Wednesday, February 28, 2007


Efforts by Democratic legislative leaders to establish controls on free speech in political campaigns will have a chilling effect on the democratic process, said Republican State Party Chairman Chris Healy Wednesday on a bill requiring a code of conduct by candidates for state office.

Senate Bill 547 would require candidates to comply with a myriad of requirements that will strangle public debate and put government in control of the political discourse guaranteed by the Constitution.

“The idea that we would even ask people running for office to comply with a truth code is Orwellian in its design and a nightmare in its implementation,” said Healy. “Democrats are asking for law that would effectively tell them what they can say and how, and threaten to punish them if it didn’t meet the guidelines of some arbitrary, unelected panel of truth experts.

Healy supports one aspect of the bill, requiring identification of the originators of automated calls or “robo calls” which were used with great affect by Democratic operatives in the 2006 election in Connecticut.

But the rest of the legislation, offered by President Pro Tem Don Williams, D-Putnam, Majority Leader Martin Looney, D-New Haven and Sen. Bill Finch, D-Bridgeport, are nothing more than bureaucratic oversight of free speech.

Healy said Republicans trust the wisdom of voters to see through false advertising or ridiculous claims made by candidates seeking the public trust.

“We should be making our election more open, not restrictive,” said Healy. “This Democratic bill would close the door on those trying to break down barriers to reach their elected leaders.”


  1. Isn't this some of the same criticism that has been leveled at Republican John McCain for his national "Campaign Reforms"? That the end result would stifle free speech and make it more difficult for the smaller groups to support certain candidates and positions?

    And you wonder why I'm a Libertarian?

    Tom Accuosti
    The Tao of Masonry

  2. >>And you wonder why I'm a Libertarian?

    It makes more sense to take part in the ongoing fight within the GOP between the Social Conservative faction and the Libertarians than it does to take part in a politcal party with no real base and no real chance.

  3. While I do agree with you, the problem is that sometimes the in-fighting makes me want to throw up my hands in disgust.

    I would really love to see a fiscally conservative, socially liberal third party to keep the other two in line.

    Tom Accuosti
    The Tao of Masonry

  4. >>third party to keep the other two in line.

    Then we wind up as confused as Europe.

    Witness 1992 when Perot messed up the election; do you really think that most of those that voted for Perot actually meant to elect Clinton?

    It's equally doubtful that any of the Florida voters that voted for Nader in 2000 would have preferred Bush over Gore - but indeed that's what they got. (Suited me just fine thank you!)


Please keep it clean on topic.
If you are trying to send ACR a message use email instead: