t matter.

Where is the Democracy Fund on this?

Where is the NHI?

It’s not over, ‘til it’s over. [Paul: We’re happy to organize another debate if the candidates choose to participate.]

posted by: Noteworthy on October 11, 2019 1:01pm Gnat Notes: 1. I do hope that Alex is a better lawyer than he is a political commenter or political activist. 2. With each new article and post - he sounds increasingly desperate, shrill and incomprehensible. 3. Harp ran a deficit in her campaign just like she does with the city budget. Fair critique. 4. She’s going to a big money event to get funds to pay off her deficit including her personal loan of $13,500. 5. Elicker has raised more money and therefore spent more money. Hypocrisy? His finances align with the clean elections program for which I’m quite happy. There’s something wrong with that? No. 6. Spurious allegations and sinister conspiracy theories are growing old, like a gnat buzzing your ear.

posted by: alex on October 11, 2019 1:06pm The gnat buzzing in the ear is the CONSTANT LIES against Mayor Harp. Does anyone have any factual backup for the claim that Mayor Harp isn’t retiring campaign debt but instead trying to “line her pockets”? None. Not a shred of facts. All lies. Sorry, but it’s Noteworthy how many people seem to have nothing but misleading things to say about our Mayor. As long as that’s happening, The People’s Campaign will speak out!

posted by: 1644 on October 11, 2019 1:25pm Alex, if the debt being paid off is owed to Harp personally, then funds raised are going directly to Harp in her personal capacity, i.e., lining her pockets. Every dollar the campaign repays her makes her a dollar richer. So, no, it’s not a lie to say that, presuming this fundraiser is to repay the money she loaned her campaign, it is a fundraiser to put money into Harp’s personal accounts.

posted by: ctddw on October 11, 2019 1:32pm Alex what is in it for you if Harp wins?

posted by: Patricia Kane on October 11, 2019 1:33pm @Paul Bass: I hope you and the Dem. Fund will partner for a mayoral debate. Anyone who doesn’t show up doesn’t get my vote.

How do we get the Alders in contested races to hold candidate forums?

The Alders approve budgets, personnel hires, legal settlements and payouts, etc. We need more info on who is running and what their qualifications and positions on issues are.

It would be a public service for the city to start live streaming Board of Alders meetings, along with any Board or commission meetings of high interest.

We need to use technology to inform people.

Representative democracy has lost out to the oligarchs, but we can reclaim it at the grass roots level.

posted by: Patricia Kane on October 11, 2019 1:36pm @Alex: Where is the list of donors not filed in the last campaign? Apparently once not filed, she gets til next Spring. This is not transparency, but obfuscation. Only elitists feel the rules are for the “little people”. The SEEC is a toothless tiger. (and yet there are some really nice people working there).

posted by: Thomas Alfred Paine on October 11, 2019 2:35pm @Patricia Kane

NHI 8/26/19 “Mayor Toni Harp Monday promised to update campaign reports to reveal the names of a new batch of “mystery donors” cited by her primary campaign opponent.”

“posted by: Thomas Alfred Paine on August 26, 2019 4:25pm When there is true transparency, there is no need for mystery.

For 2019 and 2017, the Harp campaigns have gained to disclose specific information about donors.

TWO years have passed from the last campaign, yet that information about mystery donors has not yet been made public.

Why the mystery? Why the secrecy? Why the failure to follow standard procedures? Why the delays?

Was there some hope that the public would forget?

It’s the LAW! JUST FOLLOW THE LAW! Why is that so difficult for the Harp campaign to do if theyvhsve nothing to hide that might prove to be an embarrassment to the campaign.

Judge Judy always says when you tell the truth you don’t have to THINK about what you’re going to say.

Just the facts ma’am, just release the facts. If the information is valid, no problem. Move on.

If there are illegalities, any unethical financial dealings, any crooked contributions, there will be problems for the Harp campaign.

We hope there will be no effort to blame Trump or the FBI if problems are revealed.

The public will watch and wait for the mystery to be revealed.”

The public is still waiting for the promised list of donors, two months after Harp publicly stated it would be released.

Will Alex tell us all that that promise was never made, and that this is all another LIE to hurt Harp?

posted by: Carl Goldfield on October 11, 2019 2:36pm @Alex. I can’t imagine a more Trumpian conspiracy mongering insinuation than “interesting”. Is “everyone saying” it’s interesting? Would you please elucidate for us what is so “interesting” ? Have the kahoonas to state explicitly what we are to conclude from the fact that Justin and the mayor of Hamden both used Blue Edge.

posted by: alex on October 11, 2019 9:04pm I just think it’s interesting that he got someone from Manchester to come in here to New Haven and spread that negative filth in our city. Really interesting also that the amount spent mirrors the amount that Elicker outraised the mayor. The entire narrative of a corrupt mayor just doesn’t make any sense. Talk about conspiracy theories! There are so many spread about Mayor Harp—even me, for being a mere helper in a People’s Campaign—that it’s amazing that the Natalie Elicker story gets mentioned every time the ACTUAL negativity (backed up by $70k+) is brought up. Interesting. Another phrase for it is double standards.

