
CT elections enforcement dismisses decade old complaint against Ted Kennedy Jr. What to know.
The dismissal, in a case arising from a 2014 Senate campaign in Madison, removes an irritant for Kennedy, who has since walked away from Connecticut electoral politics. But it leaves unresolved questions about the loophole that was created by a murky legislative amendment and allows candidates campaigning with taxpayer money to exceed spending limits intended to keep special interest money out of elections.
The SEEC decision, recently released by the commission, observes that 'justice delayed is justice denied,' but doesn't explain what the commission called its 'inexcuseable,'11-year delay in resolving the complaint.
And in its written 'Findings and Conclusions,' the commission acknowledges it is dismissing the complaint in spite of 'significant' evidence that Kennedy violated the spirit of the state campaign finance reforms, known as the Citizen Election Program or CEP, by raising money for a state Democratic party committee with the understanding that the money would be transferred back to his campaign, in excess of spending limits.
'There is significant, though not uncontroverted, evidence that the candidate raised the funds for the party committee with the express understanding that the funds raised would be spent on his campaign,' the commission concluded. 'The funds raised by the candidate for the party committee were tracked and spent by the candidate's committee. In short, the evidence suggests that the candidate bypassed the CEP limits by doing indirectly what he could not do directly.'
Charles Urso, a former FBI agent who was assigned to investigate the Kennedy complaint while working for the SEEC, was critical of the decision, both for the delay and its conclusion. Urso said the commission's own findings support the argument that Kennedy arranged to raise money for the state committee with the understanding that the money would be 'earmarked' for his campaign.
'As the initial investigator on this matter — I retired before it concluded — I am confused by the conclusion,' Urso said. 'If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck and is yellow, it is earmarking. It made a mockery of the CEP and the fallout continues. With many of the safeguards from the origination of the program being eliminated or watered down it is time to end this costly experiment.'
In 2014, Kennedy, a Democrat, was running against Madison Selectman Bruce Wilson, a Republican. Both applied for public financing and signed contracts promising to limit spending to grants of about $95,000 in taxpayer funds they qualified for under the Citizen Election Program.
Campaign records show that Kennedy and the state Democratic Party ended up spending almost four times that much on his campaign, using the loophole opened by the abstruse amendment pushed through the Legislature the year before. Political observers said, then and now, that the amendment was designed to help former Gov. Dannel P. Malloy, who was worried about being out-spent by a privately financed opponent in his 2014 campaign.
By the time the votes were counted in November 2014, the election commission reported in its Findings and Conclusions released late Wednesday that 'individuals associated with' Kennedy contributed $305,000 to the Democratic State Central Committee. Over the same period, the commission reported that the state committee paid $286,755 to cover the costs of the Kennedy campaign's 'organization expenditures.'
Before campaign finance law was changed by the 2013 amendment, payments from outside committees for campaign 'organization expenditures' were limited to $10,000.
Wilson, outspent by a margin of nearly 4-1, recalls driving himself and, while lugging posters and signs to campaign events, watching Kennedy arrive with a retinue of staffers and occasionally a consultant. After Kennedy won the race, Wilson's campaign manager, former Madison First Selectman Tom Banisch, filed the complaint with the commission, which eventually opened related investigations of both Kennedy and Malloy.
When the investigation began, state Democrats challenged commission subpoenas for campaign records, attracting the interest of federal authorities. Among other things, FBI agents and federal prosecutors spent 15 months analyzing half a million emails in an effort to determine whether fund transfers that pushed spending over legal limits amounted to fraud on the public campaign finance system.
In 2018, the justice department shut down its inquiry, conceding that the 2013 amendment made the find transfers legal.
Even though the FBI was ordered to stand down, election reformers such as former state Comptroller Kevin Lembo, a Democrat, worried the that the amendment and resulting loophole had turned the Citizen Election Program, once thought to be among the country's most vigorous campaign reform packages, into a toothless means of delivering tax payer dollars to politicians.
'The flagship example of how this change defies the spirit of Connecticut's prior campaign finance reform is Ted Kennedy Jr.'s campaign for State Senate back in 2014,' the staff of the Comptroller's office wrote in a 2017 report.
The 11-page statement of Findings and Conclusions the elections enforcement commission released Wednesday gives examples of exchanges of tactics and money between the Kennedy campaign and the Democratic State Central Committee, before concluding the practices didn't arise to a violation.
