January 28, 2010 -The 40 year plan.com

Bill Curry on ‘The Power of Ideas’

By Ken Krayeske • 8:45 AM EST

A windmill in the sun,the Netherlands, July 2007. I found this while bicycling along the levees north of Amsterdam.

The route to transformational politics lies in believing in the power of ideas, Bill Curry, lawyer and politico, told the Connecticut Green Party’s monthly statewide meeting at the Portland Senior Center Tuesday, January 26, 2010.

“We have to believe that the power of ideas are stronger than the money,” Curry said. “You have to believe that your ideas will organize people.”

The United States was the most powerful force in the world before it had money, armies or even a foreign policy. The American revolution, fueled by ideas of egalitarianism, equality and liberty, toppled monarchies across Europe. This is the power of ideas that we need to harness now, Curry said.

With a hint of resignation about the current political configuration in America, Curry’s visit to the Green Party represents a milestone. For months, even years, Curry has said that the two major political parties in America are the Greens and the Libertarians, as their ideas align most with the majority of the American peoples.

However, the collusion between the Democrats, Republicans and corporations prevents those ideas from gaining traction in the political information war of the early 21st century.

Curry isn’t the first statewide political figure from the two major parties to meet with the Greens. Republican state representative Diana Urban met with the Greens in the Portland Library when she was considering running an anti-war candidacy for the U.S. Senate should Lamont have lost to Lieberman in the primaries.

While Urban ended up switching parties to become a Democrat, and never married with the Greens, the exigencies that prompted the visit from Curry remain. As Curry put it, the Democrats and Republicans may not get along, but they have slowly become infused in the corporate state that is the American government.

Curry told the crowd of 18 or so people, including Green Party faithful, new Green Party members, and John Mertens of the Connecticut for Lieberman party, who was stumping to become the Green Party nominee for U.S. Senate, that the time is ripe for the ideas of a third party to take center stage in the American political scene.

“The kind of change you are I are talking about requires real political parties,” Curry said. “Real political parties build constituencies behind ideas.”

The Democratic Party, he said, is a mere shell, with town committee meetings resembling Madame Tussaud’s wax museum more than active debate.

While he hoped that the Green Party could fill that role, he warned that the Green Party was not there yet. Policies drive progress and organization, he said.

The Green Party, Curry said, has to work out internally policy ideas, and the actual blueprint for what this transformational politics will look like. “People will buy it, they just don’t know it is available,” he said.

He outlined the demise of national Democratic Party policy from its height as the leader of the civil rights movement, to it being punch drunk and purchased by corporate dollars now.

As a former state senator, progressive organizer, state comptroller and presidential advisor, as well as a two-time gubernatorial candidate, Curry’s thoughts deserve reflection.

For almost 30 years, Ralph Nader did the heavy lifting of intellectual policy exploration for the progressive community in America, Curry said. Nader passed more laws than virtually anyone in American history.

Yet as Nader’s legacy was being dismantled by corporate Democrats in the legislative and the executive branches, Nader could not gain an audience these so-called progressive leaders.

Meanwhile, the Republican Party had and has the Heritage Foundation, Americans for Tax Reform and other think tanks creating the policies that drive their conservative engine.

Curry was on the Democratic Party policy team in 2004. One of the fights that he picked in trying to formulate policy platforms for the Kerry campaign was generated by union constituencies. But it said that every American had a right to drive the car of their choice. Quite the global warming initiative.

The ascendancy of Obama presented the best shot for progressive policy enactment in his lifetime, Curry said. And in a deadly serious tone, he inferred a doomsday for the American republic.

“If this thing goes under, I’m not sure what happens next,” Curry said. “This thing is at the end.”

Curry’s disillusionment with Obama is shared by many, and Curry considers Obama to be another Clinton. While they are both transformational figures, and 2008 was a transformational election, both fell far short of creating transformation.

