URGENT - Please submit your comments on proposed changes by SEPTEMBER 5

Please Follow us on Gab, Minds, Telegram, Rumble, Gettr, Truth Social, Twitter

The State Elections Enforcement Commission (SEEC) is holding a public comment session on proposed changes to Connecticut General Statutes relating to hearings on complaints involving elections and campaign contributions. 

The move begs the question -- is SEEC trying to get ahead of additional “smurfing” campaign charges? 

Now is probably a good time to re-read the State Statutes Chapter 155 - Elections: Campaign Financing, and note the changes, including for Sec. 9-601a.

Also remember that per the Connecticut Secretary of the State website:

“The supreme executive power of the state is vested by the Constitution in the Governor. The Governor has the power to administer oaths, sign writs, issue processes, and to see that the laws of the state are faithfully executed.

“The Governor nominates to the General Assembly….; and appoints the members of several boards and commissions, at times with the consent of either House of the General Assembly, and appoints, with the advice and consent of either House of the General Assembly, the Commissioner of the Department of Administrative Services, the Commissioner of the Department of Agriculture, the Commissioner of the Department of Banking, the Commissioner of the Department of Children and Families, the Commissioner of the Department of Consumer Protection, the Commissioner of the Department of Correction, the Commissioner of the Department of Developmental Services……”   

Now let's take a look at the proposed changes, noting that the wording in brackets [ ] is to be deleted, and wording underlined to be added.

The wording "reason to believe" is to be deleted and replaced with "probable cause."

How many times does Bridgeport ballot stuffing make national headlines? 

Of course many people had “reason to believe” there was fraud in Bridgeport elections, but not until the videos actually surfaced did SEEC have "probable cause" to investigate. 

Also remember that the Bridgeport ballot stuffing case has been going on for over a year, and another proposed change would add language to resolve or dismiss a complaint within one year, “Otherwise, if the complaint is not resolved within one year, the matter shall be dismissed by the Commission.”

So if a ballot stuffing case drags on longer than a year, this seems to imply it would just go away? How convenient!

And don't forget about “smurfing” in campaign contributions, in particular with Act Blue, which has been in the “news” and highlighted in testimony submitted to CGA.  Yet, the proposed language of “resolution within one year" is nothing short of disturbing!  

How does one express consent if not signed? Just a wink and a nod?

Another proposed change would allow the “Executive Director and General Counsel or her designee" to assign a matter for investigation.  "She" could designate anyone? What if a political partisan was "designated" to assign matters for investigation?

So much for transparency!

It's worth adding that the position of SEEC Executive Director and General Counsel still needs to be filled, so who will be making such decisions in the meantime?

Please read the full proposal and consider the impact of these changes.

Public comments may be submitted in writing through the CT eRegulations Portal on the Secretary of the State's website or via email to: [email protected].

Comments will be accepted until September 5, 2025.

You can stream the meeting on Youtube and Facebook (note links don't go live until closer to the start of the meeting).

‘NO AD’ subscription for CDM!  Sign up here and support real investigative journalism and help save the republic!‘