From Venture Capital to Utility Stock: What Connecticut’s Candidates for Governor Disclosed 

Connecticut’s leading candidates for governor already hold public office, making their latest Statements of Financial Interests available for comparison. The reports, filed in 2026, cover financial interests held during 2025. They reveal three sharply different portfolios — and three very different amounts of paperwork. 

Gov. Ned Lamont’s filing runs 58 pages, much of it devoted to investments and business interests connected to his wife, venture capitalist Ann Lamont.  Rep. Josh Elliott’s (D-Hamden) filing runs 14 pages and includes stock in the parent company of a utility he has made a central target of his campaign. Sen. Ryan Fazio’s (R-Greenwich) is five pages. 

The filings are not complete balance sheets and do not disclose the value of the assets listed. Nothing reviewed for this article indicates wrongdoing. But the forms offer a useful look at how each candidate’s finances intersect with his public image and policy agenda. 

Ned Lamont’s Complicated Family Investment Network 

Lamont’s filing is by far the longest of the three, though much of its complexity reflects his wife’s investment activity. 

The disclosure identifies Ann Lamont as a managing partner, executive managing member or board member of numerous Oak HC/FT and Oak Investment Partners entities, most of which are described in the filing as venture-capital businesses. 

The filing also lists two family-owned companies. Lamont is identified as manager of 57th Street Condo LLC, which appears to be connected to the Manhattan condo he and Ann Lamont purchased for $4.6 million in 2012. Ann Lamont is also listed as a member of Huntress Lamont Holdings LLC. 

Lamont reported one real-property entry in Greenwich, owned directly by him and his wife. The filing also identifies the Edward M. Lamont Revocable Trust and the Ann Huntress Lamont Revocable Trust. 

The governor’s filing says he appointed Benoît Jamar as his attorney-in-fact in 2019, giving Jamar authority to manage certain assets on his behalf. The Office of State Ethics determined that the arrangement functioned like a blind trust, separating Lamont from individual investment decisions. 

The securities attachment includes a column indicating whether each investment falls under the arrangement, but none is marked as covered. Stringr Inc., owned by Lamont, and Town Hall Ventures, held jointly with his wife, are both listed as “N.” 

Ryan Fazio’s Filing Leaves Little to Analyze 

Fazio’s five-page filing is the simplest of the three. 

The Republican state senator reported one property in Riverside, no business associations and salary income from Services Capital. His securities disclosure lists only two directly held exchange-traded funds: ITOT, which tracks the broad U.S. stock market, and Vanguard’s Mid-Cap Value ETF, known by the ticker VOE. 

There are no individually listed corporate stocks, family companies or complicated trust arrangements. Just one property, one source of earned income and two diversified funds. 

Fazio’s filing offers little to untangle or explain. Its defining feature is its simplicity. 

Josh Elliott’s Conventional Portfolio Includes a Notable Utility Holding 

Elliott’s 14-page filing presents a conventional financial profile for the progressive candidate in the race. 

The Hamden Democrat reported two directly held properties in Hamden. He also disclosed joint ownership of Thyme and Season, a natural-food store, and reported receiving salary or wage income from the business. 

His 2025 filing lists an American Funds IRA and investments in American Express, IBM, LPL Financial, McDonald’s, Microsoft, Disney and Verizon. 

The rest is mostly mutual funds and other investment products managed by Bank of New York Mellon, BlackRock, Janus, Putnam, Vanguard and Guggenheim—not stock in the firms themselves. 

Several investment names appear more than once, although the filing does not say whether they represent separate holdings or duplicate entries. 

Then there is Avangrid. 

“Avangrid Inc Com” appears twice in Elliott’s 2025 disclosure, as it did in his 2024 filing. Elliott is identified as the owner or beneficiary, and both entries are marked as directly held. Put simply, the filing lists him as an Avangrid shareholder during the reporting period. 

Avangrid is the parent company of United Illuminating, one of the investor-owned utilities Elliott has made a central target of his campaign. He has proposed allowing towns to acquire portions of Eversource and UI’s electric systems, potentially through eminent domain, and pay book value rather than fair-market value. 

In a May 14 opinion column announcing his campaign, Elliott called for a public option for municipal power so residents would no longer be “subsidizing utility shareholders” or padding the accounts of executives earning eight-figure salaries. He also warned that utility companies would keep “posting record profits while charging Connecticut families with impunity.”  

In a separate opinion piece published a month later, Elliott accused investor-owned utilities of using their profits, wealth and political power to block public-power efforts and “gouge” customers. He called the price demanded for utility infrastructure a “monopoly’s ransom” and promised to give communities the power to replace the companies that currently serve them. 

Against that rhetoric, the Avangrid entries in his financial disclosure sit in tension with the case he has built his campaign around. The filing does not show when Elliott acquired the shares, whether he still held them when he made those comments or why Avangrid appears twice. 

Three Filings, Three Financial Identities 

Lamont’s disclosure reflects the complicated finances of a wealthy family deeply involved in venture capital, along with an ethics arrangement intended to separate the governor from investment decisions. 

Fazio’s is so sparse that there is almost nothing to interpret. 

Elliott’s looks like a conventional capitalist portfolio—property, a private business, retirement funds and corporate investments—until one reaches the name Avangrid. 

Financial disclosures cannot reveal what a candidate believes or predict how he would govern. They can show where personal finances and public policy unexpectedly cross paths, as this year’s filings do for each of the three candidates in different ways.