The point is best made in examining Obama’s first 100 days. In Roosevelt’s historic first 100 days, he didn’t spend a dime, but changed all the rules. In Obama’s first 100 days, he spent $1 trillion, but didn’t change any rules.

“We have to be writing fewer checks and changing more rules,” Curry said. For example, rather than discussing cap and trade, (or cap and steal as many of the Greens there called it), what about new conservation laws, or what about taxing coal fired power plants or mountaintop removal of coal.

Nor does he think the concept of liberalism that generates another tax hike to deal with the victims of capitalism is sustainable. “It is noble,” Curry said, “but as Ronald Reagan said, you can’t keep doing it forever.”

The Green Party may be in the best position to figure out how to address the core issues facing America. Curry suggested that if the ideas are right, the Greens won’t be looking at merely a state representative seat, but at the Presidency itself.

Curry challenged the Greens to envision what transformational politics would look like. “Most of our differences are tactical,” Curry said, “and I’m not sure how much is even left there.”

The conveyance of new ideas has to be clear and concise, and easy to comprehend. Furthermore, in the mold of Gandhi and Mandela, personality conflicts should take a back seat to these policy drivers. Don’t criticize the person, show respect, Curry suggested, but go hard on the issues.

Seeing Curry at a Green Party meeting should signal to progressives in Connecticut and elsewhere that we need to have the political courage to begin building bridges with others

GREEN PARTY OF CONNECTICUT  News Release- January 6, 2010 - for immediate release     CONTACT; Tim McKee, Spokesperson and National Committee member, cell (860) 860-778-1304, Email:  thebiggreenpicture@gmail.com 

CT GREENS STILL PUSH NADER AFTER DODD QUITS 

Hartford, CT-Green Party of Connecticut officials announced today that they are still pushing for Ralph Nader to enter the U.S. Senate race, despite the announcement of Senator Dodd’s retirement.  Tim McKee, a Green Party spokesperson said “Thousands of people are asking Nader to run and are willing to commit to money and volunteer time if Nader seeks the Green Party nomination. On social networking sites, such Facebook and MySpace, over 2 thousand people are asking Nader to run for the Senate in just a few weeks.  This is still a national race with people from all across the country saying they want to get involved”    Steve Fournier, State Co-Chair said “With Dodd out, nothing really changes. Where does a Richard Blumenthal stand of Green Party issues such Single Payer Health Care? Ending the Wars? Removing the influence of big money in politics? Only Nader and the Greens are answering those questions, not the Democrat machine.”

Mike DeRosa, State Co-Chair said “Blumenthal is still in Federal Court trying to defend the state’s unconstitutional Campaign Finance Reform and would not debate the Republican and Green Party candidates for Attorney General in the last election. His stances on election reform and other issues are very weak.”  

 McKee added “This election was never about Dodd and his corruption or the national machine of the Democrats funding Blumenthal now. Drafting Nader is a grass roots effort by thousands of people who are sick of slick party bosses. We are stepping up our efforts to get Nader to run, raise 3-5 million dollars and win the race. Local meetings for the Nader campaign will be announced next week.” www.ct greens.org

RALPH NADER FOR US SENATE CONNECTICUT on Facebook

#END OF RELEASE#

Dear editor,

The opinion piece “Playing Favorites with Election Funds” favoring scrapping all together the state’s flawed campaign finance election after the Green Party’s successful lawsuit  in Federal Court  was both misleading and inaccurate. It was misleading if the public thought The Center for Competitive Politics was just a non partisan “think tank”. The author, Sean Parnell, should have been listed as a former Republican campaign operative, as is many of its board members.

 Parnell tries to imply smaller parties do not deserve public financing and  incorrectly stated “In 2008, the number of minor party candidates dropped to a 10-year low, with just five running”.  In fact in 2008, the Green Party of Connecticut did run a historic first time five candidates for all five Congressional races, and many local races, like for Registrar of Voters and Board of Education, and we had eight races for the state house seats Adding the other candidates for the Working Families Party, which elected three people in for  various offices in 2008 and many elected  local town parties, despite  Parnell’s wrongful and  back handed implications, the Greens and  the third party movement is quite alive and deserves  fair treatment, which is what the Federal Judges ordered in our lawsuit, fair and equal treatment under the law.

