On Monday (April 29), the House passed a bill mandating that specific state agencies allocate 15% of their annual advertising budgets to locally owned media for print or digital ads starting July 1, 2025. This is a decrease from the 50% requirement in the first draft of the bill. The measure passed largely along party lines, 92-53.
According to the bill, only media companies headquartered in Connecticut qualify for the government ad dollars, excluding larger entities such as Hearst, which, despite owning 15 weekly publications in Connecticut, is headquartered in New York.
Rep. Kevin Brown (D-Vernon), one of the bill’s proponents, touting his experience as a high school civics teacher stated that it was his “understanding that this bill would help to prop up some of our local news media outlets who exist to cover local democracy.”
Citing the decline in local media coverage in the last two decades, Rep. Brown said it has been “detrimental to the practice of democracy in our communities,” adding, “It’s the least we can do as a state to prop up our democracy to make sure that the accurate and credible information is there.”
While the civics teacher correctly emphasizes the importance of local media to democracy, he overlooks a key contradiction this bill has with the First Amendment‘s protection of press freedom.
The Founders understood the critical need to keep the press free from government control to ensure a democracy where the government remains accountable to the people. The press acts as a watchdog, tasked with investigating and reporting on governments’ bad actions.
Yet the financial reliance of local media on government funding could result in a reluctance to publish content that might be seen as critical of the government. This dependency may lead to local newspapers disproportionately covering government activities or perspectives, not due to their newsworthiness, but to stay in good graces with their advertiser. Such practices threaten to erode impartiality and compromise editorial independence.
Issues with government-sponsored media are not exclusive to countries like China, where active censorship and stringent control are used to manage the flow of information. Similar concerns are occurring closer to home on the national level.
National Public Radio (NPR) is currently embroiled in a scandal following revelations made last month. The controversy started when an essay by Uri Berliner, a 25-year veteran at NPR, was published in The Free Press, an online media outlet. Berliner alleges that “people at every level of NPR have comfortably coalesced around the progressive worldview.” He was later suspended for the piece and ultimately resigned.
NPR is partially funded through federal dollars funneled to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, a non-governmental agency. This funding is distributed to public television and radio stations nationwide via “community service grants.” NPR asserts that this federal support is “essential to public radio’s service to the American public.”
In his essay, Berliner claims that NPR was in cahoots with U.S. Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA), the senior Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, interviewing him 25 times about supposed collusion between Donald Trump and Russia. Berliner contends that “Schiff’s talking points became the drumbeat of NPR news reports.”
He further noted that once it was determined there was no credible evidence of collusion, “NPR’s coverage was notably sparse, and Russiagate quietly faded from our programming.”
This incident raises significant concerns about the extent to which a media outlet may go to satisfy its benefactors, signaling a cautionary tale for lawmakers.
Local news is vital in keeping residents informed about what is happening in their communities, holding the government accountable and ensuring transparency. Additionally, it boosts community engagement by covering events relevant to residents, supporting local businesses, and fostering an informed citizenship.
However, it is not the government’s responsibility to rescue local news as its involvement might compromise the journalistic independence essential for effective reporting. Rather, solutions like community support, non-governmental funding and innovative business models should be pursued to maintain the viability of local media.
The bill remains under consideration in the Senate, with a vote date yet to be scheduled.
‘Green Monster’ Bill Gobbling Up Covid Funds
This session’s widely debated climate omnibus bill — dubbed the “Green Monster” by yours truly — successfully passed the House on Thursday (May 1). After undergoing numerous revisions, a last-minute “strike all” amendment loaded with various studies, reports and task forces was introduced.
The amendment, which sparked extensive criticism during a 4.5-hour debate, differed significantly from the version previously approved in the Appropriations Committee. The bill, originally containing 21 sections, was pared down to nine sections by the committee — eliminating anything with a fiscal note. However, by the time it reached the House floor, it had expanded to 23 sections, causing frustration among some committee members.
