The Arizona State Senator McComish lawsuit and the Goldwater Institute, the Arizona think-tank that's handling the legal challenge of Arizona's Clean Election Act ( heading to U.S. Supreme Court ) stated it violates the First Amendment rights of privately funded candidates by "having government" put its thumb on the scale for their opponents in an election.
We're ecstatic that we have a chance to put an end to the worst feature of taxpayer subsidies for politicians, said Clint Bolick, the Goldwater Institute's Litigation Director. Oral arguments before the U.S. Supreme Court are expected to commence in March with a ruling available by summer 2011.
Hartford Ct based Yankee Institute for Public Policy has joined McComish v. Bennett lawsuit on an amicus basis challenging the constitutionality of giving taxpayer money to political candidates.
...NEW BRITAIN GOP CHAIR WANTS GERAGOSIAN AND DEFRONZO TO PAY BACK STATE CAMPAIGN CASH.
Little Mack the Lesser one is quoted as saying they will not pay it back, so he is in a sense going on record supporting them taking the public's money to run for an office they knew they wouldn't serve, once again demonstrating how Democrats feel they are free to waste our tax dollars as if it were their own money to throw away.
Hooray for the GOP for speaking out against this egregious waste of our money.
The state budget isn't the only thing needing fixing.
Ending the Citizens' Election Program's subsidy of public money to candidates in uncontested races for the legislature and statewide offices. Giving money to candidates with no opponents is a bad use of public funds when the state faces a projected budget deficit of at least $3.5 billion dollars.
U.S. Supreme Court Case and Tim O'Brien (politician)
The Supreme Court in Washington, D.C. in the spring of 2011 has agreed to hear McCornish v. Bennett. the state of Arizona free speech case challenging the constitutionality of giving taxpayer money to political candidates.
As Vice-Chair of the state of CT Government Administration and Elections Committee, Rep.Tim O'Brien (and Senator Don DeFronzo) chaired many public hearings actively for approval of Connecticut's sweeping 2005 campaign finance reform legislation based on the state of Arizona's legal language of giving taxpayer money to political candidates. .
The Arizona and Connecticut campaign finance reform law provides for public financing of candidates for statewide and state legislative offices who agree not to accept large amounts of private campaign contributions and agree to limit their overall campaign expenditures.
The CT Yankee Institute for Public Policy, plus Goldwater Institute have joined Arizona Supreme Court case on an amicus basis challenging the constitutionality of giving taxpayer money to political candidates.
So, Hartford CT Yankee Institute will get their hour in Supreme Court Case in Washington around spring in 2011.
Hartford Ct based Yankee Institute for Public Policy has joined McComish v. Bennett state of Arizona lawsuit on an amicus basis challenging the constitutionality of giving taxpayer money to political candidates.
The word AMICUS{ A person invited to advise a court on a matter of law in a case to which he is not a party. (( Latin. "friend of the court." )
A lawsuit bearing the name of state Senator-elect John McComish (R-Ahwatukee Foothills), will be argued before the U.S. Supreme Court early next year. The lawsuit, designated McComish v. Bennett, represents a challenge to portions of Arizona's Clean Elections Act, passed by a statewide initiative in 1998. The law set up a system in which candidates for state office may receive public money to finance their election campaigns in an amount equal to the money spent by a competing candidate who campaigns using private donations.
McComish said he plans to attend the hearings in Washington, DC, next year. "I think our chances are excellent," he said. "It's pretty exciting to have a Supreme Court case with your name on it." Supporters of public matching funds, such as New York University School of Law's Brennan Center for Justice, which is representing the Arizona Clean Elections Institute in the case, argue that public matching funds level the playing field for publicly funded candidates to compete against privately funded candidates with deep pockets.
The law places no limit on the amounts that privately-financed candidates may raise or spend on their campaigns, said Jeanine Plant-Chirlin, a spokeswoman for the center. "We don't think it infringes on First Amendment rights," Plant-Chirlin said.
Oral arguments before the Supreme Court are expected to commence in March, and a ruling could be available by next summer, she said. On the other hand, opponents of the law, such as McComish and the Goldwater Institute - the Arizona think-tank that's handling the legal challenge - say it violates the First Amendment rights of privately funded candidates by "having government put its thumb on the scale for their opponents. " "We're ecstatic that we have a chance to put an end to the worst feature of taxpayer subsidies for politicians," said Clint Bolick, the Goldwater Institute's litigation director, in a recent statement. McComish said his involvement stems from his successful 2008 run for the Arizona House of Representatives. In the Republican primary, he faced three opponents, each of whom accepted public matching funds, while McComish went with traditional campaign financing from private donors. It unbalanced the election, he said. "Because of the rules of Clean Elections, there ended up being about four times as much money spent against me as I was able to spend against my opponents," McComish said. "I could not raise money, because when I did, any money that I raised got matched."
Shortly thereafter, he received a call from the Goldwater Institute, which was planning to challenge the law and seeking plaintiffs. "I said yes," McComish said, adding that a federal Supreme Court ruling would have nationwide impact programs that allow candidates to finance their campaigns with public matching funds. "It's the most egregious and unfair part of the system," McComish said.
A lawsuit bearing the name of state Senator-elect John McComish (R) said his involvement stems from his successful 2008 run for the Arizona House of Representatives. In the Republican primary, he faced three opponents, each of whom accepted public matching funds, while McComish went with traditional campaign financing from private donors.
It unbalanced the election, he said. "Because of the rules of Clean Elections, there ended up being about four times as much money spent against me as I was able to spend against my opponents," McComish said. "I could not raise money, because when I did, any money that I raised got matched."
Shortly thereafter, he received a call from the Goldwater Institute, which was planning to challenge the law and seeking plaintiffs. "I said yes,"
McComish said, adding that a federal Supreme Court ruling would have nationwide impact programs that allow candidates to finance their campaigns with public matching funds. "It's the most egregious and unfair part of the system," McComish said.
The liberal lame-stream media is showing just how one sided they really are. When Governor Sarah Palin decided to quit after 3 1/2 years in office, and who could blame her the way teams of media followed her around 24/7, the liberal media came unhinged with their criticisms of the governor.
Now we have 2 liberal socialist legislators who spent the public's money to run for offices that they have no intention of serving in, a complete waste of the public's money and defiance of the public's trust in supporting them for the offices they spent our tax dollars to run for.
