Overregulation of Political Speech in Connecticut

Connecticut is pursuing a campaign finance complaint against Republican State Senator Joe Markley and Republican State Representative Rob Sampson for mentioning the Democratic governor in two mailings criticizing the governor's destructive policies:

I’m learning that when government pays, political speech ceases to be free.  

Along with my friend and colleague, Connecticut state representative Rob Sampson, I’ve been charged with a violation of campaign-spending statutes by our state elections-enforcement authority. My misdeed was a single mention of Governor Dannel Malloy in each of two mailings we sent during the last state election.  

In one flyer, we used the phrase “Malloy’s Bad Policies”; in the other, “Malloy’s Tax Hike.” To my mind, “Malloy’s Tax Hike” is a designation like “Halley’s Comet,” the name by which a thing is known. But the state alleges that those references constituted a contribution to the campaign of Malloy’s Republican opponent, which would require disclosure and reimbursement — despite the fact that we neither mentioned said opponent nor urged the defeat of Malloy. 

Representative Sampson used exactly the same words in his 2012 campaign mailings, and doubtless will utter them again in his race this fall, as will I. According to elections enforcement, we will be within our legal rights to do so: We can state our opinion of the governor, but only so long as he’s not also on the ballot.

Yet again, campaign finance regulations are being used by regulators to stifle the political speech of those who would criticize government officeholders and their policies.  Sen. Markley suspects that his acceptance of public financing, an unfortunate reality for Republicans running in a solidly blue state, has contributed to the state's persecution of him:

Republicans face state-financed opposition all the time, with public employees pushing their liberal agenda to elected officials and to the citizens generally. But Democrats aren’t accustomed to having state money used against them, and it seems that they don’t like it.  

That, I think, is what this charge is all about: The ruling party wants to prevent conservative candidates from using public financing to speak out against progressive policies and liberal officeholders. For the establishment here, that’s just unacceptable.

Connecticut knows that "[s]uch a capricious restriction on explicitly political speech" is "unlikely to hold up in court" and has offered Sen. Markley and Rep. Sampson a settlement.  Instead of accepting it, they are bravely fighting the state regulators and standing up for the right of all citizens in Connecticut to speak freely, including criticizing government officials, without fear of government investigation and persecution.

Connecticut & Mandatory Voter Registration - A Recipe for a Slow Motion Train Wreck

Mandatory voter registration is the most recent nonsensical idea sprouting up on the left. The basic premise is simple, at least according to their theory. However the actual implementation and execution of the process is another matter altogether especially when the DMV is involved.

The basic idea is that whenever a person goes into the DMV to procure a license or an ID, they will be mandatorily registered to vote that is unless they want to opt out. A few states that have decided to give this a try but it is unlikely to provide any benefit at the polls if our experience is similar to that of other countries that have forced citizens to register. For example, Canada attempted the same process back in the 90s only to see voter turnout decline. So what is the driving force? Votes.

Connecticut is one of the states that has recently adopted the process. However, their method could best be described as underhanded. Denise Merrill, Connecticut Secretary of State, and Michael Bzdyra, Connecticut DMV Commissioner, recently took it upon themselves to bypass the legislature and consequently the will of the people.

The "memorandum of agreement," signed Monday by DMV Commissioner Michael Bzdyra and Deputy Secretary of the State James Spallone, says the new system, under which the DMV customer would be registered to vote unless he or she specifically declines by choosing to opt out, would begin operating by August 2018.

Under the current program, the DMV customer is registered to vote only if he or she actively chooses that option.

On Tuesday, Bzdyra and the state's top elections official, Secretary of the State Denise Merrill, jointly announced the agreement that accomplishes what Merrill proposed in a bill that did not win approval during the recently concluded regular 2016 General Assembly session.

Connecticut’s DMV has had numerous issues with voter registration in the past. It seems beyond reason or at the very minimum counterintuitive that a bill unable to make it through the state legislature is put in place anyway without the blessing of its citizens. This is simply deceitful and appalling. It is an affront to the citizens of the great state of Connecticut. The DMV’s track record clearly does not justify adding more responsibility to the agency. This fact coupled with method in which the system is being adopted show that the push is not about the people. It’s about a perceived benefit during elections. Something is not right with the whole situation and whenever that is the case, all you need to do is follow the money. Check out line 12.