One of the endorsement questions asked whether candidates supported "non-citizen voting in their local elections"... another asked if they supported expanding Husky insurance to ALL illegals...

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

The Connecticut Working Families Party (CT WFP) has endorsed a total of 84 candidates for the 2024 election, including Chris Murphy for US Senate and Jahana Hayes and John Larson for US Congress, along with 62 candidates for state house, 18 candidates for state senate and 1 candidate for Hartford Registrar.

The full endorsement list is below.

State candidates were asked to complete a 24-page questionnaire in order to obtain the endorsement. It's unclear if the federal level candidates had to complete the same form.

The CT WFP endorsed candidates for state office are expected to "carry a fierce determination" for
"transformative change that will make a difference in people’s lives and build the multiracial democracy
that lives up to the promise of America."

The survey started off by asking candidates about their socioeconomic class, gender (which includes 10 choices), race, union status and military connections.

Then it gets into the issues CT WFP cares about, including whether candidates support the following:

• Raising income and capital gains taxes on the top 3% of earners.
• Forcing large low-wage employers to reimburse the state for poverty wage jobs.
• Closing the Carried Interest loophole in concert with neighboring states.
• Protecting municipal aid spending and avoid shifting costs such as pension funding to towns and cities.
• Expanding the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) to provide relief to low income households.
• Creating a 10% digital advertising tax on giant tech corporations with income over $10 billion.
• Restoring the estate tax to pre-Great Recession levels (reducing the estate tax exemption to $2 million, eliminating the payment cap, and increasing rates).

Next up?

Will candidates support legislation to loosen the restrictions on those pesky fiscal guardrails because "state universities, healthcare agencies, and local governments struggle with diminishing state and federal funding"?

Then came a variety of labor-related questions, like whether candidates supported expanding Paid Sick Days legislation to include all business sizes and all job classifications, increasing minimum wages for tipped employees, and passing legislation that provides hourly shift workers more control over their schedules.

Education questions focused on whether candidates supported increasing funding to public schools, opposing charter schools, fighting any attempt to increase funding to existing charter schools, and protecting the transgender agenda inside schools (e.g., biological boys in girls sports and locker rooms, pornographic books in school libraries).

The next category of questions fell under "defending our democracy" and include questions like: will you fight to increase funding for the Citizens’ Election Program? Will you fight to increase funding for registrars to conduct early voting? Will you support reinstating voting rights to low level criminals who committed misdemeanors as well as those with felony convictions who are out on parole?

Perhaps the most eye-popping question about saving democracy is:

Then comes housing-related questions, like whether candidates support affordable housing, “inclusionary zoning” policies, transit oriented development and other policies to "facilitate more housing construction" and at the same time implement policies to protect renters from increases in rent.

And workers rights questions, like do you support giving striking employees access unemployment benefits after two consecutive weeks on strike, strengthening other labor union and collective bargaining policies and rights, and protecting and expanding access to defined benefit pension plans to all workers.

No progressive questionnaire would be complete without a section on racial justice.

Interestingly, the first four questions covered illegal immigrants.... would candidates support:

• expanding the state's Husky insurance program to cover all illegal immigrants;
• reducing criminal sentences to protect offenders here illegally from getting deported;
• providing legal resources to illegals who have "come in contact with the criminal justice system"; and
• opposing any and all cooperation with Immigration & Customs Enforcement in order to stop ICE's alleged "campaign of terror on immigrant communities"?

Candidates are further asked to explain how they would support environmental justice and whether they believe Black Lives Matter. They are asked about gun safety legislation, "affordable" healthcare (think "public option"), abortions, and ironically about keeping Connecticut a "safe place" to kill babies in the womb. And of course they asked about whether candidates would agree to end all fossil fuel use, including coal, oil, and natural gas.

A handful of closing questions covered supporting minority parties, rejecting certain endorsements (e.g., Connecticut Business and Industry Association, National Rifle Association, any PACs tied to the Koch brothers).

Candidates must pledge not to join the moderate caucus.

Instead, they need to proactively support the CT WFP goals for economic, racial and social justice.

It's time to say their names.

CT WFP State and Federal Candidate Endorsements

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