The McComish case deals with the question of whether so-called “matching” or “top-up” grants are constitutional: Do such grants violate one candidate’s First Amendment right to free speech if exercising that right results in public funds going to a competing candidate?
For example, if Ned Lamont’s (or Tom Foley’s) decision to raise or spend $100,000 on his campaigns triggers $100,000 to go to Dan Malloy (or Mike Fedele), is Lamont’s (or Foley’s) free speech right infringed?
Although Connecticut has changed state law in the wake of the Second Circuit decision to eliminate matching grants, grants were issued to two Connecticut gubernatorial candidates anyway and the question remains unresolved.
There were many uncontested seats for the State Legislature in the November,2010 election.
It makes absolutely no sense for the state to have given these candidates any funds for their reelection. Everone should read Chris Powell's column in todays Herald (1/3/11).
Lucrative escape hatch for six state legislators By Chris Powell
Voters in at least six state legislative districts may be feeling misled when the General Assembly convenes and the veteran Democrats just re-elected to represent those districts don't show up, having resigned in advance to take much higher-paying jobs in the executive branch of government or the legislative bureaucracy.
Stamford Sen. Andrew J. McDonald, co-chairman of the Judiciary Committee, will become legal counsel to his friend and political colleague, Connecticut's new governor, former Stamford Mayor Dan Malloy. Malloy will appoint the House co-chairman on Judiciary, East Haven Rep. Michael P. Lawlor, to a position in the state budget office.
New Britain Sen. Donald J. DeFronzo will become administrative services commissioner. West Hartford Rep. David McCluskey will move to the parole board. Essex Rep. James F. Spallone will become deputy secretary of the state, appointed by the new secretary, state Rep. Denise Merrill. And New Britain Rep. John C. Geragosian will become the Democratic state auditor, a legislative appointment.
State legislators are paid about $30,000 per year for what is nominally part-time, seasonal work but whose actual hours would look full-time to most people. The new positions for the resigning legislators will pay more than $100,000, some of them much more than that. And since pension payments for state employees -- including legislators and political appointees -- are determined in large part by their earnings in their last three years of state employment, these legislators will vastly increase their pensions if they manage to stick around for just three more years.
Then there will be the expense of all the special elections that will have to be called in March to replace the legislators who pledged themselves to another term and then changed their minds. Their constituents will be without representation for almost half the regular legislative session, though maybe many important and difficult decisions will be delayed to a special session in the summer.
Such awkward, pre-emptive appointments of legislators have been made before, though it's hard to remember when there have been so many at the start of a new administration. All six legislators appointed so far are qualified, but qualifications are probably not the only reason for the large number of these appointments. Salaries and much higher pension benefits may not explain them all either. There may be another reason big enough to induce the legislators to default on their commitments to constituents. That is, with state government's finances having collapsed, the legislators may expect that the appointed jobs will be infinitely easier than continuing in their elected jobs would be.
The General Assembly's Democratic majority soon will be helping the governor to pile new taxes on an overtaxed state amid a recession that's not easing up and curtailing services to the public so Connecticut's government class can continue to enjoy the superior lifestyle to which it has become accustomed. Safe in the bureaucracy, the defaulting legislators will be not only above it all but also above answering for their part in causing the disaster.
Lucrative executive, legislative, and judicial branch appointments have always been fair rewards for long, competent, and underpaid service in the General Assembly. But this time these appointments seem a bit more like windfalls and escape hatches.
Lucrative escape hatch for six state legislators By Chris Powell
Voters in at least six state legislative districts may be feeling misled when the General Assembly convenes and the veteran Democrats just re-elected to represent those districts don't show up, having resigned in advance to take much higher-paying jobs in the executive branch of government or the legislative bureaucracy.
Stamford Sen. Andrew J. McDonald, co-chairman of the Judiciary Committee, will become legal counsel to his friend and political colleague, Connecticut's new governor, former Stamford Mayor Dan Malloy. Malloy will appoint the House co-chairman on Judiciary, East Haven Rep. Michael P. Lawlor, to a position in the state budget office.
New Britain Sen. Donald J. DeFronzo will become administrative services commissioner. West Hartford Rep. David McCluskey will move to the parole board. Essex Rep. James F. Spallone will become deputy secretary of the state, appointed by the new secretary, state Rep. Denise Merrill. And New Britain Rep. John C. Geragosian will become the Democratic state auditor, a legislative appointment.
State legislators are paid about $30,000 per year for what is nominally part-time, seasonal work but whose actual hours would look full-time to most people. The new positions for the resigning legislators will pay more than $100,000, some of them much more than that. And since pension payments for state employees -- including legislators and political appointees -- are determined in large part by their earnings in their last three years of state employment, these legislators will vastly increase their pensions if they manage to stick around for just three more years.
Then there will be the expense of all the special elections that will have to be called in March to replace the legislators who pledged themselves to another term and then changed their minds. Their constituents will be without representation for almost half the regular legislative session, though maybe many important and difficult decisions will be delayed to a special session in the summer.
Such awkward, pre-emptive appointments of legislators have been made before, though it's hard to remember when there have been so many at the start of a new administration. All six legislators appointed so far are qualified, but qualifications are probably not the only reason for the large number of these appointments. Salaries and much higher pension benefits may not explain them all either. There may be another reason big enough to induce the legislators to default on their commitments to constituents. That is, with state government's finances having collapsed, the legislators may expect that the appointed jobs will be infinitely easier than continuing in their elected jobs would be.
The General Assembly's Democratic majority soon will be helping the governor to pile new taxes on an overtaxed state amid a recession that's not easing up and curtailing services to the public so Connecticut's government class can continue to enjoy the superior lifestyle to which it has become accustomed. Safe in the bureaucracy, the defaulting legislators will be not only above it all but also above answering for their part in causing the disaster.
Lucrative executive, legislative, and judicial branch appointments have always been fair rewards for long, competent, and underpaid service in the General Assembly. But this time these appointments seem a bit more like windfalls and escape hatches.
Lucrative escape hatch for six state legislators By Chris Powell
Voters in at least six state legislative districts may be feeling misled when the General Assembly convenes and the veteran Democrats just re-elected to represent those districts don't show up, having resigned in advance to take much higher-paying jobs in the executive branch of government or the legislative bureaucracy.
