"If I am elected to the state Senate, I will lead the fight to repeal public financing of political campaigns," Bobroske said this week.
She said that public financing "will use our tax dollars to pay for the campaigns of politicians we do not support and it will drain scarce state resources from programs and projects that benefit people throughout Connecticut."
Rell, who is also a Republican, pushed through campaign finance legislation last year that she said made Connecticut "the model for the nation" on the issue. (Collins)
Maybe it's not a smart strategy to so forcefully oppose a plan championed by a popular incumbent governor from your own party... especially if you're hoping she'll come campaign for you.
Source
Collins, Steve. "Bobroske hits public campaign financing." Bristol Press 6 September, 2006.
11 comments:
Maybe she's right.
Wouldn't strict "on the internet w/in 48 hours" reporting with no limits make more sense?
Is it right that one can say pretty much anything including hate speech (ie: "neo-con" and we all know what that really means don't we?), or donate millions to a 517 (read: `swiftboats') but when it comes to writing a friend who's running for state rep a check we're limited to 250?
Am I the only one who finds that an infringement of my 1st Ammendment rights?
I suppose it depends on whether you see giving money as speech--which I believe it stretching a point.
>>Genghis Conn said...
I suppose it depends on whether you see giving money as speech
I see it as promoting what one believes and should be I think dealt with in a similar fashion as donations to a church.
No limits.
Tax deductable
The only difference should be; strict and very public reporting.
It happens now via 517's, under the table direct to the candidate contributions; ad books, etc. etc.
Making the job of tracking the money tougher.
When a candidate is bought and paid for by one special interest group or another (which, depending on by who isn't always reason to vote against the candidate) the public at large should know that.
Agree with her or not, at least Bobroske is coming forward with concrete policy initiatives intended to save money. I can't imagine that the people in Bristol want to see their hard earned tax dollars going to politicians. We can do better than Colopietro can't we????
Genghis,
The Supreme Court sees giving money as a free speech issue, so I guess it's not streching the point as much as one might think.
Sure, it is easy for someone to make the statements this woman has made when you have lots of rich friends who will finance you. Looking at her reports, you would think she is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Barnes'.
Bottom line is that politics and choosing representation has become more and more the playground of the wealthy, leaving the vast majority of people who cannot afford ANY disposable income on the outside looking in.
Public Financing levels the playing field for all candidates. And if you want to look at saving taxpayer dollars, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to look at some pretty bad legislation passed (Nancy Johnson and the Big Pharma and Medicare D)or good legislation killed (Republicans, CBIA, Contracting Reform) and realize that in the end, taxpayers win as the big boondoggles go away.
Who knows, people may actually come out and vote now.
Anon. 850 - And you support Ned "$300 million man" Lamont right?
Anon 10:42 -
No I don't support Ned Lamont. I'm an R who is most likely voting for Joe unless my party can put up someone who doesn't make me feel slimy just voting for him/her.
She is right! I am her grandson and that is right to do.
Broboske's mailing that represented her opponent as a friend of drug dealers was the lowest piece of garbage to enter our home during this campaign. I hate to think we taxpayers helped to pay for it, but the alternative is to let people of money run roughshod over our political system.
Broboske's mailing that represented her opponent as a friend of drug dealers was the lowest piece of garbage to enter our home during this campaign. I hate to think we taxpayers helped to pay for it, but the alternative is to let people of money run roughshod over our political system.
Post a Comment