Wooden's complaint alleges that Coleman did not properly itemize his income on his filings.
Apparently Wooden's concerns only apply to his opponent , and not himself.
According to staff at the Connecticut Elections Enforcement Office, as outlined in CT General Statutes 9-608, all expenses and secondary expenses must be itemized on the filings. This would include payments to "field workers" and items such as office supplies, printer ink, and clipboards.
Connecticut General Statutes 9-608- (B) an itemized accounting of each expenditure, if any, including the full name and complete address of each payee, including secondary payees whenever the primary or principal payee is known to include charges which the primary payee has already paid or will pay directly to another person, vendor or entity, the amount and the purpose of the expenditure, the candidate supported or opposed by the expenditure, whether the expenditure is made independently of the candidate supported or is an in-kind contribution to the candidate, and a statement of the balance on hand or deficit, as the case may be; (C) an itemized accounting of each expense incurred but not paid, provided if the expense is incurred by use of a credit card, the accounting shall include secondary payees, and the amount owed to each such payee;
Although SEEC staff would not address specific campaigns or their actions, they did answer questions as to how things were supposed to be filed, and it would appear Wooden's campaign is not in compliance.
Wooden was quoted in todays article, and in his complaint apparently, as saying that "This (Coleman's reporting) violates the transparency and integrity of the CEP system and gives him an unfair political advantage," Wooden wrote in the complaint. "It also violates the public trust. The public has a right to know how he is spending his publicly-financed campaign money and where the $83,550 grant he received from the public to run his campaign went.". Councilman, transparency is a two way street, whatever applies to Coleman applies to you as well
In the attached Wooden filing, you can see numerous payments to "the Vinci Group" many with notations for field staff. .Apparently the Legislature's intent with the reporting requirements for the Citizen's Election Program was to strive for transparency in the reporting and use of taxpayers funds. Anyone should be able to look at the forms or go on-line and see who is being paid to work on a campaign, not just see a blanket payment to the Vinci Group.
Are there any lobbyists, City Vendors, politicians or others making money off Wooden's or anyone elses campaigns? That's called transparency and if Wooden wants Coleman to be transparent he needs to hold himself to the same standard
SEEC also said that in addition to the specific statue, they spelled out the need to itemize in two other places in the manuals given to campaign treasurers, on pages 91 and 104 of the detailed handbook because they felt the transparency issue was important.
I guess the facts don't matter as much as the headlines obtained from frivolous complaints being filed.
And yes, I do support Coleman for re-election, just to be transparent about that
Wooden's campaign Treasurer is his former Executive Assistant at City Hall, Jim Sargent