Stamford Sen. Andrew J. McDonald, co-chairman of the Judiciary Committee, will become legal counsel to his friend and political colleague, Connecticut's new governor, former Stamford Mayor Dan Malloy. Malloy will appoint the House co-chairman on Judiciary, East Haven Rep. Michael P. Lawlor, to a position in the state budget office.
New Britain Sen. Donald J. DeFronzo will become administrative services commissioner. West Hartford Rep. David McCluskey will move to the parole board. Essex Rep. James F. Spallone will become deputy secretary of the state, appointed by the new secretary, state Rep. Denise Merrill. And New Britain Rep. John C. Geragosian will become the Democratic state auditor, a legislative appointment.
State legislators are paid about $30,000 per year for what is nominally part-time, seasonal work but whose actual hours would look full-time to most people. The new positions for the resigning legislators will pay more than $100,000, some of them much more than that. And since pension payments for state employees -- including legislators and political appointees -- are determined in large part by their earnings in their last three years of state employment, these legislators will vastly increase their pensions if they manage to stick around for just three more years.
Then there will be the expense of all the special elections that will have to be called in March to replace the legislators who pledged themselves to another term and then changed their minds. Their constituents will be without representation for almost half the regular legislative session, though maybe many important and difficult decisions will be delayed to a special session in the summer.
Such awkward, pre-emptive appointments of legislators have been made before, though it's hard to remember when there have been so many at the start of a new administration. All six legislators appointed so far are qualified, but qualifications are probably not the only reason for the large number of these appointments. Salaries and much higher pension benefits may not explain them all either. There may be another reason big enough to induce the legislators to default on their commitments to constituents. That is, with state government's finances having collapsed, the legislators may expect that the appointed jobs will be infinitely easier than continuing in their elected jobs would be.
The General Assembly's Democratic majority soon will be helping the governor to pile new taxes on an overtaxed state amid a recession that's not easing up and curtailing services to the public so Connecticut's government class can continue to enjoy the superior lifestyle to which it has become accustomed. Safe in the bureaucracy, the defaulting legislators will be not only above it all but also above answering for their part in causing the disaster.
Lucrative executive, legislative, and judicial branch appointments have always been fair rewards for long, competent, and underpaid service in the General Assembly. But this time these appointments seem a bit more like windfalls and escape hatches.
Lucrative escape hatch for six state legislators By Chris Powell
Voters in at least six state legislative districts may be feeling misled when the General Assembly convenes and the veteran Democrats just re-elected to represent those districts don't show up, having resigned in advance to take much higher-paying jobs in the executive branch of government or the legislative bureaucracy.
Stamford Sen. Andrew J. McDonald, co-chairman of the Judiciary Committee, will become legal counsel to his friend and political colleague, Connecticut's new governor, former Stamford Mayor Dan Malloy. Malloy will appoint the House co-chairman on Judiciary, East Haven Rep. Michael P. Lawlor, to a position in the state budget office.
New Britain Sen. Donald J. DeFronzo will become administrative services commissioner. West Hartford Rep. David McCluskey will move to the parole board. Essex Rep. James F. Spallone will become deputy secretary of the state, appointed by the new secretary, state Rep. Denise Merrill. And New Britain Rep. John C. Geragosian will become the Democratic state auditor, a legislative appointment.
State legislators are paid about $30,000 per year for what is nominally part-time, seasonal work but whose actual hours would look full-time to most people. The new positions for the resigning legislators will pay more than $100,000, some of them much more than that. And since pension payments for state employees -- including legislators and political appointees -- are determined in large part by their earnings in their last three years of state employment, these legislators will vastly increase their pensions if they manage to stick around for just three more years.
Then there will be the expense of all the special elections that will have to be called in March to replace the legislators who pledged themselves to another term and then changed their minds. Their constituents will be without representation for almost half the regular legislative session, though maybe many important and difficult decisions will be delayed to a special session in the summer.
Such awkward, pre-emptive appointments of legislators have been made before, though it's hard to remember when there have been so many at the start of a new administration. All six legislators appointed so far are qualified, but qualifications are probably not the only reason for the large number of these appointments. Salaries and much higher pension benefits may not explain them all either. There may be another reason big enough to induce the legislators to default on their commitments to constituents. That is, with state government's finances having collapsed, the legislators may expect that the appointed jobs will be infinitely easier than continuing in their elected jobs would be.
The General Assembly's Democratic majority soon will be helping the governor to pile new taxes on an overtaxed state amid a recession that's not easing up and curtailing services to the public so Connecticut's government class can continue to enjoy the superior lifestyle to which it has become accustomed. Safe in the bureaucracy, the defaulting legislators will be not only above it all but also above answering for their part in causing the disaster.
Lucrative executive, legislative, and judicial branch appointments have always been fair rewards for long, competent, and underpaid service in the General Assembly. But this time these appointments seem a bit more like windfalls and escape hatches.
Lucrative escape hatch for six state legislators By Chris Powell Published: Saturday, January 1, 2011 1:10 AM EST Voters in at least six state legislative districts may be feeling misled when the General Assembly convenes and the veteran Democrats just re-elected to represent those districts don't show up, having resigned in advance to take much higher-paying jobs in the executive branch of government or the legislative bureaucracy.
Stamford Sen. Andrew J. McDonald, co-chairman of the Judiciary Committee, will become legal counsel to his friend and political colleague, Connecticut's new governor, former Stamford Mayor Dan Malloy. Malloy will appoint the House co-chairman on Judiciary, East Haven Rep. Michael P. Lawlor, to a position in the state budget office.
New Britain Sen. Donald J. DeFronzo will become administrative services commissioner. West Hartford Rep. David McCluskey will move to the parole board. Essex Rep. James F. Spallone will become deputy secretary of the state, appointed by the new secretary, state Rep. Denise Merrill. And New Britain Rep. John C. Geragosian will become the Democratic state auditor, a legislative appointment.
State legislators are paid about $30,000 per year for what is nominally part-time, seasonal work but whose actual hours would look full-time to most people. The new positions for the resigning legislators will pay more than $100,000, some of them much more than that. And since pension payments for state employees -- including legislators and political appointees -- are determined in large part by their earnings in their last three years of state employment, these legislators will vastly increase their pensions if they manage to stick around for just three more years.
