CT News Junkie

A Connecticut news site that understands the usual media offerings just…aren’t…enough.

OP-ED | A Discouraging Day for Democracy and Education

by | Apr 4, 2014 8:29am () Comments | Commenting has expired | Share
Posted to: Education, Opinion

Wednesday was a discouraging day for democracy. The Supreme Court voted 5-4 in McCutcheon v. FEC to lift aggregate individual campaign contribution limits.

Chief Justice Roberts wrote, in a majority decision that appears to be blindingly oblivious to political realities: “The Government has a strong interest, no less critical to our democratic system, in combating corruption and its appearance. We have, however, held that this interest must be limited to a specific kind of corruption — quid pro quo corruption — in order to ensure that the Government’s efforts do not have the effect of restricting the First Amendment right of citizens to choose who shall govern them.”

Justice Stephen Breyer dissented from the bench: “If the court in Citizens United opened a door, today’s decision may well open a floodgate.”

Indeed. A floodgate in which the voices of ordinary citizens will be drowned out even more than they have been already.

The decision brought a predictable statement from my Congressman, U.S. Rep. Jim Himes: “We need less money in our politics, not more. This decision from a slim five-member majority of the court threatens to set our democracy back — just like the very unfortunate Citizens United ruling did four years ago. Today’s ruling threatens to unleash an additional torrent of money into our political system at a time when large donors already have far too much influence. As a co-sponsor of legislation to overturn Citizens United and a strong supporter of public financing for political campaigns, I will continue doing everything I can to level the playing field for the millions of American voters whose voices are being muted.”

I couldn’t help but raise a cynical eyebrow upon receiving this, because I’d just returned from the state Board of Education meeting in Hartford, where I’d watched the residents of two cities in Himes’ district, Bridgeport and Stamford, suffer from the political influence of Stephen Mandel, a major Himes and Connecticut Democratic Party donor.

File Photo When I emailed Himes a while back expressing concern about a large Mandel donation with respect to his stance on education policy, he responded rather testily that Mandel was “one of his earliest supporters.”

I didn’t reply, but I thought about the early strategy meeting I’d attended with progressive bloggers at then-candidate Himes’ house, the checks I sent in, the competition I’d had on My Left Nutmeg where I named a character in my third novel after the person who donated the most to the Jim Himes Act Blue page,  the meet-and-greet I held in my home, and the hours of poll standing on Election Day. Apparently, because these things didn’t raise enough campaign cash, they didn’t register as “early support.”

Like many other billionaires, (Netflix founder Reid Hastings comes immediately to mind) Mandel appears to believe that those below a certain income bracket don’t have the ability or the right to determine their own destiny when it comes to education.

What might lead one to this conclusion?

Maybe it’s the stream of emails, obtained via FOI, between one of his employees, Meghan Lowney (Executive Director of Mandel’s Zoom Foundation) and state Board of Education Chair Allan Taylor. Lowney’s email introduction to Taylor came via Alex Johnston of ConnCAN, the charter advocacy organization whose founding chairman was another Greenwich billionaire, Jonathan Sackler. In Lowney’s January 2011 email to Taylor she writes: “I would love to learn from your experience, A small group of us are strategizing a Bridgeport charter revision campaign that would result in mayoral control of the schools. This is a confidential conversation, of course. We are thinking of Fall 2011 election as a moment when Bridgeport voters could go to the polls to choose mayoral control. I’d be happy to describe the dynamics in detail.”

Excel Bridgeport was one of the major contributors to Mayor Bill Finch’s ill-fated attempt to revise the Bridgeport Charter to bring mayoral control to the Board of Education, spending $101,803 to help deprive Bridgeport residents of their right to democratically elect the school board. Mandel’s Lone Pine Foundation and Zoom Foundation are major funders of Excel Bridgeport, and Lowney is on the board of directors. So is Nate Snow, the executive director of Teach for America in Connecticut. Mandel is the treasurer of the board of directors of Teach for America’s national organization.

Mandel also has a direct line into Gov. Dannel P. Malloy’s office, with the establishment of the Zoom Fellows, as reported in February by the Journal Inquirer. “Fellows work with senior officials on policy projects that address ever-changing issues and challenges,” according to Zoom. They “may perform research relative to legislation, serve as an intermediary between different agencies or offices, or lead special projects.” Given Lowney’s email history and what happened at the state Board of Education on Wednesday, one can just imagine the kind of “intermediary” work they are doing.

Prior to Wednesday’s state hearing, the elected local boards of education in both Bridgeport and Stamford voted against new charter school approvals in their cities. David Martin, the elected mayor of Stamford spoke out against the charter approval in his city

At the hearing, former elected Bridgeport Board of Education member Maria Pereira testified that Malloy’s own ECS task force identified that Bridgeport Public Schools were underfunded by $43 million annually. What’s more, Mayor Finch hasn’t contributed the $3.3 million dollars for this year as required under state law. She further testified that despite the claims of charter school proponents that Bridgeport Public Schools would be reimbursed for transportation and special education costs associated with local charter schools, the CFO of Bridgeport Public schools confirmed the statements to be false.

Stamford gets less than $600 a student from the state of Connecticut while the proposed charter school stands to get $11,000 per pupil. Dr. Polly Rauh and Jackie Heftman — elected members of Stamford Board of Education — testified against the proposal with well-reasoned, logical arguments. I was in the car with them on the way back from Hartford when Bill Phillips, president of the Northeast Charter Schools Network, described their testimony as “angry.”

Bill, you ain’t seen nothing yet.

What we witnessed Wednesday is called “a done deal.” Although both the Courant and the CT Post reported the day before the hearing that Commissioner Stefan Pryor was only going to recommend approving two of proposed charters, once the crowds from Bridgeport and Stamford left, Charles Jaskiewicz asked, “Why are we delaying the opportunity to front-load success? . . . My feeling is all these schools should be approved.” Taylor announced that Pryor just “happened” to have a resolution to approve the two additional schools already prepared.

