Voice of Anonymity.....?

We should all know that in CT most legislation proposed is done through the work of special interest groups who approach individual legislators or committees. The process is well known, documented, and controlled (somewhat), but is widely recognized for its values (to some):

1) You only need to have a small advocacy group, lobbyist, or professional association to wield great influence.

2) This process educates legislators on complex topics when their own knowledge base is limited or is focused on their passion/ideology to help someone.

3) It allows full time paid lobbyists to orchestrate the agenda and propose the legislation.

The shortcomings of this environment also are well known:

1) The public hearing testimony is dominated by state agencies and advocacy groups whose job it is to track these bills and comment as necessary.

2) The public must sit and wait until called. This time can be prolonged and requires the public to basically take time off from work. Evening hours are rare.

3) Appealing via a letter or phone call to your locally elected representative may not be effective if they are not a member of the committee seeking public testimony.

The consequences to all of this may be succinct but includes:

1) Public voice and input are not really visible or viable.

2) Legislators vote on the basis of knowledge they hear from those "expert" special interests.

3) Legislators are loyal to their party and not necessarily to local interests other than on a token basis.

4) The public voice is missing or lost and is never really considered.

Connecticut has a closed system of government and rarely seeks the direct opinion of the population via a referendum. The silent majority is silenced by this lack of sensitivity and is deprived of voter initiative and activism tools to be heard and to make changes that reflect CT society at large. With the demise of newspapers, there is no forum for diversity, debate, or consideration of alternate views, to say nothing of investigative reporting to uncover mischief. (Of course the obvious exception is responsible blogs such as this one.)

Without the option to propose by means of a defined and regulated voter initiative process (as is done in most states) the CT public will NEVER truely have a voice and will remain disenfranchised from direct participation.

I propose that a statewide district represented by all voters is as worthy as districts represented by locally elected individuals. Direct democracy is practiced in many towns through annual and other scheduled meetings when necessary giving CT voters locally practical familiarity with this process.

How/why can't this be made possible to CT citizens and thereby engage them in more fruitful discussion with all opinions and knowledge considered for worthy ideas? Incumbents and special interests would have to cope with a statewide approach and its costly, time-consuming educational implications.

Only then special interests would have to make their case to the statewide audience instead of their own business as usual with campaign donations and other goodies to the legislators they need to do their work.

This status quo also is convenient to the elected representatives who can financially benefit at election time. It is far more cost effective for a special interest group to invest in the legislative "membership" than to take their case/initiative to the population at large. With 36 Senate members and 151 House members, it does not cost a lot to make donations to campaigns or favorite charities to get influence.

With 113 Democrats and only 36 Republicans (and 2 vacancies), you can save even more by donations to the dominant party only!

A statewide education/advertising campaign is far more costly and unpredictable.