Then there will be the expense of all the special elections that will have to be called in March to replace the legislators who pledged themselves to another term and then changed their minds. Their constituents will be without representation for almost half the regular legislative session, though maybe many important and difficult decisions will be delayed to a special session in the summer.
Such awkward, pre-emptive appointments of legislators have been made before, though it's hard to remember when there have been so many at the start of a new administration. All six legislators appointed so far are qualified, but qualifications are probably not the only reason for the large number of these appointments. Salaries and much higher pension benefits may not explain them all either. There may be another reason big enough to induce the legislators to default on their commitments to constituents. That is, with state government's finances having collapsed, the legislators may expect that the appointed jobs will be infinitely easier than continuing in their elected jobs would be.
The General Assembly's Democratic majority soon will be helping the governor to pile new taxes on an overtaxed state amid a recession that's not easing up and curtailing services to the public so Connecticut's government class can continue to enjoy the superior lifestyle to which it has become accustomed. Safe in the bureaucracy, the defaulting legislators will be not only above it all but also above answering for their part in causing the disaster.
Lucrative executive, legislative, and judicial branch appointments have always been fair rewards for long, competent, and underpaid service in the General Assembly. But this time these appointments seem a bit more like windfalls and escape hatches.
Lucrative escape hatch for six state legislators By Chris Powell Voters in at least six state legislative districts may be feeling misled when the General Assembly convenes and the veteran Democrats just re-elected to represent those districts don't show up, having resigned in advance to take much higher-paying jobs in the executive branch of government or the legislative bureaucracy.
Stamford Sen. Andrew J. McDonald, co-chairman of the Judiciary Committee, will become legal counsel to his friend and political colleague, Connecticut's new governor, former Stamford Mayor Dan Malloy. Malloy will appoint the House co-chairman on Judiciary, East Haven Rep. Michael P. Lawlor, to a position in the state budget office.
New Britain Sen. Donald J. DeFronzo will become administrative services commissioner. West Hartford Rep. David McCluskey will move to the parole board. Essex Rep. James F. Spallone will become deputy secretary of the state, appointed by the new secretary, state Rep. Denise Merrill. And New Britain Rep. John C. Geragosian will become the Democratic state auditor, a legislative appointment.
State legislators are paid about $30,000 per year for what is nominally part-time, seasonal work but whose actual hours would look full-time to most people. The new positions for the resigning legislators will pay more than $100,000, some of them much more than that. And since pension payments for state employees -- including legislators and political appointees -- are determined in large part by their earnings in their last three years of state employment, these legislators will vastly increase their pensions if they manage to stick around for just three more years.
Then there will be the expense of all the special elections that will have to be called in March to replace the legislators who pledged themselves to another term and then changed their minds. Their constituents will be without representation for almost half the regular legislative session, though maybe many important and difficult decisions will be delayed to a special session in the summer.
Such awkward, pre-emptive appointments of legislators have been made before, though it's hard to remember when there have been so many at the start of a new administration. All six legislators appointed so far are qualified, but qualifications are probably not the only reason for the large number of these appointments. Salaries and much higher pension benefits may not explain them all either. There may be another reason big enough to induce the legislators to default on their commitments to constituents. That is, with state government's finances having collapsed, the legislators may expect that the appointed jobs will be infinitely easier than continuing in their elected jobs would be.
The General Assembly's Democratic majority soon will be helping the governor to pile new taxes on an overtaxed state amid a recession that's not easing up and curtailing services to the public so Connecticut's government class can continue to enjoy the superior lifestyle to which it has become accustomed. Safe in the bureaucracy, the defaulting legislators will be not only above it all but also above answering for their part in causing the disaster.
Lucrative executive, legislative, and judicial branch appointments have always been fair rewards for long, competent, and underpaid service in the General Assembly. But this time these appointments seem a bit more like windfalls and escape hatches.
The 6 figure salary DeFronzo will get for being a commissioner will no doubt really juice up the 2 pensions he already gets for a mostly "no show" job while on full time leave to run the union all those years and then the 4 years he was mayor--still receiving retirement credits from the state, and the other for the years he has been in the legislature.
Must be nice to earn all this money from the people, especially when he refused to serve these same people when called upon to serve in the military.
FCTO - The Federation of Connecticut Taxpayer Organizations - Contact Susan Kniep, President Website: http://ctact.org/ Email: fctopresident@aol.com Telephone: 860-841-8032
Connecticut property owners pay one of the highest property taxes in the country, second to New Jersey. Many in our state are struggling now to pay their property taxes. An added property tax will drive many Connecticut residents from their homes through Tax Lien sales.
Yet, all Connecticut taxpayers are victims of the inability of our State elected officials to control spending while giving into union demands where many pensions exceed $100,000, $150,000 and more.
The State Bond Commission just approved another $20 million in bonding. The latest Fiscal Accountability Report highlights CONNECTICUT DEBT - 72 BILLION DOLLARS.
BREAKDOWN OF CONNECTICUT’S $72 BILLION DOLLAR DEBT.... 1) Debt Outstanding $19.3 2a) State Employee Pensions – Unfunded $11.8 2b) Teachers’ Pensions – Unfunded $9.1 3a) State Post Retirement Health and Life – Unfunded $26.6 3b) Teachers’ Post Retirement Health and Life $2.9 4) Generally Accepted Accounting Principles Deficit $2.3 Total $72 BILLION The Question is - Is CT Going Broke $$$$$$$$$.
Anonymous said... Susan Kniep is correct about this state going bbbbroke!
said Democratic Town Committee Chairman John McNamara. “They are absolutely not going to be giving the money back.”
ReplyDeleteWould you expect anything less from the head of this radical party?
Democrats have always treated the public's money as if it were their own, so why should these 2 be any different.
The Arizona State Senator McComish lawsuit and the Goldwater Institute, the Arizona think-tank that's handling the legal challenge of Arizona's Clean Election Act ( heading to U.S. Supreme Court ) stated it violates the First Amendment rights of privately funded candidates by "having government" put its thumb on the scale for their opponents in an election.
ReplyDeleteWe're ecstatic that we have a chance to put an end to the worst feature of taxpayer subsidies for politicians, said Clint Bolick, the Goldwater Institute's Litigation Director. Oral arguments before the U.S. Supreme Court are expected to commence in March with a ruling available by summer 2011.
