inside sources print logo
Get up to date New Hampshire news in your inbox

Craig Hits Ayotte on Opioids, But Benefited Financially From Drug Crisis

Joyce Craig injected opioids into the governor’s race but may end up in reputation rehab after her GOP opponent’s counterattack.

On Monday, Democrat Craig launched a new attack ad targeting Republican Kelly Ayotte over the opioid issue. It’s the first time Craig has raised it in the general election, though she hit her primary opponent, Executive Councilor Cinde Warmington, hard over her ties to Purdue Pharma.

But as Warmington pointed out at the time, Craig has her own connections to New Hampshire’s drug crisis that benefitted her financially.

Craig’s anti-Ayotte ad accuses the former New Hampshire attorney general of letting “the companies responsible for this crisis… off the hook” by “refusing to prosecute a leading opioid maker behind the crisis.” It also claims Ayotte “cashed in” by “joining the board of a major opioid distributor.”

The Ayotte campaign notes that as attorney general, Ayotte did prosecute one of America’s largest drug companies, and the state eventually participated in a multi-billion-dollar settlement from Purdue Pharma. And as a U.S. senator, Ayotte helped deliver $1 billion in funding to tackle the opioid crisis. 

As for that “major opioid distributor,” the company referenced in the Craig attack ad is Blink Health, an app that helps consumers find low-cost generic prescription medications of all kinds, similar to GoodRx.

Rather than argue, however, the Ayotte campaign picked up where Warmington left off during the Democratic primary. It hit Craig on the money her family has collected from her husband’s high-dollar defense of some of New Hampshire’s worst drug criminals.

The Ayotte ad also slams Craig’s term as mayor of Manchester as the number of opioid-related overdose deaths hit record highs.

“Joyce Craig let the Manchester drug crisis explode and made a fortune off her family’s work, defending criminals, traffickers, drug dealers, gangs. Craig cashed in off all of them,” the ad claims.

At issue is the work her husband Michael’s law firm, Craig & Gatzoulis, has done representing drug dealers and related criminals in New Hampshire courts.

“If you are charged with large-scale trafficking or simple possession of a controlled substance, the attorneys at Craig & Gatzoulis will draw on their experience as prosecutors to help you fight the charges,” according to the firm’s website.

Michael Craig and his partner Arthur Gatzoulis have represented a rogues gallery of defendants, like Coleman Marcus, who was convicted of selling fentanyl and heroin in 2018; Aweis Khamis, who was convicted of gun charges in 2019 for shooting up a Manchester diner; and accused Manchester rapist Harold Frost, who was busted in 2008.

Warmington pointed out during the primary that “as mayor, Craig signed a form every single year, notarized and under oath, that she had a personal financial interest in the law firm that her husband is participating in.

“I don’t know what that financial interest is,” Warmington said in the WMUR debate last month, “but she had a personal financial interest profiting off the trafficking of drugs in her city.”

Warmington also said Craig was on the attack because she couldn’t defend her record as Manchester mayor, “with overdose deaths up 52 percent per capita.”

Craig would not respond to requests for comment about her new ad or the opioid issue.

Dropping a new ad with a new attack on a topic that hasn’t been part of the campaign is an unusual move, political professionals say, particularly when the issue isn’t a natural fit with the race’s previous narrative. Ayotte’s time as a prosecutor is widely viewed as an asset, and a “weak on crime” attack now, without a major new development in the race, is viewed by some as a sign the Craig campaign is struggling.

 

Ethics Committee Orders Rep. Murray to Recuse in Wake of NHJournal Reporting

The House Ethics Committee ruled Tuesday that state Rep. Alissandra Murray must recuse on votes related to abortion issues and the nonprofit paying the Manchester Democrat’s salary, an indirect rebuke to her questionable actions as a House member.

Murray is a co-founder and employee of the Reproductive Freedom Fund of New Hampshire (RFFNH). NHJournal reported in October that RFFNH lobbyist Josie Pinto was paying Murray’s salary so the progressive could serve in the House and influence legislation. And while Murray had voted on many pieces of legislation related to abortion issues of interest to RFFNH, she had never filed a conflict of interest disclosure.

