The League of Women Voters planned a debate of the candidates for the 5th Congressional District to be held at CCSU on October 11th, but unfortunately certain people at the university are attempting to manipulate the format of the debate by forcing the League to include the so-called “third party candidates” in the debate.
Who might they be trying to assist with their campaign?
I believe that the League of Women Voters should be allowed to hold their debate in the format that they see fit without any outside interference. For this reason, they should find an alternative location where they are allowed to be free to run their political debate without the manipulation of the host landlord.
Being an agency of the State of Connecticut, could it possibly be a violation of state election or even ethics laws for employees of Central Connecticut State University to involve themselves in this manner in the electoral process? Perhaps Attorney General Richard Blumenthal needs to review how this agency and its state employees were able to interfere with this debate in such a manner.
8 comments:
Seems ironic that a group so devoted to advocating for greater involvement of citizens in the democratic process, and a group so outspoken about women having the right to participate in the process, would choose to essentially ban people who are legitimately on the ballot from participating in a public debate. I'm sure the 3rd party candidates are screwballs and don't have a chance BUT LET THE VOTERS DECIDE FOR THEMSELVES!
Either way, what business is it of the state employees at Central to dictate to the League of Women Voters how to run their debate?
I think the point is whether or not state employees should be setting political conditions on the use of a state facility that is open to the public, and I might add paid for with our tax dollars. Suppose the issue were reversed and the League of Women Voters was including the 3rd party candidates and the state employees were saying that they would not allow those "screwballs" as you put it to be part of the debate, would you still have the same opinion?
Sounds a lot like the Governor's Chief of Staff engaging in politics on state time. State employees are supposed to be prohibited from engaging in such activities, and it appears even worse when they use their official capacity to exercise control over a political process.
Another way of looking at this is if the state (CCSU) allowed the debate to happen at the their own property than they would be complicit in preventing people from debating. We shouldn't forget, these are other people are on the ballot. The League has every right to determine the criteria of their debate but should state facilities participate in a process that is limited political dissent?
My sense is that CCSU could care less and that their just covering their rears in case of a lawsuit...
Are they any different than the universities hosting the presidential debates that are only allowing the 2 main candidates to participate? To follow Mr. Sherwood's logic, all 12 presidential candidates would have to be allowed to participate. How many of you can even name all of the candidates, many who are not even on the ballot in all 50 states? The university is only renting space like any other landlord and their employees have no business involving themselves in the program--especially a political one. When the state police or one of the high schools use the facility for graduation, do they dictate to those organizations what the program content must be? I am looking forward to the attorney general's opinion on this matter.
Since the CCSU rejected the format where will the debate be held?
In answer to the question asked by anonymous as to where the 5th congressionaldebate will be held the following is the statement issued by the League of Women Voters; [A short version as follows:]
The new Britain area League of Women voters formally withdrew from co-sponsoring the candidates forum for the 5th congressional district scheduled for October llth at CCSU.
I hope this answers you question sufficiently.
frank
Post a Comment