Hartford Ct based Yankee Institute for Public Policy has joined McComish v. Bennett lawsuit on an amicus basis challenging the constitutionality of giving taxpayer money to political candidates.
CT CAPITAL REPORT...
ReplyDelete...NEW BRITAIN GOP CHAIR WANTS GERAGOSIAN AND DEFRONZO TO PAY BACK STATE CAMPAIGN CASH.
Anonymous said...
ReplyDeleteCT CAPITAL REPORT...
...NEW BRITAIN GOP CHAIR WANTS GERAGOSIAN AND DEFRONZO TO PAY BACK STATE CAMPAIGN CASH.
Little Mack the Lesser one is quoted as saying they will not pay it back, so he is in a sense going on record supporting them taking the public's money to run for an office they knew they wouldn't serve, once again demonstrating how Democrats feel they are free to waste our tax dollars as if it were their own money to throw away.
Hooray for the GOP for speaking out against this egregious waste of our money.
HARTFORD - Agenda For The State Legislature.
ReplyDeleteThe state budget isn't the only thing needing fixing.
Ending the Citizens' Election Program's subsidy of public money to candidates in uncontested races for the legislature and statewide offices. Giving money to candidates with no opponents is a bad use of public funds when the state faces a projected budget deficit of at least $3.5 billion dollars.
U.S. Supreme Court Case and Tim O'Brien (politician)
ReplyDeleteThe Supreme Court in Washington, D.C. in the spring of 2011 has agreed to hear McCornish v. Bennett. the state of Arizona free speech case challenging the constitutionality of giving taxpayer money to political candidates.
As Vice-Chair of the state of CT Government Administration and Elections Committee, Rep.Tim O'Brien (and Senator Don DeFronzo) chaired many public hearings actively for approval of Connecticut's sweeping 2005 campaign finance reform legislation based on the state of Arizona's legal language of giving taxpayer money to political candidates. .
The Arizona and Connecticut campaign finance reform law provides for public financing of candidates for statewide and state legislative offices who agree not to accept large amounts of private campaign contributions and agree to limit their overall campaign expenditures.
The CT Yankee Institute for Public Policy, plus Goldwater Institute have joined Arizona Supreme Court case on an amicus basis challenging the constitutionality of giving taxpayer money to political candidates.
So, Hartford CT Yankee Institute will get their hour in Supreme Court Case in Washington around spring in 2011.
Arizona state Senator-elect John McComish lawsuit ( McComish v. Bennett ) will be argued before the U.S. Supreme Court in March 2011.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.eastvalleytribune.com/local/the_valley/ahwatukee/article_a191761e-0113-51c4-8e3d-f635c047ab.html?mode=print
Hartford Ct based Yankee Institute for Public Policy has joined McComish v. Bennett state of Arizona lawsuit on an amicus basis challenging the constitutionality of giving taxpayer money to political candidates.
ReplyDeleteThe word AMICUS{ A person invited to advise a court on a matter of law in a case to which he is not a party. (( Latin. "friend of the court." )
A lawsuit bearing the name of state Senator-elect John McComish (R-Ahwatukee Foothills), will be argued before the U.S. Supreme Court early next year.
ReplyDeleteThe lawsuit, designated McComish v. Bennett, represents a challenge to portions of Arizona's Clean Elections Act, passed by a statewide initiative in 1998. The law set up a system in which candidates for state office may receive public money to finance their election campaigns in an amount equal to the money spent by a competing candidate who campaigns using private donations.
McComish said he plans to attend the hearings in Washington, DC, next year. "I think our chances are excellent," he said. "It's pretty exciting to have a Supreme Court case with your name on it."
Supporters of public matching funds, such as New York University School of Law's Brennan Center for Justice, which is representing the Arizona Clean Elections Institute in the case, argue that public matching funds level the playing field for publicly funded candidates to compete against privately funded candidates with deep pockets.
The law places no limit on the amounts that privately-financed candidates may raise or spend on their campaigns, said Jeanine Plant-Chirlin, a spokeswoman for the center. "We don't think it infringes on First Amendment rights," Plant-Chirlin said.
Oral arguments before the Supreme Court are expected to commence in March, and a ruling could be available by next summer, she said. On the other hand, opponents of the law, such as McComish and the Goldwater Institute - the Arizona think-tank that's handling the legal challenge - say it violates the First Amendment rights of privately funded candidates by "having government put its thumb on the scale for their opponents.
"
"We're ecstatic that we have a chance to put an end to the worst feature of taxpayer subsidies for politicians," said Clint Bolick, the Goldwater Institute's litigation director, in a recent statement.
McComish said his involvement stems from his successful 2008 run for the Arizona House of Representatives. In the Republican primary, he faced three opponents, each of whom accepted public matching funds, while McComish went with traditional campaign financing from private donors. It unbalanced the election, he said.
"Because of the rules of Clean Elections, there ended up being about four times as much money spent against me as I was able to spend against my opponents," McComish said. "I could not raise money, because when I did, any money that I raised got matched."
Shortly thereafter, he received a call from the Goldwater Institute, which was planning to challenge the law and seeking plaintiffs. "I said yes," McComish said, adding that a federal Supreme Court ruling would have nationwide impact programs that allow candidates to finance their campaigns with public matching funds.
"It's the most egregious and unfair part of the system," McComish said.
The saga of state Senator-elect John McComish.
ReplyDeleteA lawsuit bearing the name of state Senator-elect John McComish (R) said his involvement stems from his successful 2008 run for the Arizona House of Representatives. In the Republican primary, he faced three opponents, each of whom accepted public matching funds, while McComish went with traditional campaign financing from private donors.
It unbalanced the election, he said. "Because of the rules of Clean Elections, there ended up being about four times as much money spent against me as I was able to spend against my opponents," McComish said. "I could not raise money, because when I did, any money that I raised got matched."
Shortly thereafter, he received a call from the Goldwater Institute, which was planning to challenge the law and seeking plaintiffs. "I said yes,"
McComish said, adding that a federal Supreme Court ruling would have nationwide impact programs that allow candidates to finance their campaigns with public matching funds. "It's the most egregious and unfair part of the system," McComish said.