The bipartisan Ethics Committee ruled the lawmaker’s votes on some abortion bills ran afoul of House conflict of interest rules and ordered Murray to recuse in the future. That was not the ruling Murray, who sought the advisory opinion, wanted to hear.

Rep. Alissandra Murray and attorney William Christie at House Ethics Committee hearing on December 5, 2023.

Murray’s attorney, well-connected Democratic lawyer William Christie, acknowledged the only reason his client sought the opinion was because of NHJournal’s reporting. 

“Because of the article and controversy, Rep. Murray felt this is the best course,” Christie said. Christie is married to Democratic Executive Councilor and candidate for governor Cinde Warmington. 

The committee voted five to one to tell Murray to recuse on all bills on which RFFNH lobbies. The one no vote came from Sen. Cindy Rosenwald (D-Nashua).

House members are required under ethics rules to either recuse themselves from voting on bills that could be seen as a conflict of interest, or to file a declaration of intent to vote in order to publicly disclose the potential conflict of interest. Despite several abortion bills before the legislature in the last session, Murray never filed a declaration of intent to vote. 

Christie told the committee Murray did not think filing a declaration was necessary despite the full-time job with an organization that lobbies on particular abortion-related bills.

“Since this issue came to light, (Murray) reviewed with counsel and others and does not think a declaration of intent to vote is necessary,” Christie said. 

Christie claimed during the hearing that Murray’s job with RFFNH has nothing to do with Murray’s elected position. But Pinto told The Nation magazine that Murray’s salary was part of a plan to get a pro-abortion advocate to be in the House.

“Together, we sort of developed this theory of change, which was like, ‘If we want to see the state we want, we have to get our people to run,’” Pinto told the magazine.

The article spelled out RFFNH’s plan to have a paid activist in the House.

“But there was a major obstacle in their way: New Hampshire’s Legislature pays a salary of just $100 a year. That’s fine for wealthy retirees but not for working-class activists. So Pinto hired Murray at the Reproductive Freedom Fund of New Hampshire, giving [Murray] a salary that would allow [Murray] to work in the Legislature while running the abortion fund’s social media accounts.”

Christie argued that since the RFFNH would not financially benefit from any of the abortion-related proposals considered, and since the organization is not primarily a lobbying group, Murray’s votes do not cross any ethical lines.

Committee Chair Edward Gordon did not appear to buy that argument in light of the fact the RFFNH did lobby for five abortion-related bills that Murray then voted on. 

“I’m looking at it intuitively, and looking at it intuitively, I would say, ‘Geez, don’t I have a conflict here?’ Didn’t Rep. Murray say, ‘This is close; this is something I would have a concern with here if someone else did it’?”

Murray claimed to believe filing an annual financial disclosure form listing the RFFNH employment and salary — a form every House member with a job fills out — was notice enough.

“When I filled out the disclosure form, I thought that was me disclosing,” Murray said. “I didn’t see any clear conflict when I was voting on these bills.”

Pinto did not speak during the hearing but acknowledged to the committee through her attorney that, as RFFNH executive director, she did lobby on five bills, spending about $800 in total on those efforts.

The fact Murray’s employer, RFFNH, lobbied on any bill and spent any money was enough to create a conflict of interest, according to David Hess, a former state representative and committee member.

“The guidelines are pretty clear,” Hess said. “[Murray] is getting income from an organization that is lobbying.”

Christie said RFFPNH would not have been financially impacted by any of the bills for which Pinto lobbied since the organization maintains such a narrow mission. He also said Pinto spent a relatively low amount on only five bills.

But Hess said the fact that the group’s executive director lobbied on the bills showed Pinto considered the legislation important to the RFFNH mission. He also cited a recent committee opinion imposing recusal on a Republican.

Last summer, the committee told Rep. Deborah Hobson (R-East Kingston) that she would have to recuse herself on bills if she took a job with a conservative advocacy group. Hobson sought the advisory opinion while considering a job with Americans for Prosperity. The committee’s answer was Hobson should recuse herself from any bill that AFP lobbies for or against.

Hobson and Murray’s situation are nearly identical, Hess said, and the result should be as well.

“I see no distinction whatsoever between the two situations,” Hess said. “It’s an employee getting income from a firm engaged in lobbying. The money and time amount are irrelevant.”

