New McMahon ad questions Murphy's 2007 amendment

MONTVILLE, Conn. (AP) — Republican Senate candidate Linda McMahon began running a new ad on Wednesday that questions why Democratic U.S. Rep. Chris Murphy proposed an amendment five years ago which her campaign claims had little to do with Connecticut and would raise building costs.

The radio spot accuses Murphy of sponsoring the amendment to help his "lobbyist friends" at the Property Casualty Insurance Association by requiring states with certain insurance pools to adopt so-called "international standards" for building codes in order to get federal backstops. McMahon suggests Murphy was influenced by the nearly $20,000 in contributions he has received from the association.

But Murphy's campaign called the charges false and accused McMahon of distorting the congressman's efforts to help Connecticut taxpayers and businesses.

"This underlying law would have been a disaster for Connecticut taxpayers, but also for a lot of Connecticut insurance companies," he said, following a tour of the Thomas G. Faria Corp. in Montville, trying to highlight his efforts to close loopholes in a federal law that gives purchasing preferences to U.S. companies.

Murphy's amendment required properties insured by state-backed insurance programs in disaster-prone states to mandate a certain level of building standards in order to be eligible for federal backstops. Murphy's campaign contends that without such an amendment, the federal government and taxpayers would be on the hook for billions in losses following major storms. Also, since the state-based insurers would be able to offer less expensive policies based on the federal guarantee, private insurance companies would face a competitive disadvantage.

"It would have allowed for state insurance plans to undercut private insurers, many of which are located in Connecticut," Murphy said.

McMahon's campaign accused Murphy of "doing the bidding of Hartford insurance companies by providing federal funds — with strings attached — to force primarily southern and western states to adopt costly international building standards." The campaign also claims the higher building standard would increase costs.

The amendment, and later the amended Homeowner Defense Act, passed the House of Representatives in 2007, but ultimately the legislation did not become law.