The liberal lame-stream media is showing just how one sided they really are. When Governor Sarah Palin decided to quit after 3 1/2 years in office, and who could blame her the way teams of media followed her around 24/7, the liberal media came unhinged with their criticisms of the governor.
ReplyDeleteNow we have 2 liberal socialist legislators who spent the public's money to run for offices that they have no intention of serving in, a complete waste of the public's money and defiance of the public's trust in supporting them for the offices they spent our tax dollars to run for.
Which is worse?
The McComish case deals with the question of whether so-called “matching” or “top-up” grants are constitutional: Do such grants violate one candidate’s First Amendment right to free speech if exercising that right results in public funds going to a competing candidate?
ReplyDeleteFor example, if Ned Lamont’s (or Tom Foley’s) decision to raise or spend $100,000 on his campaigns triggers $100,000 to go to Dan Malloy (or Mike Fedele), is Lamont’s (or Foley’s) free speech right infringed?
Although Connecticut has changed state law in the wake of the Second Circuit decision to eliminate matching grants, grants were issued to two Connecticut gubernatorial candidates anyway and the question remains unresolved.
There were many uncontested seats for the State Legislature in the November,2010 election.
ReplyDeleteIt makes absolutely no sense for the state to have given these candidates any funds for their reelection. Everone should read Chris Powell's column in todays Herald (1/3/11).
Lucrative escape hatch for six state legislators
ReplyDeleteBy Chris Powell
Voters in at least six state legislative districts may be feeling misled when the General Assembly convenes and the veteran Democrats just re-elected to represent those districts don't show up, having resigned in advance to take much higher-paying jobs in the executive branch of government or the legislative bureaucracy.
Stamford Sen. Andrew J. McDonald, co-chairman of the Judiciary Committee, will become legal counsel to his friend and political colleague, Connecticut's new governor, former Stamford Mayor Dan Malloy. Malloy will appoint the House co-chairman on Judiciary, East Haven Rep. Michael P. Lawlor, to a position in the state budget office.
New Britain Sen. Donald J. DeFronzo will become administrative services commissioner. West Hartford Rep. David McCluskey will move to the parole board. Essex Rep. James F. Spallone will become deputy secretary of the state, appointed by the new secretary, state Rep. Denise Merrill. And New Britain Rep. John C. Geragosian will become the Democratic state auditor, a legislative appointment.
State legislators are paid about $30,000 per year for what is nominally part-time, seasonal work but whose actual hours would look full-time to most people. The new positions for the resigning legislators will pay more than $100,000, some of them much more than that. And since pension payments for state employees -- including legislators and political appointees -- are determined in large part by their earnings in their last three years of state employment, these legislators will vastly increase their pensions if they manage to stick around for just three more years.
Then there will be the expense of all the special elections that will have to be called in March to replace the legislators who pledged themselves to another term and then changed their minds. Their constituents will be without representation for almost half the regular legislative session, though maybe many important and difficult decisions will be delayed to a special session in the summer.
Such awkward, pre-emptive appointments of legislators have been made before, though it's hard to remember when there have been so many at the start of a new administration. All six legislators appointed so far are qualified, but qualifications are probably not the only reason for the large number of these appointments. Salaries and much higher pension benefits may not explain them all either. There may be another reason big enough to induce the legislators to default on their commitments to constituents. That is, with state government's finances having collapsed, the legislators may expect that the appointed jobs will be infinitely easier than continuing in their elected jobs would be.
The General Assembly's Democratic majority soon will be helping the governor to pile new taxes on an overtaxed state amid a recession that's not easing up and curtailing services to the public so Connecticut's government class can continue to enjoy the superior lifestyle to which it has become accustomed. Safe in the bureaucracy, the defaulting legislators will be not only above it all but also above answering for their part in causing the disaster.
Lucrative executive, legislative, and judicial branch appointments have always been fair rewards for long, competent, and underpaid service in the General Assembly. But this time these appointments seem a bit more like windfalls and escape hatches.
Lucrative escape hatch for six state legislators
ReplyDeleteBy Chris Powell
Voters in at least six state legislative districts may be feeling misled when the General Assembly convenes and the veteran Democrats just re-elected to represent those districts don't show up, having resigned in advance to take much higher-paying jobs in the executive branch of government or the legislative bureaucracy.
Stamford Sen. Andrew J. McDonald, co-chairman of the Judiciary Committee, will become legal counsel to his friend and political colleague, Connecticut's new governor, former Stamford Mayor Dan Malloy. Malloy will appoint the House co-chairman on Judiciary, East Haven Rep. Michael P. Lawlor, to a position in the state budget office.
New Britain Sen. Donald J. DeFronzo will become administrative services commissioner. West Hartford Rep. David McCluskey will move to the parole board. Essex Rep. James F. Spallone will become deputy secretary of the state, appointed by the new secretary, state Rep. Denise Merrill. And New Britain Rep. John C. Geragosian will become the Democratic state auditor, a legislative appointment.
State legislators are paid about $30,000 per year for what is nominally part-time, seasonal work but whose actual hours would look full-time to most people. The new positions for the resigning legislators will pay more than $100,000, some of them much more than that. And since pension payments for state employees -- including legislators and political appointees -- are determined in large part by their earnings in their last three years of state employment, these legislators will vastly increase their pensions if they manage to stick around for just three more years.
Then there will be the expense of all the special elections that will have to be called in March to replace the legislators who pledged themselves to another term and then changed their minds. Their constituents will be without representation for almost half the regular legislative session, though maybe many important and difficult decisions will be delayed to a special session in the summer.
Such awkward, pre-emptive appointments of legislators have been made before, though it's hard to remember when there have been so many at the start of a new administration. All six legislators appointed so far are qualified, but qualifications are probably not the only reason for the large number of these appointments. Salaries and much higher pension benefits may not explain them all either. There may be another reason big enough to induce the legislators to default on their commitments to constituents. That is, with state government's finances having collapsed, the legislators may expect that the appointed jobs will be infinitely easier than continuing in their elected jobs would be.
The General Assembly's Democratic majority soon will be helping the governor to pile new taxes on an overtaxed state amid a recession that's not easing up and curtailing services to the public so Connecticut's government class can continue to enjoy the superior lifestyle to which it has become accustomed. Safe in the bureaucracy, the defaulting legislators will be not only above it all but also above answering for their part in causing the disaster.
