As I continue to investigate the “workings” of the Working Families Party, I am amazed at some blatant facts that have never been brought to the attention of the Connecticut voter. It is clear from the information that I have found, that the Democrats, as the majority party in Connecticut, undoubtedly, did not have the best interest of their constituents in mind. Let me share some facts with your readers. Then you all can decide for yourselves.
Recently, at the end of August 2009, portions of Connecticut’s Public Campaign Financing law were ruled as unconstitutional. In the courts explanation as to why, I found the following paragraph that caught my attention:
Case 3:06-cv-01030-SRU Document 383 Filed 08/27/2009 Page 1 of 138
The state hastens to add that, due to the cross-endorsement of major party candidates,
12 additional Working Families Party candidates would be eligible for partial or full CEP grants
in 2010. March 4, 2009 Proulx Supp. Decl. ¶ 33. The director of the Connecticut Working
Families Party, Jon Green, testified at the March 2009 bench trial, however, that getting
candidates elected on the Working Families Party ticket is not the principal goal of the party and
that the party will likely continue to cross-endorse in the future, rather than take advantage of
CEP eligibility. 03/12/09 Tr. at 303-04, 313, 340-41 (testimony of Jon Green).
Now that you have read that paragraph, the interesting point is that the Working Families Party makes no bones about the fact they are not interested in getting people elected on their party ticket, but only to cross endorse candidates that they see as supporting their issues (“to push for ever more government control of the economy” and to pursue “the ultra-Left’s familiar anti-capitalist redistributionism.”) When votes on the WFP’s ballot line help a candidate that they’ve endorsed to win, then they can hold that politician accountable to the WFP.
Now you’ll probably wonder how this can be legal. Well, the Working Families Party is a third party with a twist, fusion voting.
Fusion voting lets one party (like the WFP) “cross endorse” the same candidate as another party. The votes from each party are tallied separately, but then combined for that candidate’s total. Here is another interesting fact that I found:
The cause of electoral fusion suffered a major setback in 1997, when the U.S. Supreme Court decided by 6-3 in Timmons v. Twin Cities Area New Party that fusion is not a constitutionally protected civil right.
So, where is Fusion legal today? In the following states – Connecticut, Delaware, Idaho, Mississippi, New York, South Carolina and Vermont. Fusion tickets are most commonly used in New York and Connecticut!
Now remember, with fusion voting, voters have the option of voting for candidates on the line of any party that has endorsed them. Votes for each party are tallied separately, but added together to determine the winner. So why then is this still legal in Connecticut if the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that fusion is not a constitutionally protected civil right?
Fusion is legal in Connecticut because of Connecticut’s Public Finance Campaign Law. Let’s remember that New Britain’s elected Democratic state reps helped to pass this law. So that is why Tim O’Brien, who is running for mayor this year, has no problem with accepting the endorsement of the Working Families Party. Oh by the way, Congressman Chris Murphy also had accepted the endorsement of the Working Families Party in the last election. So here is the law that our Democratic friends helped to write, probably with the support of Attorney General Blumenthal.
On July 5, Connecticut SB 131l was signed into law. It expands the ability of two parties to jointly nominate the same candidate. Fusion has always been legal in Connecticut for qualified parties, but since 1981 it has not been legal for unqualified parties. In Connecticut, a party must have polled 1% in the last election for any particular office, for it to be a qualified party for that particular office. A typical minor party in Connecticut is ballot-qualified for a few offices and not for most offices.
Therefore, under the old law, a minor party could only cross-endorse the nominee of another party, if that minor party had polled 1% of the vote for that office in the last election. But under SB 1311, if a party is ballot-qualified for just one office anywhere in the state (assuming that office is up for election that year), then it may engage in fusion for any statewide office. It may also use fusion for a U.S. House race if it is qualified for any state legislative race inside that U.S. House district. And if it is qualified for a statewide office that is up that year, it can use fusion for any office in the state. Thus, the Green and Libertarian Parties will be able to use fusion for all offices in 2010, since they polled over 1% for a few statewide offices in 2006.
So now that you have the facts, make your own judgments about the Working Families Party and the people that accept their endorsements!
Craig Diangelo
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
Craig,
You are incorrect that fusion and campaign finance reform were done at the same time in the same bill. 1311 is a Senate Bill from the Secretary of States office. Fusion was with that.
Campaign Finance Reform was contained in about 3 different bills from 2005-2007.
Much like when Tony Tercyak was cross endorsed by a third party in 1998 (The Connecticut Party) others are still being cross endorsed now. Were people screaming from the rooftops in 98 that democracy was crumbling when a Republican was cross endorsed?
The biggest thing that has changed electorally is progressives have learned how to organize... and the right wing has learned how to blog.
Let's see which one works best at election time.
The Connecticut Party is in no way the same as the Working Families Party...Working Families Party is socialist in many ways, the Connecticut Party is not.
Oh well that settles it then.
As was brought to my attention, Fusion was introduced in Senate Bill 1311 and through the Secretary of State’s office. And guess who was and is Secretary of State – Susan Bysiewicz Now, can you get anyone more partisan than Ms. Bysiewicz? Also, the law was passed in 2007 by a Democrat majority in the legislature. So I ask, where was the anger then? There was none because people did not know that it contained a voting gimmick called Fusion
Now again, let me remind all readers and voters as to what Fusion is and does - with fusion voting, voters have the option of voting for candidates on the line of any party that has endorsed them. Votes for each party are tallied separately, but added together to determine the winner. That means that an individual being crossed endorsed garners all votes to their final total. This was not the case in 1998 when Tony Tercyak was crossed endorsed. In my opinion, Fusion Voting is a sham to the voters.
Fusion voting needs to be brought out from under a rock and into the light of day for all to know. Also, a list of New Britain Reps who voted for it passage.
Finally, average voters have taken a page out of the Democrat handbook ….we have learned how to organize and to be vocal about our feelings. How strange that must be to our majority party in Connecticut….actually being question about how things are done. If you think that it is right wing, then so be it. The elections of 2010 will be the deciding factor my friend!
Much like Mass's democrats rewriting the rules for retiring/deceased senators to their advantage so go's fusion voting. When it becomes a disadvantage to the far left they will deride it as unethical and even against the law (gasp).
However Mr. Diangelo is correct. It is a sham and people are catching on.
In New Britain the WFP/DTC Led by none other than John McNamara and tutored by the carpet bagging socialist Phil Sherwood and company will use these loophole until it no longer benefits them. Then they will claim foul.
I urge all legitimate Democrats to take a closer look at the party leadership. Is it really reflective of your Ideals and beliefs?
My guess is that it is not or else how can you explain:
Phil Sherwood and his repetitive FOI rules that are obviously intended to trip up a popular Mayor who could not be elected without democrats votes?
John McNamara and his blatant attempts to purge the party of mainstream and conservative Democrats with "hall of Shame" type tactics?
How can you explain the throwing under the bus antics of the Democrat in the last mayoral race?
How can you explain the constant undermining of legitimate investors for political gain?
How can you explain the infamous 13-2 vote on ethics violations?
How can you explain the colonial convict at the MDC?
Post a Comment