by Remy Chevalier
Green Market Exposition

Bridgeport stands on the threshold of a new industrial revolution, where the technologies are so sensitive, they can only come from the declassification of defense programs and military technology transfer offices.

We cannot embark on this new frontier without the assurance that the manufacturing methods will meet the strictest green standards. Hopefully we will have learned our lessons from the industrial revolution.

Bridgeport is a community like none other; once referred to as the arsenal of a nation. In its heyday, Bridgeport was the capital of small tool manufacturing–military contractors congregated to this community. The Bridgeport Public Library became a Mecca for inventors and engineers, with one of the best science and technology departments in New England.

Then one day, nobody really knows for sure, the room was closed. Progressively, the military contractors still doing business in the region, disconnected themselves from the city. Commercial enterprise died in Bridgeport.

A complete turn around is about to take place. Many of the new high end technologies in nano design, battery chemistry, exotic materials, subtle energy fields in medicine, are considered too sensitive to outsource by the US military.

Hundreds of small firms throughout Connecticut now have the potential to expand, creating a new generation of consumer products addressing our pressing planetary needs. The Green Market Exposition would like to address these opportunities.

We have picked the Frisbee as our emblem because it has come to represent Bridgeport’s ingenuity, its quirkiness, its leadership in flight, nuclear and precision instruments.

Come 2010 a flood of electric vehicles will begin to replace gasoline engines to curtail the damaging effects of greenhouse gases. The mechanical is making way for the electronic. The chemical for the electric.

At the heart of it all are the legends of PT Barnum and Sikorsky. Over 2500 defense contractors in Connecticut receive in excess of $50 billion dollars a year in military contracts. There is a potential for these sciences to pour into the community, sparking green civilian industries. It needs to be tapped into, like a maple.

What secrets does Bridgeport hold which could lead to the creation of tens of thousands of green jobs in energy, medicine, construction, agriculture? A reunification has to take place between the military and the private sector. The era of isolation is over. We must once again produce the kinds of goods at home that other nations will want to import.

The balance of trade can be restored, right here in Bridgeport, by establishing incubator zones with direct access to the 2500 defense contractors doing business in the state of Connecticut which have forgotten that they are part of a geography.

By generating the kind of awe and inspiration at the things we make and the things we do, Bridgeport can once again become the hub of an industrial renaissance, one that is mindful of its surroundings, with concerns for its citizens, and an eagerness to excel.

It started with the Frisbee, its magic in flight, what we are learning about the secrets of energy in the universe. A large community of researchers, scientists, thinkers, are eagerly awaiting the opportunity to apply what they have learned, to re-invent our relationship with this planet.

Join us October 21st at the Barnum Museum.

You can reach Remy Chevalier at
203-227-2065
remyc@prodigy.net
www.remyc.com

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