Lucrative executive, legislative, and judicial branch appointments have always been fair rewards for long, competent, and underpaid service in the General Assembly. But this time these appointments seem a bit more like windfalls and escape hatches.
Lucrative escape hatch for six state legislators
ReplyDeleteBy Chris Powell
Voters in at least six state legislative districts may be feeling misled when the General Assembly convenes and the veteran Democrats just re-elected to represent those districts don't show up, having resigned in advance to take much higher-paying jobs in the executive branch of government or the legislative bureaucracy.
Stamford Sen. Andrew J. McDonald, co-chairman of the Judiciary Committee, will become legal counsel to his friend and political colleague, Connecticut's new governor, former Stamford Mayor Dan Malloy. Malloy will appoint the House co-chairman on Judiciary, East Haven Rep. Michael P. Lawlor, to a position in the state budget office.
New Britain Sen. Donald J. DeFronzo will become administrative services commissioner. West Hartford Rep. David McCluskey will move to the parole board. Essex Rep. James F. Spallone will become deputy secretary of the state, appointed by the new secretary, state Rep. Denise Merrill. And New Britain Rep. John C. Geragosian will become the Democratic state auditor, a legislative appointment.
State legislators are paid about $30,000 per year for what is nominally part-time, seasonal work but whose actual hours would look full-time to most people. The new positions for the resigning legislators will pay more than $100,000, some of them much more than that. And since pension payments for state employees -- including legislators and political appointees -- are determined in large part by their earnings in their last three years of state employment, these legislators will vastly increase their pensions if they manage to stick around for just three more years.
Then there will be the expense of all the special elections that will have to be called in March to replace the legislators who pledged themselves to another term and then changed their minds. Their constituents will be without representation for almost half the regular legislative session, though maybe many important and difficult decisions will be delayed to a special session in the summer.
Such awkward, pre-emptive appointments of legislators have been made before, though it's hard to remember when there have been so many at the start of a new administration. All six legislators appointed so far are qualified, but qualifications are probably not the only reason for the large number of these appointments. Salaries and much higher pension benefits may not explain them all either. There may be another reason big enough to induce the legislators to default on their commitments to constituents. That is, with state government's finances having collapsed, the legislators may expect that the appointed jobs will be infinitely easier than continuing in their elected jobs would be.
The General Assembly's Democratic majority soon will be helping the governor to pile new taxes on an overtaxed state amid a recession that's not easing up and curtailing services to the public so Connecticut's government class can continue to enjoy the superior lifestyle to which it has become accustomed. Safe in the bureaucracy, the defaulting legislators will be not only above it all but also above answering for their part in causing the disaster.
Lucrative executive, legislative, and judicial branch appointments have always been fair rewards for long, competent, and underpaid service in the General Assembly. But this time these appointments seem a bit more like windfalls and escape hatches.
Lucrative escape hatch for six state legislators
ReplyDeleteBy Chris Powell
Voters in at least six state legislative districts may be feeling misled when the General Assembly convenes and the veteran Democrats just re-elected to represent those districts don't show up, having resigned in advance to take much higher-paying jobs in the executive branch of government or the legislative bureaucracy.
Stamford Sen. Andrew J. McDonald, co-chairman of the Judiciary Committee, will become legal counsel to his friend and political colleague, Connecticut's new governor, former Stamford Mayor Dan Malloy. Malloy will appoint the House co-chairman on Judiciary, East Haven Rep. Michael P. Lawlor, to a position in the state budget office.
New Britain Sen. Donald J. DeFronzo will become administrative services commissioner. West Hartford Rep. David McCluskey will move to the parole board. Essex Rep. James F. Spallone will become deputy secretary of the state, appointed by the new secretary, state Rep. Denise Merrill. And New Britain Rep. John C. Geragosian will become the Democratic state auditor, a legislative appointment.
State legislators are paid about $30,000 per year for what is nominally part-time, seasonal work but whose actual hours would look full-time to most people. The new positions for the resigning legislators will pay more than $100,000, some of them much more than that. And since pension payments for state employees -- including legislators and political appointees -- are determined in large part by their earnings in their last three years of state employment, these legislators will vastly increase their pensions if they manage to stick around for just three more years.
Then there will be the expense of all the special elections that will have to be called in March to replace the legislators who pledged themselves to another term and then changed their minds. Their constituents will be without representation for almost half the regular legislative session, though maybe many important and difficult decisions will be delayed to a special session in the summer.
Such awkward, pre-emptive appointments of legislators have been made before, though it's hard to remember when there have been so many at the start of a new administration. All six legislators appointed so far are qualified, but qualifications are probably not the only reason for the large number of these appointments. Salaries and much higher pension benefits may not explain them all either. There may be another reason big enough to induce the legislators to default on their commitments to constituents. That is, with state government's finances having collapsed, the legislators may expect that the appointed jobs will be infinitely easier than continuing in their elected jobs would be.
The General Assembly's Democratic majority soon will be helping the governor to pile new taxes on an overtaxed state amid a recession that's not easing up and curtailing services to the public so Connecticut's government class can continue to enjoy the superior lifestyle to which it has become accustomed. Safe in the bureaucracy, the defaulting legislators will be not only above it all but also above answering for their part in causing the disaster.
Lucrative executive, legislative, and judicial branch appointments have always been fair rewards for long, competent, and underpaid service in the General Assembly. But this time these appointments seem a bit more like windfalls and escape hatches.
Lucrative escape hatch for six state legislators
ReplyDeleteBy Chris Powell
Published: Saturday, January 1, 2011 1:10 AM EST
Voters in at least six state legislative districts may be feeling misled when the General Assembly convenes and the veteran Democrats just re-elected to represent those districts don't show up, having resigned in advance to take much higher-paying jobs in the executive branch of government or the legislative bureaucracy.
Stamford Sen. Andrew J. McDonald, co-chairman of the Judiciary Committee, will become legal counsel to his friend and political colleague, Connecticut's new governor, former Stamford Mayor Dan Malloy. Malloy will appoint the House co-chairman on Judiciary, East Haven Rep. Michael P. Lawlor, to a position in the state budget office.