At least seven months before the election, the commission said the Kennedy campaign was speaking with the Democratic State Central Committee about 'ways that the state central committee could assist the candidate's campaign.' As a result, it said the two 'collaborated on both contributions and expenditures to benefit the candidate's campaign,' according to the findings.
The commission findings report that Kennedy's campaign manager, on loan from a major labor union, spoke regularly with the Democratic State Central Committee about paying for Kennedy campaign expenses and at one point 'simply directed' a senior state party officer 'to add two individuals the party committee's payroll to work solely on behalf of the candidate's committee.'
In an email on the subject, the Kennedy campaign manager wrote to a senior DSCC staffer: 'Two employees need to be put on payroll for the state party …I don't know how your pay period's run, but both are to be paid the equivalent of $800 per week. We also want to reimburse for mileage at the standard State party rate.'
One of the two men was later interviewed by the elections enforcement commission, which reported in its findings that he said he was hired by Kennedy, but paid by the state party. Within two months of being hired, he was working exclusively on fundraising for the DSCC.
One example of area of cooperation was a 'luncheon reception' to 'honor' Kennedy hosted by two well-known Pennsylvania politicians, former Gov. Ed Rendell and former Judge Joseph Rocks. The two asked invitees in a letter 'to consider contributing $500, $1,000 or $1,500 to aid his cause' and closed by expressing the hope that guests 'can join us in supporting Ted Kennedy Jr.'
'In the cover letter and on the face of the actual invitation, there was no mention that the contributions would be going to the DSCC,' according to the elections commission Findings and Conclusions. 'The contribution form, which contributors were directed to return to Rocks, was titled 'Ted Kennedy Jr. for Connecticut State Senator.' In smaller type, there was language noting that checks should be made payable to DSCC and that this was a 'fundraising event for the Democratic Party of Connecticut.''
The elections enforcement commission reported in its findings that DSCC records show that Kennedy, or those working on his behalf, solicited about $308,000 from 188 donors for the state party.
'Throughout the course of the 2014 election cycle, the candidate raised money on behalf of the DSCC, beginning in April and continuing through the election in November,' according to the commission Findings and Conclusions. 'The amount of money that the candidate raised tracks almost directly with the organization expenditures that the committee made on his behalf. Although the individuals representing both the candidate committee and the party committee denied that there was a quid pro quo arrangement regarding 'contributions raised and money spent,' a strong correlation to that effect exists.'
The elections commission said in its findings that the facts of the Kennedy case present a 'core' legal issue: Whether candidates running taxpayer funded campaigns can solicit money for a state party, knowing that the funds will be tracked and returned to the candidate. It said both the Kennedy campaign and the Democratic State Central Committed deny that happened and insist that any fund transfers were 'entirely legal.'
'Nonetheless, the factual ambiguity and legal complexity of the issues raised in this matter meant that this matter has remained unresolved for an inexcusably extended period,' the commission said in its findings. 'Moreover, the commission takes judicial notice that the candidate served only one term in the General Assembly and has not been in elected office since 2016, or nine years ago.
'And finally because this case was a case of first impression, the facts are contested, there has been an unreasonably long delay in the resolution of this matter, the commission has decided that justice requires that this case be dismissed without further action.'
The commission voted to approve its decision Wednesday morning. Wilson and Banisch said they were not notified. Both men said that in response to their repeated inquiries to the commission about the status of the complaint over the last decade, they were told simply that it was under investigation.
'It really seems like it was a matter of expedience for them to get rid of the case rather than have to do anything about it,' said Banisch, who moved to South Carolina years ago. 'The fact of the matter is that Ted Kennedy screwed Bruce Wilson's campaign and the state of Connecticut.'