A complete advisory opinion draft will be voted on at the committee’s next meeting.

Offer of Free Air Fare Sparks Investigation Into Dem Tactics in Parents Rights Fight

New Hampshire House Speaker Sherm Packard (R-Londonderry) has ordered an investigation into tactics being used by House Democrats to pressure members over Thursday’s vote on parental rights legislation. Some of those tactics, including offering to pay for a member’s plane ticket for a flight from Florida, appear to violate House rules and, possibly, state law.

“We are looking into the matter, and we are concerned about the appearance of impropriety. Should there be evidence of a statutory or ethical violation, it will be referred to the appropriate enforcement authority,” Packard’s office said in a statement. 

At the center of the controversy is SB272, also known as the Parents Bill of Rights, which would force some public schools to end their current policy of refusing to answer parents’ questions about their children’s behavior regarding sex and gender.

“It says that schools and school employees cannot lie to parents,” said state Sen. Tim Lang (R-Sanbornton) when the bill passed the upper chamber in a 14-10 vote.

Now the bill is coming to the House, setting off a round of fear and loathing in Concord with Democrats offering carrots (in the form of a free plane ticket) and sticks: threatening a primary challenge if a House member supports the parents’ rights bill or fails to show up for the vote.

When Rep. Robin Vogt (D-Portsmouth) took to Twitter to say he was on a long-planned family vacation and won’t be in Concord to vote against SB272, Granite State progressives responded angrily.

“There is no one who supports a work/life balance more than me — but real allies show up,” tweeted Monica Venzke, until recently a spokesperson for the state Democratic Party. “Session ends in June. When you were elected, you knew that. These are the responsibilities you take on as a legislator; clearly, you cannot handle them.”

And progressive activist Linds Jakows told Vogt he had no excuse to miss Thursday’s session, as money is available to fly him back to New Hampshire in time to vote.

“No. It is a luxury to actively choose to be in Florida for nearly a week now when there are funds to fly you to New Hampshire and back,” Jakows wrote to Vogt in a now-deleted tweet.

Jakows is head of 603Equality, an LGBTQ nonprofit which is not registered as a lobbyist with the New Hampshire Secretary of State’s Office, and it appears she’s offering something of value to a lawmaker to encourage him to vote. Not surprisingly, 603Equality’s behavior sparked concerns.

“I am outraged that an unregistered Democrat lobbying organization would offer to fund travel expenses for a legislator in order to influence the outcome of a vote,” said House Majority Leader Jason Osborne (R-Auburn). “The ease at which this was offered leads us to believe that offers like Jakows’ seem to be the norm on the other side of the aisle.

“This is an example of Washington-style politics at its worst and does not represent Granite State values,” Osborne added.

It could also be a crime. Legal sources pointed NHJournal to New Hampshire’s criminal codes 640:2 “Bribery in Official and Political Matters;” and 640:5 “Gifts to Public Servants.”

Jakows declined to respond to questions from NHJournal regarding the source of these “funds” to pay for legislators’ travel or whether other lawmakers are getting funding as well. In a follow-up tweet, Jakows claimed a group of concerned community members was crowdfunding the money, though Jakows would not say who those people were.

“How many members of the New Hampshire House Democrats will be there tomorrow to vote against parental rights because a lobbying group paid for them to be there?” asked Rep. Ross Berry (R-Manchester). “Probably worth finding out.”

Thus far, the New Hampshire Attorney General’s Office is staying out of the drama, saying Wednesday it is currently a matter of the Speaker’s Office.

Meanwhile, House Democrats are also being threatened by a representative of one of the state’s largest teacher’s unions, who warned not showing up or voting the wrong way could result in a primary challenge.

“ANY @NHSenateDems and @NHHouseDems who do not make a point to show up to vote NO on #SB272 and stand UP for young #queer lives on the line do not deserve our support,” tweeted Ryan Richman, vice president of the state chapter of the American Federation of Teachers. “Especially if they primaried out @NHDems that showed up to protect Granite Staters from evil.”

Vogt pushed out long-time Democratic Rep. Jacqueline Cali-Pitts in last year’s Democratic primary and won favor with the AFT. The union endorsed him in the general election.

Vogt now faces the prospect of being pushed to take dark money plane tickets, which may or may not be legal, and could be made an example of by his union benefactors and see his political career cut short.

