Gene singing same song as 09

Here is complaint and decision from 2009 that Gene Ruocco filed with the State Elections Enforcement Commission about "push poll" from the Finkle campaign.
STATE OF CONNECTICUTSTATE ELECTIONS ENFORCEMENT COMMISSIONComplaint of Gennaro Ruocco,East HavenFile No. 2009-095FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONSComplainant filed the instant complaint with the Commission on September 30,2009 pursuant to General Statutes §9-7b, alleging that the East Haven RepublicanPary and the Committee to Elect John Finke Mayor 2009, violated General Statutes§ 9-621 (b )(3) in connection with an alleged "push polL."After an investigation of the matter, the Commission makes the followingfindings and conclusions:1. The Committee to Elect John Finkle Mayor 2009 was the duly designatedfunding vehicle for John Finkle's campaign for the office of East HavenMayor in the November 2009 Municipal Election.2. The Committee to Elect John Finkle Mayor 2009 incured an expenditurefor a polL. The poll that the Committee incurred the expenditure for wasthe subject of the instant complaint.3. Complainant alleged that the poll, which was conducted via telephonecalls, was commissioned by the Committee to Elect John Finkle Mayor2009 was a "push poll" and that the purose ofthe poll was to hinder theelection of the incumbent Democrat Mayor, April Almon and that thetelephone call did not contain the candidate's name and voice in thenarrative and before the end of such call and based on these facts, the pollviolated Gen. Stat. § 9-621(b)(3).4. General Statutes § 9-621 (b) (Revised 2009) provides in pertinent par:(3) No candidate or candidate committee or exploratory committeeestablished by a candidate shall make or incur any expenditure forautomated telephone calls which promote the success of such candidate 'scampaign for nomination at a primary or election or the defeat of anothercandidate's campaign for nomination at a primar or election, unless thecandidate's name and voice are contained in the narrative of the call,before the end of such call.5. The Complainant provided the names of 3 individuals that purportedlyreceived the telephone call for the poll, Gregory Austin, Brendan Geelanand Jim Krebs.6. Geelan indicated that his wife was the one that actually received thetelephone call for the poll. Austin and Krebs indicated that they actuallyreceived the telephone call for the polL. In all 3 instances, the individualsindicated that the telephone call for the poll was conducted live by a humanbeing and was not automated.7. General Statutes § 9-621(b)(3) only requires that the candidate's name andvoice are contained in the narrative of the call, before the end of such call,when the call is automated.8. Accordingly, the Committee to Elect John Finkle Mayor 2009 did notviolate Gen. Stat. § 9-621 (b )(3) because the call was not automated.9. Furthermore, in light of the fact that Gen. Stat. § 9-621 (b )(3) is notapplicable to this fact pattern, the Commission did not need to make adetermination as to whether the poll in question conducted via a telephonecall promoted the success of such candidate's campaign for election or thedefeat of another candidate's campaign for election.10. The complaint is dismissed for the above mentioned reasons.ORDERThe following Order is recommended on the basis of the aforementionedfindings:That the matter be dismissed.Adopted this i 8th day of August 2010 at Harford, ConnecticutÀ.;' . -f Stephen F ~an, ChairmanBy Order of the Commission~2