 In 2006, we also ran the a full slate of state wide Constitutional offices, for Governor, Lt. Governor, Attorney General, Secretary of the State,  Auditor and State Treasurer  but the vary people who defend the unconstitutional law now, refused to even debate the Greens.

Sadly, Parnell opinion piece twists the Rowland scandal as “simple bribery” having nothing to do with problems of big money, and influence in elections.  They just do not get it.The Greens Party rejects corporate, big PAC money and special interest money that have bought and paid for our local, Congressional and national elections.  Public financing of elections, matching small voters donations, is the only solution in our view.Tim McKeeGreen Party of Connecticut spokesperson 

www.courant.com/news/opinion/editorials/hc-parnell-election-financing.artsep04,0,3856588.storyCourant.comYOUR VIEW: SEAN PARNELLPlaying Favorites With Election FundsSeptember 4, 2009 

The Citizens Election Program, Connecticut’s system of taxpayer-funded political campaigns, is near death. A federal judge ruled last week that the program unconstitutionally discriminated against third-party and independent candidates, although he agreed to keep the program on life support while the state appeals.

Connecticut would be better off allowing the program to die and returning to a true system of public financing — voluntary contributions from citizens to candidates whom they support.

The Connecticut Green and Libertarian parties sued the state after a campaign finance law passed in 2005 created significant hurdles for minor parties to receive funding on par with major party candidates. In 2008, the number of minor party candidates dropped to a 10-year low, with just five running.

To qualify under the system, candidates must raise a minimum of $250,000 for governor, $75,000 for other state offices, $15,000 for state senator and $5,000 for state representative in contributions of $5 to $100 from state residents. Minor party and independent candidates, though, must also show “prior success” at the polls or gather signatures to qualify for even a reduced government handout. The state gives major party qualifying candidates a check for $3 million for gubernatorial candidates, $750,000 for other statewide offices, $85,000 for state Senate candidates and $25,000 for House candidates to use for their campaigns. Minor party candidates get only a fraction of these amounts if they meet the same standards as major party candidates.

This racket exposes a critical flaw: Whenever the government sets about regulating or subsidizing campaigns, control of the system is invariably in the hands of incumbent, major party politicians. Incumbents can freeze out challengers to whom they’d rather not hand out government money.

Gov. M. Jodi Rell called Connecticut’s system a “model in the nation,” and warned that repealing it would return Connecticut to the days of “unfettered special interests controlling our electoral process,” a reference to the corruption of her predecessor, Gov. John Rowland, who was convicted of corruption charges after accepting gifts and bribes from state contractors.

But Rowland’s case was not about campaign finance — it was simple bribery. Corporations and individuals bribed Rowland with personal benefits, most notably improvements to his home, and Rowland later was paid for lobbying work that skirted Connecticut’s revolving door limitations. The solution to this political self-dealing isn’t taxpayer-funded campaigns, it’s transparency in government, a vigilant press and citizens unwilling to look the other way.

Taxpayer-funded campaigns certainly haven’t ended corruption. For example, state Sen. Joseph Crisco, the deputy leader of the Democratic caucus, flagrantly violated the state’s campaign finance law in a failed attempt to receive $85,000 in taxpayer money for his last campaign.

Instead of referring this case to the state’s attorney, the State Elections Enforcement Commission slapped Crisco’s wrist with a $4,000 fine. Levying a fine instead of referring the matter for possible prosecution allowed the commission to avoid the potential wrath of lawmakers who control its purse strings.

Proponents of taxpayer-funded campaigns claim that the program is a success by citing the number of major party candidates who accept the subsidy. But is it really surprising that candidates take free money, especially incumbents who enjoy free media access and other advantages over challengers on a supposedly equal financial footing?