And thus, the appointed state Board of Education, against the expressed votes of two elected city school boards and with ample evidence of the negative financial impact to the existing public schools in the cities involved, voted to approve these new charter schools.

American democracy is dying and despite their press releases to the contrary, Connecticut Democrats are aiding and abetting its demise as surely as the Republicans who brought the court case of McCutcheon vs. FEC. It will come back to haunt them in November.

Sarah Darer Littman is an award-winning columnist and novelist of books for teens. A former securities analyst, she’s now an adjunct in the MFA program at WCSU, and enjoys helping young people discover the power of finding their voice as an instructor at the Writopia Lab.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

Share this story with others.

Share | |


(12) Archived Comments

posted by: ACR | April 4, 2014  11:30am


Geroge Soros will appreciate it, as will several other big money donors.

posted by: Historian | April 4, 2014  12:18pm

What this is really about is the ability to talk - to communicate with voters. 
  The Supremes have merely lifted restrictions on American citizen’s ability to speak via spending Their own money to advertise Their views. 
  Limits on discourse is the real objective of prospective dictators - stop information by limiting the ‘oppositions” ability to speak- keep citizens ignorant and more vulnerable to the left’s propaganda. It works.

posted by: Pro-Public Education | April 4, 2014  12:32pm

I watched the televised testimony and I have to say that I agree w/ Ms. Pereira. Malloy will win Bridgeport, but a lot of us are organizing to work against Malloy this November. Malloy, Finch, Commissioner Pryor and the SBOE have shown nothing but disdain and disrespect for Bridgeport residents. They will all have to be taught a lesson.

posted by: Sarah Darer Littman | April 4, 2014  5:23pm

So, “Historian”  - and I use that term loosely, because clearly you have not read much history - your idea of the “oppositions” ability to speak means the plutocracy having unlimited spending ability? In your historical readings, have you happened to peruse what happens when inequality reaches the kind of levels it is today - at Robber Baron era proportions?  As for campaign finance limits being used by prospective dictators - where is your evidence in history for that?

posted by: Sarah Darer Littman | April 4, 2014  5:28pm

Really ACR? Must you reduce this to D or R thing? That’s part of the whole problem. Makes me even more glad to be unaffiliated. I can’t stand either party at this point. And I am not alone. Trust me. I have Republicans contacting me telling me how pissed they are at their party and Dems contacting me telling me the same. And it’s the constant - Oh,” I can make a snipe at the other party now, woo hoo!” when my own national party was the one that brought the SCOTUS case - yeah, that’s so constructive.

posted by: ACR | April 5, 2014  10:10am


Sarah said:

“Must you reduce this to D or R thing?”

I’ve always thought those limits were a violation of our 1st amendment.

It would be nice if unions and churches were forced to convince their respective members to donate as opposed to doing it in their behalf (whether their members like it or not).

posted by: brutus2011 | April 7, 2014  9:41am


” American democracy is dying . . .”

Sadly, I believe this as well.

I wonder if the Framers of our national constitution intended First Amendment free speech protections to include political campaign contributions.

I seems to me that the argument that political campaign contributions should be protected as free expression then the opposite argument that political campaign contributions limit or infringe upon those who do not have the means to contribute to political campaigns.

In addition, the Framer’s intended our system to be of limited government. They intended our elected representatives to serve briefly and then return to private life. This is the opposite of what occurs today.

Given the text of our constitution and the First Amendment, I wonder if our Justices have forgotten their history.

How can the slippery slope of allowing campaign contributions to be protected by the free speech text of the First A be? Is it not obvious that the vast majority of Americans cannot contribute thus their right to freely speak (via their vote) is restricted by those with deep pockets?

But, the Framers also intended we citizens to be the guardians of our republic, so let’s get going and work to change this slide into tyranny.

posted by: Avg-Joe | April 8, 2014  11:15am

To brutus 2011:
Are you suggesting an amendment to the Constitution to define corporate rights as different and seperate from the rights of individuals?  If so, sign me up—I’d love to help on that front.

posted by: Sarah Darer Littman | April 10, 2014  8:44pm

ACR writes: “It would be nice if unions and churches were forced to convince their respective members to donate as opposed to doing it in their behalf (whether their members like it or not).”

Funny, I just did my taxes, and as it happens, I own shares in a number of corporations, which in theory makes me a partial owner, and according to SCOTUS makes me part of that corporate “person”. Yet I haven’t seen a single proxy statement asking MY opinion on   where the corporate person of which I am theoretically a part should direct its political donations. Can you at least make some minimal attempt to be consistent?

posted by: Sarah Darer Littman | April 10, 2014  8:47pm

ABC - if you weren’t just spouting empty Orwellian propaganda phrases, but rather were providing real alternatives based on research, I would answer that question. As it is, there isn’t any point. I would, however, direct you to the recent study by CT Voices for Children on school “choice.”

posted by: ACR | April 10, 2014  10:49pm


>>Yet I haven’t seen a single proxy statement asking MY opinion on…..

Call your broker, I get notifications on corporations where I own a single share.

posted by: Sarah Darer Littman | April 11, 2014  6:55am

As usual, ACR you are purposely missing the point, in order to avoid the issue. Of course I get proxy statements.  I have an MBA in Finance and worked on Wall St, remember?  Being patronizing doesn’t become you. I took my investment account away from a broker because he behaved with that kind of attitude. The point is that those proxy statements don’t ask my opinion on where the corporation I have ownership in is going to make political donations any more than a union does.

Social Networks We Use

Connecticut Network


Our Partners

Sponsored Messages