Elicker Gets Added Public Check

Mayoral challenger Justin Elicker will receive approximately $11,000 more in public financing, after a lawyer offered his take on when the New Haven Democracy Fund should start matching donations.

That payout was approved by a bare majority at a Wednesday night meeting of the Democracy Fund, the city’s public-financing agency, held at City Hall.

At issue was how the governing board should interpret a convoluted section of its enacting legislation about when the fund’s 2‑to‑1 match kicks in. Does it apply to all contributions from the time a candidate enters the race or only to the ones made after that candidate has qualified?

Elicker, who narrowly lost to Toni Harp in 2013 and is challenging her to a rematch for the 2019 Democratic nomination, had seen it both ways. Back then, checks from the initial 200 donors were matched, but they hadn’t been during this second go-round. After noticing the discrepancy, his campaign asked what had changed.

Candidates qualify by submitting the names of 200 contributors, who must be verified as New Haven voters. They cannot be lobbyists or political committees, and their contributions must stay between $10 and $390.

The donations candidates can accept later on must stay capped at $390 — a fraction of the $1,000 from individuals and $1,500 from political committees that non-participants can rake in. (Harp has chosen not to participate in the Democracy Fund public-financing program, saying she thinks it comes with too many rules for too little cash.)

After candidates qualify, they receive a lump sum of $20,000, plus a 2‑to‑1 match for any subsequent individual contributions of less than $30, up to a total maximum of $125,000.

But as the Elicker campaign asked: What happens to that batch of initial donors? Do they count for anything more than the initial grant?

Back in 2007, when they created the Democracy Fund, alders didn’t give a clear answer.

In the ordinance, they wrote, ​“Once the administrator determines that a participating candidate has met the contributions threshold, the candidate shall receive a match … per distinct individual contributor who is a registered voter of the City of New Haven … until the candidate raises enough funds to meet the voluntary expenditure ceiling.”

Call A Lawyer

That ​“once” at the beginning of the sentence bugged the fund’s current board members. They felt like it meant ​“after,” not a retroactive ​“when.” But past boards had read it the other way.

The practice changed after the fund hired Alyson Heimer as its administrator in 2014. She said that, in her training, no one had even mentioned that there could be multiple interpretations of the statutory language.

Figuring out what should happen during this year’s mayoral race took a legal opinion and a history lesson.

The board first went to Lawrence Eisner, a Bethany attorney who specializes in business contracts and licensing agreements. In a four-page opinion, he said that there wasn’t an easy answer to whether the match applies to the first 200 donors.

Citing a Connecticut Supreme Court ruling about when laws have a ​“plain meaning” (and what to do if they don’t), Eisner concluded the city’s ordinance that created the Democracy Fund wasn’t straightforward.

“It is my opinion that, when read in context, Section 2 – 827(2) is susceptible to more than one reasonable interpretation and is not plain and unambiguous,” Eisner wrote. ​“Therefore it is necessary to look to extra-textual evidence for interpretive guidance, such as its legislative history and the circumstances surrounding its enactment and to the legislative policy it was designed to implement.”

But after looking at the entire ordinance, Eisner said that the alders had spelled out their intent clearly.

At the top, in describing their purpose, the alders had written that the Democracy Fund is meant to counter a perception that donors influence public policy, to ensure that credible campaigns can get out their message, to free up candidates to speak to everyday citizens, and to make even small contributions meaningful. It said the fund is supposed to give all citizens ​“a fair and meaningful opportunity to participate in the election of their mayor.”

Eisner said the clearly stated goal indicated that the Democracy Fund should try to maximize participation. He said the governing board should interpret the law ​“in its broadest and most inclusive sense,” and that meant matching the first 200 contributions.

Hiemer agreed with his reading. She said that participating in a publicly finances campaign is ​“a hurdle” that comes with ​“limitations” and ​“paperwork burdens.” ​“There should be a reward from the public for making the decision to participate.” She said that had been backed up by former administrators and board chairs during a legislative workshop about the confusing statute in late May.

Sergio Rodriguez, the board’s chair, said that Eisner’s opinion had convinced him to change his mind. He said he didn’t want to go ​“against precedent and our independent legal counsel.”

The Slow Vote Home

The Democracy Fund’s two Republican members weren’t so sure. (One member of the board, Aaron Goode, was absent; along with vacancies, that left Republicans in the majority.)

William Wynn said the attorney sounded ​“somewhat biased.” Concerned about the implications of his vote, he asked how much money was left in the fund and whether the Elicker campaign could sue. After hearing that there is plenty of money and the potential for litigation, Wynn said he felt ​“forced” into voting a certain way.

After a half-hour discussion, Rodriguez voted right away to disburse $11,172 to Elicker’s campaign. Jim O’Connell, the other Republican, said he’d abstain. Wynn, the deciding vote, remained silent for a long while. After a dramatic pause while he mulled it over, he said yes.

Wynn added that he wants to work with Heimer to rewrite the language in the ordinance, giving alders two options to clarify which donations should qualify in future elections.

With the board’s approval, Heimer said the latest check is expected to clear next week. Once it hits, Elicker, who is competing in the Democratic primary on Sept. 10, will have racked up a total of $47,352 in matching funds.

Urn Pendragon, another candidate in the mayoral race, attended Wednesday’s meeting. She said she hadn’t decided yet whether to participate.

Pendragon said she likes the gist of public financing, but she said she objected to the fund’s requirement that only registered voters could see their contributions matched. Saying her ​“superpower” is the ability to ​“poke holes in policies all day long,” Pendragon argued that restriction introduced ​“a little bit of bias” to the process.

Heimer said that the registrar of voters keeps the most accurate list of who actually lives in New Haven. The voter rolls include tenants who don’t pay property taxes and pedestrians who don’t register with the DMV, while keeping out business-owners who might keep only a mailing address here.

Pendragon said that she’s waiting on endorsements from UNITE HERE, AFL-CIO, Emily’s List and the LGBTQ Victory Fund, before she will decide whether to apply for the Democracy Fund.