Further, despite the claims of supporters, there is no evidence that having the government pay for political campaigns reduces state spending, curbs corruption or provides any other measurable benefit.

Courts are increasingly recognizing a wide variety of constitutional problems with taxpayer-financed political campaigns. Rather than try to prop up Connecticut’s failed system, the state would do better to scrap the program and allow candidates to raise funds from people who support them instead of expecting taxpayers to foot the bill for their bumper stickers and attack ads.

•Sean Parnell is president of the Center for Competitive Politics in Alexandria, Va., which opposes public financing of elections.

courant.com/news/opinion/editorials/hc-digbrflets0903.art0sep03,0,1129354.story

Courant.com

YOUR LETTERS

Good Riddance To Unfair Election Law

September 3, 2009

I appreciated the front-page article “State Law Is Revoked” [Aug. 29].

U.S. District Judge Stefan R. Underhill should be commended for his clear insight in recognizing the unconstitutional nature of the 2005 Citizens Election Program, which provided unfair financial aid, mostly in favor of candidates of the two major parties.

Many of us wonder about the judgment of the legislators who failed to understand the unconstitutional nature of the legislation they were enacting.

Thanks to the Green Party for appealing this unfair law.

Bernard Wojan, Meriden

I have watched both The Courant’s [editorial, Aug. 29, “Judge Kills Campaign Law”] and various public officials’ response to Judge Stefan R. Underhill’s decision to strike down key parts of Connecticut’s Citizens Election Program as unconstitutional.

Instead of trying to prevent, as The Courant put it, the “often-baleful influence of special-interest money” on politicians, they should have been figuring out how to keep the system accessible to the average citizen who might still have a measure of morality.

Outside of being independently wealthy, it is nearly impossible for you or me to run for public office, especially as campaign budgets become more and more bloated. Meaningful campaign reform would impose spending caps for races commensurate with the level of the office. Of course, this would involve some degree of self-control by current legislators in setting spending caps that would be reasonable for the average man.

The Citizens Election Program does nothing to address this. The net outcome of the law allows for the illusion of having moral, elected officials. Despite all the backslapping and self-aggrandizing, they didn’t get it right last time.

When more moral people are able to run, you don’t need to prevent immoral behavior. Besides, you can’t legislate morality.

Nicholas Gilbert, Avon

Copyright © 2009, The Hartford Courant

var s_account = “tribglobal”; s.pageName=”Good Riddance To Unfair Election Law - Hartford Courant / news / opinion / editorials - Print - Option.”; s.prop38=”Print - Option”; s.eVar21=”Print - Option”; s.server=”courant.com”; s.channel=”Hartford Courant:news:opinion”; s.prop3=”"; s.prop28=”"; s.prop32=”"; s.prop36=”"; s.prop37=”"; /* E-commerce Variables */ s.events=”"; s.eVar20=”Hartford Courant”; s.hier1=”Hartford Courant:news:opinion:editorials”; s.hier2=”news:opinion:editorials”; s.hier4=”news:opinion:editorials”; s.prop44=”hc-digbrflets0903.art0sep03″; //AD Block Detection //Description: Check if any IMG, IFRAME, or SCRIPT elements are ad blocked (set to not display). // Also check for the occurance of any Norton installed code to block popups or ads ( ie.)SymError ). // Only need to find 1 occurrance of any of the above to confirm ad blocking is used. // No need to continue searching through other portions of the page. var imgArray = document.images; var iframeArray = document.getElementsByTagName(”iframe”); var scriptArray = document.getElementsByTagName(”script”); var isAdBlocked = 0; if(window.SymError || window.SymWinOpen || window.SymRealWinOpen) { isAdBlocked=1; } if (!isAdBlocked) { for (var i=0; i DM_addEncToLoc(”Site”, (s.server)); DM_addEncToLoc(”channel”, (s.channel)); DM_addEncToLoc(”keyword”, (s.prop3)); DM_cat(s.hier1); DM_tag();

www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/editorial/bal-ed.campaign02sep02,0,4373971.story

baltimoresun.com

Lesson from ‘Corrupticut’

Our view: Ruling against campaign finance reform should not deter Maryland

September 2, 2009

Efforts to reduce the influence of big-money special interests in state elections suffered a setback late last week with the decision of a federal judge to throw out Connecticut’s landmark campaign finance law on the grounds it put third-party candidates at a disadvantage.