What is unique about Vogt’s drama is the public display of the pressure brought to bear on one representative, leaving voters to guess how many other representatives were being threatened and offered financial benefits behind closed doors. Or at least off Twitter.

Vogt, still vacationing, did not respond to a request for comment.

Pappas Signed ‘No Fossil Fuel Money’ Pledge, Took Money from Nord Stream Lobbyist

Just a week after Granite Staters learned U.S. Sen. Maggie Hassan received a $2,900 donation from the lead lobbyist for Russia’s Nord Stream 2 pipeline comes word U.S. Rep. Chris Pappas also received a check from the same man.

The difference? Pappas signed a pledge not to take it.

“A major Democratic donor and Nord Stream 2 lobbyist has made maximum campaign contributions this year to Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer and vulnerable Senate Democrats, campaign finance records show,” according to Axios.

The donor is Vincent Roberti of Roberti Global. Politico reports his firm earned more than $9 million in lobbying revenues from Nord Stream 2 since 2017.

Among his donations: $2,900 — the maximum primary contribution — to Hassan this cycle; and $2,500 to Pappas for his 2020 re-election campaign.

The latter is problematic because Pappas has signed the No Fossil Fuel Money pledge organized by Oil Change U.S., a political 501(c)4 organization associated with the 350 environmental group, as well as the Sunrise Movement, Evergreen Action, Sierra Club, Earthjustice, Working Families Party, Greenpeace USA, Indivisible, and People’s Action. 

Part of the pledge involves not taking more than $200 in donations from any individual associated with the oil and gas industry, including lobbyists.

“The No Fossil Fuel Money pledge includes rejecting contributions from the federal and state-registered lobbyists of fossil fuel companies. This includes ‘in-house’ registered lobbyists who work directly for oil, gas, and coal companies, and outside registered lobbyists registered to lobby for one or more fossil fuel industry clients while employed by external lobbying firms,” the No Fossil Fuel Money FAQ page states

Representatives for Oil Change U.S. did not respond to a request for comment. However, according to the pledge website, the group should at least be investigating Pappas’ Roberti donation. If Pappas does not return the money he can be removed from the list of politicians who took the pledge. 

“If a violation has occurred, the coalition will notify the politician and give them one week to return the contribution(s) in question, as noted above. If the politician returns the contribution, they will remain on the pledge. If not, they will be removed from the list of pledge signers” the website states.

Pappas is still listed as a signer on the pledge website. His office did not respond to a request for comment. It also declined to say whether Pappas would return the contribution.

Pappas’ fellow liberals, like Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.), and Sen. Bernie Sanders (D-Vt.) have used the no-fossil-fuel-money pledge as a campaign talking point and fundraiser. According to the pledge website, politicians are encouraged to raise money off the fact they signed the pledge.

“Many politicians have used the pledge-signing moment as an opportunity to highlight their commitment, by publicly sharing a photo of signing the pledge, releasing a short campaign video explaining their reasoning, or even sending out a fundraising appeal based on the pledge,” the website states.

“Congressman Pappas needs to immediately return this contribution and explain to New Hampshire voters his support for Biden administration policies that have made Americans and the world less safe,” said Gail Huff Brown, one of the Republicans running for a chance to challenge the incumbent Democrat this November. “It’s time for Chris Pappas to go,” Brown said.

It also raises new questions about Pappas’ claims to be a climate advocate. After years of calling climate change is “an existential threat” and voting to raise taxes on oil and gas companies, Pappas now says he supports increased fossil fuel production and an “all of the above” — oil, gas,  and nuclear — energy policy.

Political observers say Pappas’ reversal is a result of the rising cost of gasoline and home heating oil, which are adding to the inflation problem that has emerged as the top issue for American voters.

Republican critics like Karoline Leavitt, who’s also running in the GOP primary, say it’s a sign Pappas can’t be trusted.

“Chris Pappas has broken nearly every promise he has made to the people of New Hampshire – whether it’s being an independent bipartisan voice yet voting with AOC 90 percent of the time, promising our law enforcement officers that he would protect qualified immunity but voting to strip it, or pledging to our business owners to never vote for a $15 federal minimum wage but doing it anyway,” Leavitt said.