Ranking Member of the Appropriations Committee, Rep. Tammy Nuccio (R-Tolland) asked, “How a bill can go to appropriations, get passed out of appropriations, removing the fiscal components, and then we see an amendment on the floor that just miraculously adds all of them back in like we found a pot of gold.”
The bill’s sponsor, Rep. Christine Palm (D-Chester) advised that any item with a fiscal impact would be funded with federal American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) money. It is worth mentioning that the bill does not specifically state that funding is through ARPA funds and not coming out of the general fund.
Potential costs include $500,000 for the Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (DEEP) to hire a consultant to submit a report on Greenhouse Gas emissions (GHG), $50,000 for the Public Utilities Regulatory Authority (PURA) to hire a consultant to create an internet data dashboard and $200,000 for the Office of Workforce Strategy (OWS) to develop a plan to transition workers from fossil-fuel-based jobs to clean energy jobs.
While ARPA funds are still available, the original intent was to alleviate the adverse effects of the COVID-19 pandemic. The funding is designated for public health expenses, counteracting economic impacts of the health crisis, replenishing lost public sector revenue and investing in infrastructure.
It is noteworthy that the state plans to allocate these funds towards hiring consultants, raising questions about the potential benefits of using the funds instead of addressing the educational setbacks K-12 students are facing due to the government forcing school closures during the pandemic.
For example, a bill was introduced this year aiming to secure funding for a charter school in Danbury which the state approved in 2018 but has yet to receive funding. The bill died in committee.
Another bill would have provided tax credits to individuals who donate to organizations that provide scholarships to low-income students for the opportunity to attend a private school. That too died in committee.
Funding these two initiatives would go a long way in addressing student performance that has not recovered from pre-pandemic levels in math, English language arts and science.
Unfortunately, children’s issues appear to be overshadowed as Rep. Palm, in what she describes as her “swan song,” urged members to vote against an amendment concerning child labor and the environmental crisis in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC). The amendment proposed that electric vehicle batteries should only be sold if they certify the origin of their raw materials and affirm that these materials were not obtained through child labor.
Citing a report by UNICEF, Rep. Palm argued that children living in the DRC “suffer more from the effects of climate change than they actually do from [working] in the mines.”
The amendment failed in a voice vote.
The “Green Monster” bill also includes a symbolic declaration by the state of a climate crisis, indicating Connecticut’s shift away from fossil fuels without granting any legal authority. Additionally, it mandates DEEP to devise a plan for promoting and installing heat pumps.
The legislation also establishes a task force to examine the current electric transmission system in the state and the region, focusing on necessary upgrades and enhancements for reliability, affordability and clean energy objectives.
The task force faces significant challenges, due to Eversource’s announcement on Thursday (May 2) of a planned reduction in capital projects by $500 million. This cut affects projects related to the reliability of the electric grid in Connecticut over the next five years.
It also sets new state-wide GHG benchmarks adding that the state reach a level of 65% below 2001 levels and by 2050, be at an economy-wide net-zero level, as long as direct and indirect GHG emissions are at least 80% below the 2001 level.
There is no mechanism to enforce these levels but according to the Office of Fiscal Analysis (OFA) doing so will result “in a cost to ratepayers.” OFA attributes this to costs “associated with the development and upgrade of the grid that will be required by electric distribution companies to achieve the targets in the bill.”
With six days left till the end of the legislative session, the bill is still pending in the Senate, where a date for the vote has not yet been set.
This Week on Yankee’s Podcast Y CT Matters
In this debut edition of Connecticut Conversations, Yankee Institute Distinguished Fellow and former Minority Leader Themis Klarides hosts a conversation with Prof. Jeffrey Sonnenfeld of Yale University on Connecticut’s public pension funds and its investment track record. The state’s underperformance has cost the state billions — so much so that simply an average performance could have reduced the state income tax in half! Read the full report here.
Click here to listen