The ruling has significant implications for Maryland, where legislators have been seriously considering a similar approach to publicly financed state-level political campaigns for the past five years. The proposal has won support in the House of Delegates and has gotten as far as the floor of the Maryland Senate - until a procedural move late in this year’s legislative session forced it back into committee.

The concept is fairly simple: People running for House or Senate seats, incumbents and newcomers alike, would have the option of public financing. To qualify, they’d have to first raise a minimum amount of money through small donations from a minimum number of people living in their districts.

What U.S. District Judge Stefan R. Underhill found most troubling, however, was a provision in the Connecticut law that set tougher fundraising standards for candidates from minor political parties, such as the Green Party, than for Republicans and Democrats.

The ruling is a bit of a puzzle to campaign finance reform advocates since publicly financing clearly makes it easier for nontraditional candidates to win office. The good news is this approach to third party candidates is unique to Connecticut and is not the standard used in Maine and Arizona, the two other states that have adopted public financing.

The bottom line is that nothing in Judge Underhill’s opinion should deter the Maryland General Assembly from moving forward with reforms next year. Under the Maryland proposal, a candidate of any party must receive nearly 400 small donations from individuals living in his or her district to qualify for public money - that’s enough of a deterrent to sort out the odd kook or gadfly.

The bigger challenge is funding the program. Lawmakers will likely be reluctant to tap taxpayer dollars of most any variety at a time when the state budget faces a potential $1 billion-plus shortfall.

But the opportunity to reduce the influence of special-interest money in the election process may be the best bargain taxpayers will ever see. How many wasteful programs, bloated contracts or other costly excesses are tied to major campaign donors?

What Maryland doesn’t need is a major political scandal to force lawmakers to embrace reform. Yet the ongoing federal investigation into Sen. Ulysses Currie, chairman of the Senate Budget & Taxation Committee, and his close ties to a Prince George’s County supermarket chain, could result in just that.

The compromise presented last spring - a limited pilot program for the 2014 election - would provide a reasonable start. Even Senate President Thomas V. Mike Miller - the patron saint of Maryland campaign fundraising - endorsed the proposal, leaving other lawmakers little excuse not to. Legislators need to approve the measure early next year or risk the wrath of disillusioned Maryland voters who tire of money-driven politics-as-usual.

Copyright © 2009, The Baltimore Sun

Judge Rules Connecticut Campaign Finance Law Unconstitutional

Law Unfairly Discriminated Against Minor Party Candidates

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
August 28, 2009

CONTACT:
Rachel Myers, ACLU national, (212) 549-2689 or 2666; media@aclu.org
Patrick Doyle, ACLU of Connecticut, (860) 523-9146 x213; pdoyle@acluct.org

BRIDGEPORT, CT - A federal judge today struck down unconstitutional portions of Connecticut’s campaign finance law because they unfairly discriminated against third party candidates. The American Civil Liberties Union and the ACLU of Connecticut filed a lawsuit challenging the law on behalf of the Green and Libertarian Parties of Connecticut and several individuals in July 2006.

“We are all for laws that increase the ability of more people to participate in the democratic process, but Connecticut’s law did the opposite by creating a different set of rules for unaffiliated and minor party candidates that made participating even more difficult,” said Andrew Schneider, Executive Director of the ACLU of Connecticut. “All we’re asking is for minor parties to have a seat at the table. Today’s ruling is a victory for free speech and equal protection for all candidates.”

