Reckoning with Corruption: A Legal Examination of Bridgeport’s Political Turmoil

Joseph Ganim, a former mayor of Bridgeport, Connecticut, was in 2003 found guilty of 16 counts of racketeering, racketeering conspiracy, extortion, mail fraud, bribery, conspiracy, and filing false income tax returns. [1] Upon his release from prison, Joseph Ganim ran for mayor again in 2015 and won. He is still currently the mayor of Bridgeport, but is facing another scandal. John Gomes, Ganim’s opposing candidate, posted a video on his social media accusing Ganim of absentee voter fraud, which shows an alleged government employee stuffing an absentee ballot drop-in box with “fake” ballots. [2] The City of Bridgeport Police Department is now investigating this case and Gomes has since filed a lawsuit, asking the court to overturn the Bridgeport Democratic Primary Election. [2]

Bridgeport, Connecticut, holds the distinction of being the most populous city in the state. [3] It has a unique demographic composition marked by diversity, with a population comprising 34.7% Black residents and 34.0% White residents. [3] However, Bridgeport faces significant socio-economic challenges, as evidenced by a high poverty rate of 23.2%. [3] This statistic is particularly concerning in the context of the city's median household income, which according to the US Census stands at $50,957. [3] It is abundantly clear that Bridgeport needs help. City officials should be instituting programs and policies that uplift its citizens, rather than push them further down. Ganim oversaw the city for twenty years and yet Bridgeport still ranks in the top ten most impoverished cities in Connecticut. [4] As Connecticut’s most populous city, it is important that the city sets the standard for not only the rule of law but also with proper government procedures. It is important to note that with Ganim as its figurehead, he was the one setting these standards. One must take a critical eye to the law that allowed him not only back in office, but the law that tried to hold him accountable as well.

To get a further examination of Ganim’s mayoral practices and how the government holds its officials accountable, one must look at the three lawsuits involving Ganim. The most notable lawsuit was filed in 2002, after Ganim was indicted for violating the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. [5] This began when onOctober 31st, 2001, a federal grand jury returned a 24-count indictment against Ganim, who was already mayor at the time. [5] In March 2002, Ganim filed a motion to dismiss which was rejected. Ganim was investigated by not only the FBI, but also the IRS, DCIS (Defense Criminal Investigative Services), and the DCAA (Defense Contract Audit Agency). Judge Arterton, Connecticut District Judge, ruled that “in the absence of any particularized claim of deficiency in the Government’s evidence, Ganim’s motion is denied as to these counts. In addition, Ganim proffers no new arguments to support his objections to the Court’s jury charge beyond those presented and rejected at the charging conferences during trial”. [5] After this ruling was enacted, Ganim was found guilty of his crimes. He was convicted of corruptly soliciting and receiving more than $500,000 in benefits, including meals, entertainment, cash, merchandise, home improvements, and professional services from various people. [1] Ganim was sentenced to nine years of prison, with three years supervised release.

After his release, Ganim tried to get his law license reinstated. He filed a lawsuit against the Connecticut Statewide Grievance Committee in 2014. The case, Statewide Grievance Committee v. Joseph P. Ganim (2014), directly addressed deference and whether Ganim should be entrusted with the privilege of practicing law. The reason Ganim was suspended from the practice of law was a result of U.S v. Ganim (2002), after he was convicted of sixteen federal offenses which emanated from holding public office. Ganim applied for reinstatement and was rejected by the trial court on the grounds that he was not fit to practice law again. When asked about said beliefs, Ganim testified “I don't know if I said it clearly before, but in my case, I mean I had a fair trial, I had good lawyers, I had a fair judge, and I live and stand by the result. I accept the verdict, I was found guilty. I accept that I acknowledge that. I appealed, but I lost. I took on in whatever way I thought I could and should, took responsibility and went and did my time and came out and understand there's still continuing consequences”. [6] Ultimately, the trial court concluded by stating that the standing committee abused its discretion in finding that Ganim held the necessary traits of good moral character and fitness to practice law. The Court argued, “the evidence contained in the record was clearly inadequate to rebut the reasonable inferences to be drawn from the extraordinarily serious misconduct spanning five years, occurring while the defendant was in a position of public trust”. [6] Ganim did not receive his law license and the next year he ran for mayor of Bridgeport again and won.

Ganim’s latest lawsuit was filed in 2017 against Michael J. Brandi, Executive Director and General Counsel of the State Elections Enforcement Commission, and George Jepsen, former Connecticut Attorney General. Ganim alleged that Connecticut’s Public Financing Program, adopted in 2013, was violating his First Amendment rights, due process rights, equal protection rights, and rights to equal political opportunity. The amendment Ganim took issue with was adopted in 2013 and stated that a candidate cannot receive public funding for a campaign for state office if he or she has ever been convicted of a felony related to his or her public office [7]. Judge Shea of the United States District Court of Connecticut stated that the goal of this program is to include preventing corruption and the appearance of corruption [8]. Judge Shea wrote, “it is undisputed that Mr. Ganim does not have the financial resources to self-fund a campaign in the amount that a major party candidate could receive for the November 2018 general election under the CEP [Connecticut’s Citizen Election Program]”. [7] The conclusion of this case was that the Amendment is not constitutionally suspect in distinguishing between people who have been convicted of public corruption felonies and those who have not, therefore, the Amendment survives the rational basis review. [7] Ganim was denied in his suit and did not receive public funding. In the wake of Ganim's unsuccessful lawsuit challenging Connecticut's Public Financing Program, which focused on issues related to political funding, it is important to examine the state’s voting laws, particularly regarding absentee ballots.

Voting laws in Connecticut are relatively lenient, except when it comes to absentee ballots. Connecticut recently passed the Lewis Voting Rights Act. For instance, photo identification is not required to vote in Connecticut and same-day voting is allowed. It’s important to note that only certain people are eligible for an absentee ballot. Despite the implementation of these stringent policies, it raises the question of how errors persist, suggesting that there may be undisclosed factors at play behind the scenes. It is imperative that we keep in mind what the Supreme Court has said about moral character in opposing Ganim’s reinstatement from the bar. The Court found that “good moral character is comprised of...honesty, fairness, candor, and trustworthiness...We have long held these qualities to be vital...No moral character qualification for bar membership is more important than truthfulness and candor...It is not enough for an attorney that he be honest. He must be that, and more. He must be believed to be honest”. [6]

Mass media has yet to broadcast this controversial story. Long-term impacts of an event like this can taint absentee ballot voting across the country. It is crucial that we hold our government officials accountable, and we must find other ways to combat corruption. In the case of Ganim, it is not an issue of political party but rather an issue of the systems that allowed for him to get to where he is today.