Fournier for Congress

I may be the only one of the five Green Party candidates for Congress who agrees with the League of Women Voters’ decision to allow only Democrats and Republicans to take part in the “debates” that group plans to sponsor.

The fact that the League demands anything more than ballot access (which requires weeks of petitioning and thousands of signatures) is instructive. To accommodate all of the candidates, the League would have to set up one or possibly two extra microphones at each debate, hardly enough of an inconvenience to justify the exclusion of any of them and an imposition far outweighed by the value of additional voices. The League seems to have taken the position, arbitrarily, that two points of view are all the voters can handle. I have a hard time currying favor with a voters’ organization that demonstrates such a low opinion of voters.

To keep interlopers out of its debates, the League sets a fund-raising threshold that peace-and-justice advocates can never achieve without compromise. As a voluntary association, the League has the right to do this. If this assembly of upper-middle class voters allowed us to participate, they would risk the system that keeps them flush.

Our promise to shake things up seems to resonate with voters, and any one of us might win if voters get wind of our message. The reason Greens can’t meet fund-raising thresholds is that our advocacy is reserved for policies that will benefit people at the bottom of the economic ladder and cost those at the top. You can’t raise money from people who don’t have it, and most of the people who have it won’t donate to somebody who wants to reduce their holdings.

I’m OK with that. The people with money are used to paying others to do things for them, and that’s the way they do politics. They fund organizations like the League and the Democratic and Republican parties, and these groups do what’s expected of them. This gives us a government of indentured incumbents, and it preserves the status quo ever so tenuously.

I’m OK with this because I know that the have-nots outnumber the haves twenty-to-one and can oust the government whenever they choose. Working people can’t finance political campaigns but they can vote. To get me elected, they would have to do a little extra work, but they’re workers, and they have the means.

There won’t be a lot of yard signs or TV ads, and our point of view won’t be debated, but voters who want a new government can certainly spread the word, by mouth and by email, that Greens have candidates who haven’t sold out. Need proof? Greens collected thousands of signatures but couldn’t raise enough money to make the League of Women Voters’ cut. Thanks, League.

In recognition of a remarkable effort by a team of volunteers to put my name on the ballot for Congress, the Connecticut League of Women Voters invited me to submit a brief bio and answers to three questions for inclusion in the League’s on-line Voters’ Guide, slated to appear September 19 at http://www.lwvct.org.

I was disappointed that none of the questions probed my opinion of our policy of permanent warfare or our toleration of thugs in government, but I’ll seize any opportunity to rant, and so I answered as follows (abiding by limits on the number of words in my responses):

Bio
I attended the Hartford Public Schools and earned a BA and JD from the University of Connecticut. I served in the Air Force from 1966 to 1970. My wife Ruth (Tomasko) and I have three children and three grandchildren. We have been involved in the peace movement since 1970. I was elected to Hartford’s Board of Education in 1995. I write Current Invective, an on-line newsletter, sing with a small ensemble, and practice law.

1. Do you believe that changes in election laws are needed to make elections, fair, accurate, secure and responsive to the needs of the voters? Please explain. 

I support changes that will make it easier for people to vote and, through greater participation, strengthen democratic institutions. Holding elections on weekends would enable all voters to cast ballots. Instant runoff voting, in which second-choices count, would encourage citizens to run for office and improve the quality of elected officials by giving voters more candidates to choose from. Public financing laws can stem the corruption of public officials, but they must not create impossible barriers for independents and minor party candidates.  As for the corruption of the electoral process itself, considered by many to have been a major factor in the creation of the current government, a paper copy of every ballot, however cast, has become indispensable. Of equal importance are accountable, non-partisan election authorities, with competent, voter-friendly staff and procedures at polling places. An election process without credibility cannot sustain democratic government for long. 

2. What steps would you support to meet the demand for energy and to ensure an economically and environmentally sustainable future? 

I support strict efficiency standards for all fuel-burning machinery (not just automobiles), no-fare public ground transportation, limits on disposable packaging and products, deep cuts in polluting emissions of all kinds (including carbon dioxide), and government incentives for “green” industry and wind, solar and geothermal power plants (and not for new nuclear plants). None of these objectives can be met until the reins of national policy are snatched from the corporate interests that benefit from our current wasteful and polluting system. My first priority in Congress would be to expose corrupt, polluting policies and link them to the individuals and parties that promote them. Mega-polluters like General Electric, DuPont, and Exxon must be curbed by government and not coddled. These interests use their vast wealth to buy influence over legislative and executive decisions, and Congress must put a stop to that.

3. What initiatives do you support to guarantee that people can obtain affordable, high quality health care?

Public health in the 21st Century demands more than mere access to affordable, high quality health care. Europeans don’t have to obtain health care. It is a right that they take for granted, that they fund with taxes, and that makes their lives better in a hundred ways. Americans who work for themselves and those whose employers don’t provide insurance must fork over thousands for an individual health insurance policy that may not pay a dime until they shell out thousands in deductibles. An expensive health problem or one that inteferes with work, even temporarily, can put such people into bankruptcy in short order. If Medicare–the national health care system for people over 65–were extended to everyone, Americans would be healthier and more secure. In Congress, I would press for a universal, taxpayer-funded health system, starting, immediately, with Medicare for all.

That’s an edited version of my original submission, which I modified after I got feedback from readers. 

The League also let me know that I’m to be interviewed for possible inclusion in one or more debates. I have to meet these criteria:

1. Ballot access.
2. A formal campaign.
3. Broad voter support.
4. Financial support.

Of course, I’m aching to debate my Congressman and his Republican opponent on matters of war and peace and criminal malfeasance. I’m not certain how the League will apply its criteria, but they might want to see more than $1670 in the campaign treasury, the amount I’ve raised. If everybody who reads this were to throw in $20 (by credit card or electronic check at http://www.fournierforcongress.org/donate/ or by check to Fournier for Congress, 74 Tremont Street, Hartford, CT 06105), even if they did it only to make a debate happen in Connecticut, the League would have to recognize my candidacy.