The ACLU’s lawsuit challenged the constitutionality of Connecticut’s 2005 campaign finance law, which established a “Citizens’ Election Program” to provide for public financing of campaigns for state legislative and executive offices beginning in 2008 for some offices and 2010 for other offices. The lawsuit charged that the system created unduly burdensome eligibility requirements that effectively excluded participation by minor party candidates.

“Connecticut’s campaign finance law explicitly discriminates against minor party and independent candidates by providing direct governmental subsidies to major party candidates on terms that deny the same benefits to minor party and petitioning candidates,” said Mark Lopez, a cooperating attorney with the ACLU. “The state might decline to fund candidates altogether, but once it has decided to fund some candidates it must do so on terms that are non-discriminatory.”

The ACLU charged that, instead of leveling the playing field as it was meant to accomplish, the public financing law unfairly increased the opportunities for major party candidates to run for office in previously uncontested and nominally contested elections by arbitrarily providing them with the incentive and resources to run full throttle campaigns, while at the same time making it more difficult for minor party candidates to obtain the same resources.

In today’s ruling, U.S. District Court Judge Stefan R. Underhill of the District of Connecticut found that “the CEP imposes an unconstitutional, discriminatory burden on minor party candidates’ First Amendment-protected right to political opportunity by enhancing participating major party candidates’ relative strength beyond their past ability to raise contributions and campaign, without imposing any countervailing disadvantage to participating in the public funding scheme.”

“We’re very pleased the court ruled that real campaign finance reform requires a level playing field,” said Michael DeRosa, Co-Chair of the Green Party of Connecticut.

Attorneys on the case are Lopez of the New York law firm Lewis, Clifton & Nikolaidis, P.C., Ben Sahl of the national ACLU and David McGuire of the ACLU of Connecticut. The lawsuit was filed against Jeffrey Garfield, Executive Director and General Counsel of the Connecticut Elections Enforcement Commission, and Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal, on behalf of DeRosa, the Green Party of Connecticut, the Libertarian Party of Connecticut, Elizabeth Gallo and Joanne Philips.

Click here to read the decision. (http://www.acluct.org/downloads/GreenPartyDecisionAug27.pdf)

A decision is long overdue in the federal court case brought on behalf of the Connecticut Green Party challenging Connecticut’s new campaign finance law.  Attorneys from the American Civil Liberties Union concluded argument in March in a two-day hearing.  Arguing on behalf of the Green Party and other plaintiffs that the law generously funds Democrat and Republican candidates but unconstitutionally denies money to petitioning candidates and minor party candidates, attorneys Mark Lopez and Mark Ladov summarized their evidence on the first day of the hearing and made their final arguments on the second day.

The law allows state grants to major-party candidates who raise specified amounts in small contributions. Minor-party candidates and petitioning candidates have to collect thousands of signatures in addition to meeting the fund-raising thresholds, which range from $5,000 for House candidates to $250,000 for gubernatorial candidates. In Connecticut, only Republicans and Democrats presently meet the criteria for a major party, and the plaintiffs claim that the new law illegally increases the two parties’ advantage.

“Under this law, the Green Party stands to be outspent ten and twenty times over in any district in which it fields a candidate,” complains Greens’ state co-chair Steve Fournier. “This will make it more and more difficult to recruit candidates and almost impossible to raise money. We’re now forced to consider abandoning state electoral politics altogether.”

Green Party officials are more optimistic about their prospects in the lawsuit than their chance of ever getting a dime under the new law. Mike DeRosa, state co-chair and a key witness for the plaintiffs, has no hesitation in predicting a favorable ruling. “It’s the no-democrat-or-republican-left-behind act, and it’s clearly unconstitutional.”

Stefan Underhill, the federal judge assigned to the case, “seems poised to put politics aside,” observed Fournier, remarking on the judge’s occasional, good-natured chiding of defense counsel (from the state Attorney General’s Office and the Brennan Center, a New York think-tank).

Said Fournier, an attorney, “Judge Underhill seems to understand and sympathize with our grievances.”

A decision was expected in May.