New Britain Sen. Donald J. DeFronzo will become administrative services commissioner. West Hartford Rep. David McCluskey will move to the parole board. Essex Rep. James F. Spallone will become deputy secretary of the state, appointed by the new secretary, state Rep. Denise Merrill. And New Britain Rep. John C. Geragosian will become the Democratic state auditor, a legislative appointment.
State legislators are paid about $30,000 per year for what is nominally part-time, seasonal work but whose actual hours would look full-time to most people. The new positions for the resigning legislators will pay more than $100,000, some of them much more than that. And since pension payments for state employees -- including legislators and political appointees -- are determined in large part by their earnings in their last three years of state employment, these legislators will vastly increase their pensions if they manage to stick around for just three more years.
Then there will be the expense of all the special elections that will have to be called in March to replace the legislators who pledged themselves to another term and then changed their minds. Their constituents will be without representation for almost half the regular legislative session, though maybe many important and difficult decisions will be delayed to a special session in the summer.
Such awkward, pre-emptive appointments of legislators have been made before, though it's hard to remember when there have been so many at the start of a new administration. All six legislators appointed so far are qualified, but qualifications are probably not the only reason for the large number of these appointments. Salaries and much higher pension benefits may not explain them all either. There may be another reason big enough to induce the legislators to default on their commitments to constituents. That is, with state government's finances having collapsed, the legislators may expect that the appointed jobs will be infinitely easier than continuing in their elected jobs would be.
The General Assembly's Democratic majority soon will be helping the governor to pile new taxes on an overtaxed state amid a recession that's not easing up and curtailing services to the public so Connecticut's government class can continue to enjoy the superior lifestyle to which it has become accustomed. Safe in the bureaucracy, the defaulting legislators will be not only above it all but also above answering for their part in causing the disaster.
Lucrative executive, legislative, and judicial branch appointments have always been fair rewards for long, competent, and underpaid service in the General Assembly. But this time these appointments seem a bit more like windfalls and escape hatches.
Lucrative escape hatch for six state legislators
ReplyDeleteBy Chris Powell
Voters in at least six state legislative districts may be feeling misled when the General Assembly convenes and the veteran Democrats just re-elected to represent those districts don't show up, having resigned in advance to take much higher-paying jobs in the executive branch of government or the legislative bureaucracy.
Stamford Sen. Andrew J. McDonald, co-chairman of the Judiciary Committee, will become legal counsel to his friend and political colleague, Connecticut's new governor, former Stamford Mayor Dan Malloy. Malloy will appoint the House co-chairman on Judiciary, East Haven Rep. Michael P. Lawlor, to a position in the state budget office.
New Britain Sen. Donald J. DeFronzo will become administrative services commissioner. West Hartford Rep. David McCluskey will move to the parole board. Essex Rep. James F. Spallone will become deputy secretary of the state, appointed by the new secretary, state Rep. Denise Merrill. And New Britain Rep. John C. Geragosian will become the Democratic state auditor, a legislative appointment.
State legislators are paid about $30,000 per year for what is nominally part-time, seasonal work but whose actual hours would look full-time to most people. The new positions for the resigning legislators will pay more than $100,000, some of them much more than that. And since pension payments for state employees -- including legislators and political appointees -- are determined in large part by their earnings in their last three years of state employment, these legislators will vastly increase their pensions if they manage to stick around for just three more years.
Then there will be the expense of all the special elections that will have to be called in March to replace the legislators who pledged themselves to another term and then changed their minds. Their constituents will be without representation for almost half the regular legislative session, though maybe many important and difficult decisions will be delayed to a special session in the summer.
Such awkward, pre-emptive appointments of legislators have been made before, though it's hard to remember when there have been so many at the start of a new administration. All six legislators appointed so far are qualified, but qualifications are probably not the only reason for the large number of these appointments. Salaries and much higher pension benefits may not explain them all either. There may be another reason big enough to induce the legislators to default on their commitments to constituents. That is, with state government's finances having collapsed, the legislators may expect that the appointed jobs will be infinitely easier than continuing in their elected jobs would be.
The General Assembly's Democratic majority soon will be helping the governor to pile new taxes on an overtaxed state amid a recession that's not easing up and curtailing services to the public so Connecticut's government class can continue to enjoy the superior lifestyle to which it has become accustomed. Safe in the bureaucracy, the defaulting legislators will be not only above it all but also above answering for their part in causing the disaster.
Lucrative executive, legislative, and judicial branch appointments have always been fair rewards for long, competent, and underpaid service in the General Assembly. But this time these appointments seem a bit more like windfalls and escape hatches.
The 6 figure salary DeFronzo will get for being a commissioner will no doubt really juice up the 2 pensions he already gets for a mostly "no show" job while on full time leave to run the union all those years and then the 4 years he was mayor--still receiving retirement credits from the state, and the other for the years he has been in the legislature.
ReplyDeleteMust be nice to earn all this money from the people, especially when he refused to serve these same people when called upon to serve in the military.
FCTO - The Federation of Connecticut Taxpayer Organizations - Contact Susan Kniep, President
ReplyDeleteWebsite: http://ctact.org/
Email: fctopresident@aol.com
Telephone: 860-841-8032
Connecticut property owners pay one of the highest property taxes in the country, second to New Jersey. Many in our state are struggling now to pay their property taxes. An added property tax will drive many Connecticut residents from their homes through Tax Lien sales.
Yet, all Connecticut taxpayers are victims of the inability of our State elected officials to control spending while giving into union demands where many pensions exceed $100,000, $150,000 and more.
The State Bond Commission just approved another $20 million in bonding. The latest Fiscal Accountability Report highlights CONNECTICUT DEBT - 72 BILLION DOLLARS.
BREAKDOWN OF CONNECTICUT’S $72 BILLION DOLLAR DEBT....
1) Debt Outstanding $19.3
2a) State Employee Pensions – Unfunded $11.8
2b) Teachers’ Pensions – Unfunded $9.1
3a) State Post Retirement Health and Life – Unfunded $26.6
3b) Teachers’ Post Retirement Health and Life $2.9
4) Generally Accepted Accounting Principles Deficit $2.3
Total $72 BILLION
The Question is - Is CT Going Broke $$$$$$$$$.
Anonymous said...
Susan Kniep is correct about this state going bbbbroke!
What's new? Democrooks using state money as if the state was their private piggy bank!
ReplyDelete