CCAG Executive Director Tom Swan has an op-ed in the Connecticut Post about the recently passed Credit Card Accountability, Responsibility and Disclosure Act, which was sponsored by Chris Dodd, Connecticut's senior Senator.

_{Tom Swan speaks about how the unfair practices of credit card
companies affect CCAG members and others in Connecticut.
[March 13, 2009]}

Swan explains the importance of the bill:

The bill puts an end to absurdly high fees that drive families further into debt, requiring that penalties be proportional to the violation and prohibiting issuers from charging fees when customers simply pay by phone or unknowingly exceed their credit limit.

It prevents credit card companies from charging you if they delayed crediting your payment and requires far better disclosure of card terms and conditions.

It includes tough protections for the particularly vulnerable demographic that has been a cash cow for credit card companies in recent years: young people and students.

Click here to continue reading excerpts from Swan's op-ed.

_{CCAG Executive Director Tom Swan originally posted the message below on MyLeftNutmeg.com}

On November 4th voters will be given a choice as to whether we should hold a Constitutional Convention to propose amendments to the state Constitution.

The Connecticut Citizen Action Group (CCAG) urges a no vote on the question. As one of the organizations that has lead the fights to open up our political process (Direct Primaries, Campaign Finance and Ethics reforms) we believe a convention would be a waste of taxpayers' money and could be corrupted by the same special interests that our new campaign finance reform laws are designed to protect us from.

Proponents of a convention either do not understand the process or are deliberately trying to mislead the public by saying that the vote on November 4th is about initiative and referendum. If the vote passes it is then up to the legislature to determine the process for selecting delegates to the convention. This will likely be done through a costly special election and primaries. The convention is then convened, which will result in additional costs to the state. The delegates may or may not propose amendments to the constitution, which would be subject to a future popular vote. There is no guarantee that what the proponents of the convention are arguing this vote is about will be included these proposals.

It is plausible that many of the proponents of a convention would mask their real motivation due to the unpopularity of some of their ultimate goals. Connecticut does not want to ban a woman's right to choose or to allow discrimination against same sex couples. Advocates of these and other radical positions realize that they cannot win enough legislative races to accomplish their goals so they are trying to push a convention to create a new avenue for their fight. Their gambit will have significant costs for the state at a time we are facing a huge deficit. I am confident their stealth agenda will ultimately be rejected.

There is a high likelihood that the delegate selection process will be driven by lobbying and other big money interest. It is not surprising that special interests are looking for new ways to exert influence as Connecticut embarks on the first election cycle under our public financing system. The new system has been a smashing success with over 75% of candidates voluntarily participating. It has been praised across the country and will result in a state government more accountable to voters not special interests.

Opening up new mechanisms for the corrupting influence of special interest money is not what Connecticut needs in this post-Rowland era. CCAG is urging people not to be conned about the Constitutional Convention and to vote no.