Connecticut was one of 21 states targeted by Russian hackers during last year’s presidential campaign.
The Secretary of the State’s “perimeter defense” prevented interference. But recent testimony on Capitol Hill raises serious concerns about what will happen during the 2018 vote.
On Wednesday, October 11 (Unitarian Church, 7 p.m.), Westporters worried about voter fraud — and the future of our election system — can hear directly from the Secretary of the State.
And question her directly.
Denise Merrill will address a meeting of Indivisible Connecticut District 4. (Click here to register for the meeting, and to submit questions in advance.)
She’ll talk about Russia’s attempts to hack into Connecticut’s online voter registration system, the Trump administration’s Koback Commission on voter fraud, and efforts to bring early voting options to Connecticut. Admission is free.
Focus on the electoral college problem instead.
It’s not a problem except for those looking for an excuse as to the real problem.
Blame yourselves then, your own social media/tech companies.
Information is a powerful thing.
This from someone whose head of state is determined by inheritance, whose Senate is appointed rather than elected, and whose head of government can dissolve the government at will when it suits his purposes.
A perfect system! — except for the “Senate”.
As far as the Monarchy, the Americans are far more enamoured. Strange.
Where did you get your source citing 21 States were the target of Russian hacking during the election? A couple of States denied they were targeted.
Forget supposed Russian hacking and redrawing the electoral map, instead let’s focus on the fact that Corporations have way too much influence in D.C. Politicians on both sides of the isle seem to be too easy to “buy.”
How about campaign fraud?
Connecticut’s clean-election laws unravel under Malloy
By Angela Carella Updated 6:13 am, Wednesday, October 7, 2015
You may recall how Connecticut earned the tag “Corrupticut.”
It happened under the governorship of John Rowland, who used his position to obtain gifts and campaign contributions from contractors doing business with the state.
What resulted was a system, known as “pay to play,” in which people with money contribute to political candidates who, once elected, enact laws and policies that benefit people with money.
After Rowland was sent to prison, state lawmakers in 2005 passed some of the nation’s strictest reforms for how candidates may finance their campaigns.
They banned contributions from state contractors.
They set up a program in which candidates can qualify for public money to help fund their campaigns, reducing opportunities for contractors to influence politicians.
But under the current governor, Stamford native Dannel Malloy, who was mayor of the city from 1995 to 2009, the reforms have unraveled.
In 2013, just in time for his 2014 re-election, Malloy and his fellow Democrats in the Legislature passed a law that doubled the amount donors can contribute to state political parties. That was done to accommodate donors with the means to give larger amounts — people with money.
Further, the law removed the limit on how much political parties can spend on candidates who also accept money from the public financing program. That way candidates can get taxpayers’ money and added private money.
More, the law allowed candidates to raise money for political action committees that then can spend it on the candidates. That created a significant end-run around the 2005 reforms.
So last year Malloy was elected to a second term using $6.5 million in taxpayers’ money obtained from the public financing program, and a good portion of the $5.1 million his campaign raised and put into a federal account maintained by the state Democratic Party.
Contractors who do business with the state are allowed to contribute to a state party’s federal account, which is governed by federal regulations that are less strict than Connecticut’s.
So, despite the reforms, Malloy may have been re-elected with the help of contributions from state contractors, the very thing that earned the state its nickname.
Now the matter is slated for court on Oct. 27, the Hartford Courant is reporting.
It’s because a watchdog agency, the State Elections Enforcement Commission, is investigating whether the Democratic State Central Committee illegally spent some of the money in the federal account to help Malloy get re-elected.
Money in the federal account is supposed to be used for get-out-the-vote activities on behalf of candidates for national offices like the U.S. Senate and U.S. House of Representatives.
But last year, during Malloy’s re-election bid, the state Democratic Party used money from that account to send out mass mailings showing a photo of Malloy and touting his accomplishments.
State Democrats and their Stamford attorney, David Golub, say that was OK because the mailings stated, in small print, when polls were open. Because voters could also cast ballots for national candidates at the same polls, the mailings fell under federal get-out-the-vote activity, and could be paid for from the federal account, Golub argued.
The Democrats have said they keep track of which money in the federal account comes from contractors, and don’t spend that on state candidates, but the SEEC said there is no way to verify that.
In May, the SEEC subpoenaed documents that include emails among Malloy and his top campaign organizers. But the state Democratic Party refused to turn them over. So the SEEC filed a lawsuit against the party. It’s a hearing in that suit that is scheduled for state Superior Court in Hartford in three weeks.
And then there’s the suit that Golub and the Democrats filed against the SEEC.
Golub says the SEEC has no authority to investigate the state Democratic Party or a candidate for state office who benefits from the federal account because the account is governed by federal, not state, law.
The SEEC says it must investigate possible violations of state election laws, and that all get-out-the-vote activities cannot be considered federal only.
That lawsuit is scheduled for a Nov. 17 court hearing.
So efforts to get out from under the “Corrupticut” label with clean-election laws have come down to the fine print. We’ll see what happens in court.