posted by: Elmmy on October 12, 2019 1:27pm With her wealth of experience as an elected official, one would think that she could at least run an economical campaign. What we see here is just another example of what she’s brought to City Hall ever since she’s gotten into office. This alone should be enough evidence for one to vote for the other candidate, in my opinion.

posted by: alex on October 12, 2019 9:42pm Economical? The woman can’t work miracles. How’s she going to beat the guy calling her, a black woman politician in the era of Trump, a corrupt criminal, who is doing so with more dollars and a notorious negative campaigner political consultant (Michael Farina)? The Mayor said it best at the appreciation event. She was forced to be mayor, to campaign, and to correct misleading and false claims about her record. Meanwhile, her opponent had no full time job and was able to spend an entire year campaigning full time and bringing in thousands of dollars more than the Mayor was able to fundraise ... because she was busy governing with integrity. This election has been sad . . . but it’s not too late to fight back! We can start with a great vote on Tuesday, November 5.

posted by: Elmmy on October 13, 2019 4:27pm re: Alex…so are you telling me (and everyone else) that Harp is victim? Really? And if that is your stance, are aware that this outcome goes beyond the election? That it transpires her entire course of “leadership”? Are you aware of that much? Concretely?

posted by: Bill Saunders on October 13, 2019 11:39pm Alex, Is the ‘quote’ you attribute to Mayor Harp correct? Forced to:

a). Be Mayor.

b). To Campaign

c). To correct false and leading information about her record. There is no force of will at play here from where I stand—Mayor Harp was duly elected last term, and chose to run again this term!!! If that is ‘the real quote’, it is a sad commentary coming from an incumbent running for a fourth term. If this ‘quote’ is ‘your hearsay version’, you need to clean up your verbiage as the ‘messenger’.

posted by: Thomas Alfred Paine on October 14, 2019 10:10am The entire premise and platform of Alex’s People’s Committee for Toni Harp is the racial victimization of Toni Harp.

Alex and his group fail to hold Harp accountable for anything wrong that occurred in her administration or her campaign. Any legitimate criticisms are branded as racial assaults. Every Harp critique of the Elicker campaign is condemned as a racially motivated lie.

Alex and his group simply believe that Harp lost because she is Black and Elicker won because he is White. They blame black voter apathy and white votes for Elicker for his win.

Their strategy to revive Harp’s campaign is to generate Black racial anger at the fact of Harp’s loss, and motivate Blacks to vote for Harp in the November election by pushing the racial victimization theme, using inflammatory language like ‘Harp was politically RAPED and LYNCHED by the Elicker campaign.”

They portray Elicker as a demon, and Harp as a saint who could do no wrong. Facts, evidence and logic are cast into the winds in their biased attempt to defend Harp from every documented poor judgment, poor decision, and failure.

The appeal of the People’s Campaign is almost exclusively to Black voters. Their members are mostly Black. IT IS NO RAINBOW COALITION, that’s for sure. It is the Black committee to defend and redeem the Black Woman Mayor who was insulted and denigrated by a White candidate.

There is nothing wrong with a group supporting a candidate they believe in. It is their strategy that is questionable and repulsive. No one who loves this city should support a campaign based on racial animosity and division.

A political victory founded on that kind of racial premise would be a defeat for the entire city of New Haven.

The people of this city of every race and ethnicity will not sit in idleness and allow a small minority of angry, disgruntled people divide this city.

posted by: Patricia Kane on October 14, 2019 11:50am @Alex: Enough with the whining.

John DeStefano wisely decided not to run for an additional term when it was clear that the Unions were mobilizing against him.

To complain that the Mayor, with a generous salary of $130,000 a year, full time security estimated at $150-200,000, city credit card for expenses, benefits and pension, was “disadvantaged” by having to run against a guy who quit his job to devote the time necessary to gaining the name recognition the Mayor already had, to connect with constituencies the Mayor had developed over 30 years, not to mention the surrogates and beneficiaries of city contracts and largesse, well, it just looks ridiculous.

The same disconnect the Mayor had with some of her constituents is evident in this phase 2 campaign. It is a desperate ploy to pit color against non-color.

You may feel you’re an advocate for the Mayor, but to many of us, it looks like you are just helping her further damage any legacy she had.

posted by: Dennis Serf on October 14, 2019 12:20pm Incumbents have the ‘bully pulpit’ and aren’t expected to campaign full-time, nor should they need to if they have a great record and have effectively communicated their achievements. Incumbents run on their records. Challengers run their visions. This time around Justin’s vision beat Mayor Harp’s record.

posted by: alex on October 14, 2019 5:41pm Whining? I’m just spreading unbiased information. Elicker supporters don’t want to face the facts. They want to live in a post-racial world. But we’re not living in that fantasy world, and there are consequences for running a racialized, nasty, negative campaign. It can work but winning dirty comes with a cost.