Kennedy could not be reached and a staffer at the commission said no one was available to discuss the decision. Kennedy has previously said repeatedly that his 2014 campaign did nothing wrong.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
11 minutes ago
- Yahoo
'Kimmel' Guest Host Anthony Anderson Nails Trump's 'Dumbest' Idea Yet
'Jimmy Kimmel Live' guest host Anthony Anderson on Monday night said President Donald Trump's Independence Day celebration featured a peek at what's coming to the White House next year. 'Trump also announced that he's going to ring in America's 250th anniversary next year in the biggest and the dumbest way possible,' Anderson said, and rolled a clip of the president saying he would host a UFC fight on the White House grounds for an audience of up to 25,000. 'Yes, UFC,' said Anderson. 'Which stands for: U Fucking Crazy?' But the actor/TV host admitted the president might be onto something with this idea. 'There should be a UFC fight at the White House between Donald Trump and Elon Musk,' he said. 'It'll be Golf Clubber Lang versus the ketamine machine, bitch-slapping each other in the octagon. Who's with me? Now that would make America great again.' Kimmel is off for the summer and has a rotation of guest hosts filling in, as he's done before. Check out more of Anderson's monologue below:


News24
13 minutes ago
- News24
More than 100 dead in Texas flooding amid ‘threat of heavy rain' to come
More than 100 people died in flash flooding in Texas. Forecasters have warned of more flooding. US President Donald Trump plans to visit Texas on Friday. The death toll from catastrophic flooding in Texas rose to more than 100 on Monday, as rescuers continued their grim search for people swept away by torrents of water. Among the dead were at least 27 girls and counsellors who were staying at a youth summer camp on a river when disaster struck over the Fourth of July holiday weekend. Forecasters have warned of more flooding as rain falls on saturated ground, complicating recovery efforts involving helicopters, boats, dogs and some 1 750 personnel. 'There is still a threat of heavy rain with the potential to cause flooding,' Texas Governor Greg Abbott said in a statement on Monday, with the number of victims expected to rise still. READ | 'Horrible thing that took place': 78 killed, including 28 children, as major flooding hits Texas US President Donald Trump confirmed he planned to visit Texas on Friday, as the White House slammed critics claiming his cuts to weather agencies had weakened warning systems. 'Blaming President Trump for these floods is a depraved lie, and it serves no purpose during this time of national mourning,' Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters on Monday. She said the National Weather Service, which The New York Times reported had several key roles in Texas unfilled before the floods, issued 'timely and precise forecasts and warnings'. Trump has described the floods that struck in the early hours of Friday as a '100-year catastrophe' that 'nobody expected. 'The president, who previously said disaster relief should be handled at the state level, has signed a major disaster declaration, activating fresh federal funds and freeing up resources. At least 104 flood-related deaths were reported across central Texas. Kerr County, through which the Guadalupe River runs, was the hardest hit, with at least 84 people killed including 28 children, according to the local sheriff's office. The toll includes 27 who had been staying at Camp Mystic, an all-girls Christian camp that was housing about 750 people when the floodwaters struck. Camps are a beloved tradition in the long US summer holidays, with children often staying in woods, parks and other rural areas. Texas Senator Ted Cruz described them as a chance to make 'lifetime friends - and then suddenly it turns to tragedy'. But some residents were questioning the absence of more robust flood-warning systems in this region of south and central Texas - where such deluges are so frequent that it is known colloquially as 'Flash Flood Alley'. Experts stress the NWS sent out timely forecasts, and climate scientist Daniel Swain pinned the problem on a failure of 'warning dissemination'. San Antonio mother Nicole Wilson - who almost sent her daughters to Camp Mystic - launched a petition on urging Governor Greg Abbott to approve a modern warning network. Five minutes of that siren going off could have saved every single one of those children. Nicole Wilson At a candlelight vigil in San Antonio on Monday night, Texans gathered to pray for the victims of the floods and voice lingering fears. 'I was pretty shocked on the gravity of the situation and how big it was, and I wouldn't necessarily expect that our rivers would rise so quickly,' said Rebeca Gutierrez, 29. 'Hopefully there's preventative efforts happening in similar areas to make sure nothing to this degree happens.' In a terrifying display of nature's power, the rain-swollen waters of the Guadalupe River reached treetops and the roofs of cabins as girls at the camp teddy bears and other belongings were caked in mud. Windows in the cabins were shattered, apparently by the force of the water. Volunteers were helping search through debris from the river, with some motivated by personal connections to the victims. 'We're helping the parents of two of the missing children,' Louis Deppe, 62, told AFP. 'The last message they got was 'We're being washed away,' and the phone went dead.' Months' worth of rain fell in a matter of hours on Thursday night into Friday, and rain has continued in bouts since then. The Guadalupe surged around 8m - more than a two-story building - in just 45 minutes. Flash floods occur when the ground is unable to absorb torrential rainfall. Human-driven climate change has made extreme weather events such as floods, droughts and heat waves more frequent and more intense in recent years.


