A community-driven blog featuring news and commentary on local, state, and national politics.

Donate to CT Dems

Ads on My Left Nutmeg

Contact Info

To contact the site admin email ctblogger at ctblogger@yahoo.com

Mansfield Republicans Hide Behind Acronym, SEEC approves.

by: dhaseltine

Wed Sep 01, 2010 at 21:51:49 PM EDT

In 2009, I received a packet promoting "balanced government" at my home in Mansfield. The packet listed several candidates running for Mansfield Town Council: Lee Girard, Richard Hossack, Denise Keane, Meredith Lindsey, Gene Nesbitt, and Christopher Paulhus. All of these candidates had been nominated by the Mansfield Republican Town Committee. But you'd never know it by looking at their campaign materials or their website.

Wherever one might expect to find "paid for by Mansfield Republican Town Committee" one would find instead "paid for by MRTC."

I asked myself, "Why wouldn't they just use their full name?" To me, the answer is obvious.

My hypothesis is this: in a heavily Democratic town, such as Mansfield, where the Republicans hold a single seat on the town council only because the Town Charter requires minority representation, the Mansfield Republicans determined that in order to garner more votes, they would need to deceive the electorate into thinking that their candidates were not Republicans.

I submitted a complaint to the State Elections Enforcement Commission, which was dismissed for the following reason:

Ms. Plante (Treasurer) did not violate General Statutes § 9-621 when she made expenditures for communications that included the following attribution: "Paid for by MRTC, Doryann Plante, Treasurer," as "MRTC" is a registered name for the Madison Republican Town Committee.

That's not a typo. Well, it's not mine. The SEEC either confused the two towns, or came to the absurd conclusion that the Mansfield Republican Town Committee should be permitted to use the acronym because "MRTC" is a registered name for the Madison Republican Town Committee, a separate organization.

I don't know what's going on. I left a message with the SEEC, I anxiously await their explanation.

For those interested, the file number is 2009-139, which as of this writing has not been posted to the SEEC website.

Even if the Mansfield Republicans did not violate the law, there is evidence that suggests that they employ deceptive campaign tactics. May they become more irrelevant with each passing year.

EDIT: And just in case anyone from the General Assembly is reading, how about a bill that amends General Statutes § 9-621 to require that a party committee give its full name in all communications attributions?

dhaseltine :: Mansfield Republicans Hide Behind Acronym, SEEC approves.

Poll

What the Mansfield Republicans did was:

Totally on the level
Deceptive
Neutral
I don't care

Results

Tags: mansfield, Republican, 2009, Election, SEEC, (All Tags)

Print Friendly View

Send As Email

Mansfield Republicans Hide Behind Acronym, SEEC approves. | 4 comments

Ever thought about the convenience of the term DSCC? (0.00 / 0)

I always wondered about the potential for misapplication of funds stemming from similar acronyms when the Dem convention senatorial nominee, Joe Lieberman, was running against the Democratic winner of the 2006 Democratic senatorial primary. Ned Lamont. As I recall, at the time, the State Central website said that donations to State Central were to be payable to "DSCC", the same acronym as Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee.

Now, the State Central website very clearly says Democratic State Central Committee. It would be interesting to know the history of the DSCC acronym's use and abandonment by State Central.

Was there a particular statute you located that sounded like this should have been a violation?

I'm unfamiliar with election law relating to campaign advertising and am trying to understand if e.g. there was nothing in the law that pertains or is within their delineated areas they are empowered to regulate (ergo, no violation even if they might opine that it's unethical or opaque), or whether there is a law or regulation you found that appeared to be violated that SEEC seemed to interpret in a way you thought was worth questioning.

by: greenpeas @ Sat Sep 04, 2010 at 02:40:01 AM UTC

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

Deceptive? (0.00 / 0)

I think the best measure to apply is to look at whether or not the acronym is likely to confuse the average voter. As an informed voter I do find it confusing and difficult to differentiate DSCC (state central and senate campaign) without taking a close look at the content of the message. Whereas I can easily identify that WRTC or WDTC are the town committees because the "DTC" and "RTC" are standardized and committees outside my town are unlikely to mail to me.

Blog | Twitter

by: Matt Zagaja @ Sat Sep 04, 2010 at 14:01:59 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

Fair enough (0.00 / 0)

the best measure to apply is to look at whether or not the acronym is likely to confuse the average voter.

I agree, but I think the best course of action would be to eliminate any possibility of confusion by restricting the use of acronyms, and requiring committees to use their full name in attributions.

by: dhaseltine @ Sun Sep 05, 2010 at 01:41:01 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I was unaware (0.00 / 0)

That a party committee is permitted to list multiple names on its registration form. I assumed that the acronym was thus a violation of general statutes § 9-621 which requires party committees to provide source attribution on all published communications (signs, mailers, palm cards, etc.).

by: dhaseltine @ Sun Sep 05, 2010 at 01:37:35 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

Mansfield Republicans Hide Behind Acronym, SEEC approves. | 4 comments

1 user(s) logged on.

Menu