Fox News
24 minutes ago
- Fox News
Why Trump's undeniable winning streak is drawing a barrage of negative coverage
Donald Trump has just had the best few weeks of his presidency. No question. No argument. Period, end of paragraph. It began with a bold gamble to send pilots to destroy Iran's nuclear sites. Then Trump managed to broker a cease-fire between Israel and Iran. Meanwhile, as Trump delayed his sky-high tariffs, the stock market hit record highs. And he won a $16-million settlement from CBS's parent company in his lawsuit against unfair editing by "60 Minutes." That means he has now beaten two of the three broadcast networks, having won the same sum from ABC in a suit involving a crucial mistake by George Stephanopoulos. And after days of pressure and arm-twisting, he managed to pass the Big Beautiful Bill. Make no mistake, the bill was always going to pass. What were Republicans going to say, never mind, we just tanked the president's main legislative priority because we didn't like this or that? They didn't need Democratic votes, under so-called reconciliation. And Trump controls the GOP. So its members fell into line. Now the question is why, through this successful stretch, has Trump continued to draw such negative coverage? For starters, many in the media just can't stand the guy. And this has largely been true since 2015. So anything that helps him must be wrong and must be denigrated. Even the successful strike on Iran drew only scattered instances of grudging praise, when under any other president there would have been standing ovations. The press immediately reframed this as a debate over whether the bunker-busting bombs had only set back Iran's nuclear program by a few months. In fairness, that's what the preliminary, classified Intel report leaked to the press said. And there's nothing wrong with reporting that accurately, even though the assessment was made with low confidence. But Trump wants reporters for CNN and the New York Times, which broke the story, fired over this, and with an FBI leak probe under way, says he may force journalists to reveal their confidential sources. Once the White House could no longer blame anonymous sources, there is nothing wrong with quoting a government report – even if if turns out to be wrong. The cease-fire between Israel and Iran was fine, but that quickly morphed into chatter about why Trump couldn't pull off an end to the fighting between Israel and Hamas, a far more difficult task. Not to mention his freezing of weapons shipments to Ukraine, when despite his "very disappointing" call with Vladimir Putin, who promptly unleashed the biggest drone and missile attack against Kyiv since the illegal invasion of its sovereign neighbor. Perhaps the president is learning what has been obvious to the rest of us: Putin has no conceivable interest in peace. Everyone had to report the stock market surge, though not with the enthusiasm of the earlier plunge, and Trump yesterday announced that he'd hit Japan and South Korea, two allies, with a 25 percent hike in tariffs. But they don't take effect till Aug. 1, so this could just be another negotiating tactic. There was almost no television coverage of Trump's $16 million settlement with Paramount, which is nothing more than the news business protecting its own. If this had been any other kind of company – with the backstory that someone like Shari Redstone needed administration approval to sell the company and pocket $2 billion – the press would have gone haywire. Now there's a new twist. Fox's Charlie Gasparino, writing for the New York Post, reported the Paramount settlement includes a side deal between Trump and for the buyer David Ellison, son of tech mogul Larry Ellison, for him to run $15 to $20 million in advertising supporting causes backed by the president. And Trump confirmed it. "We did a deal for about $16 million plus $16 million, or maybe more than that in advertising," he told reporters. Paramount denied any knowledge of the side deal. The president has also been drawn into a war of words with Elon Musk, calling him a "train wreck" who's gone "off the rails" in forming a third party and raising the Epstein files again. Musk says the lack of an Epstein client list is the "final straw" – he had once apologized for raising it – and there's no difference between the Republican and Democratic parties. But there was one moment, in my view, that was a misstep by Trump. The president had no need to negotiate with Democrats, who strongly opposed a tax cut tilted toward the wealthy while making deep cuts to Medicaid. "Every Democrat in Congress voted against the 'Big, Beautiful Bill…They wouldn't vote only because they hate Trump, but I hate them, too, you know? I really do. I hate them. I cannot stand them, because I really believe they hate our country." I don't believe the overwhelming majority of Democrats hate their country. And that was hardly a unifying message on July 4 weekend. Maybe many in the media hate him and he was just counterpunching. But he didn't need to go there. On the other hand, Donald Trump has been getting terrible coverage since 2015, and he's clearly grown tired of it.