Proposal to enforce more accurate movie start times stalls in CT legislature
After making headlines as far away as London for a proposal to regulate movie start times, Connecticut lawmakers have decided not to pursue the plan. At least for now.
A bill that would have required movie theaters to publish more accurate start times — or include a notice stating the picture would begin after 10 or more minutes of trailers and advertisements — was amended Wednesday, and now calls only for a study of the issue to be undertaken. The amended bill received a favorable vote from the Senate.
The legislation, Senate Bill 797, attracted global attention earlier this year after it was put forward by Senate President Pro Tem Martin M. Looney, D-New Haven. Looney said the idea came at the behest of multiple constituents.
'I have received complaints from constituents who note that they incurred additional baby-sitting costs, or were late for a dinner reservation and had to wait a half hour for a table,' Looney said in written testimony on the bill. He also mentioned 'the case of a couple who went to see the Bob Dylan biopic, A Complete Unknown, [and] were subjected to a string of trailers for violent/horror films in which they had no interest.'
The original bill would have fined theaters up to $500 for failing to post accurate notices about start times.
Quickly, however, the theater industry in Connecticut pushed back on the idea. Business owners argued that advertisers would pull their business if they knew people were not going to arrive in time to sit through their ads, cutting into the theater's bottom line. About one-third of the state's theaters have closed since the pandemic, according to Connecticut Association of Theatre Owners.
The unusual subject of legislation appeared in news coverage across the country, as well as abroad. In February the bill — and Looney himself — became the butt of several jokes on the NPR comedy show 'Wait Wait… Don't Tell Me!'
Some Connecticut lawmakers questioned the concept and why it was worthy of the legislature's attention.
'I hear a lot of concerns, a lot of ideas, but this was never one,' said state Sen. Paul Cicarella, R-North Haven. 'So this is a new one for me.'
Speaking from the Senate floor Wednesday, Looney rejected the notion that the bill was taking away time from more important issues. He also pointed out the amended bill would create a working group to study larger issues affecting the theater industry.
'The purpose of the original bill has already been accomplished because of the publicity that the issue has been given,' he said.
In addition to start times, the working group will review policies to support 'family entertainment venues' in Connecticut, including through the use of tax credits. The group will file a report by Jan. 1, 2026.
The Senate voted 27 to 9 to pass the amended measure, with all of the opposition coming from Republicans. The bill now heads to the House for further consideration.
John Moritz is a reporter for The Connecticut Mirror (https://ctmirror.org). Copyright 2025 © The Connecticut Mirror.
This article originally appeared on The Bulletin: Movie theater start time bill stalls in Connecticut legislature
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Politico
37 minutes ago
- Politico
Democrats eyeing a presidential bid scramble to un-woke themselves
Ambitious Democrats with an eye on a presidential run are in the middle of a slow-motion Sister Souljah moment. Searching for a path out of the political wilderness, potential 2028 candidates, especially those hailing from blue states, are attempting to ratchet back a leftward lurch on social issues some in the party say cost them the November election. Maryland Gov. Wes Moore, who is Black, vetoed a bill that took steps toward reparations passed by his state legislature. California Gov. Gavin Newsom called it 'unfair' to allow transgender athletes to participate in female college and youth sports. And Rahm Emmanuel has urged his party to veer back to the center. 'Stop talking about bathrooms and locker rooms and start talking about the classroom,' said former Ambassador to Japan Rahm Emmanuel, the two-term Chicago mayor who said he is open to a 2028 presidential campaign. 'If one child is trying to figure out their pronoun, I accept that, but the rest of the class doesn't know what a pronoun is and can't even define it,' Each of these candidates are, either deliberately or tacitly, countering a perceived weakness in their own political record or party writ large—Emmanuel, for example, has called the Democratic Party 'weak and woke'; Sen. Elissa Slotkin (D-Mich.) has said the party needs more 'alpha energy'; others like Newsom are perhaps acknowledging a more socially liberal bent in the past. On diversity, equity, and inclusion, some in the party are also sending a signal they're no longer kowtowing to their left flank. Former Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg removed his pronouns from his social media bio months ago, and questioned how the party has communicated about it. 'Is it caring for people's different experiences and making sure no one is mistreated because of them, which I will always fight for?' he said in a forum at the University of Chicago earlier this year. 'Or is it making people sit through a training that looks like something out of 'Portlandia,' which I have also experienced,' Buttigieg said. Buttigieg added, 'And it is how Trump Republicans are made.' Moderate Democrats are having a moment and there is a cadre of consultants and strategists ready to support them. Ground zero for the party's great un-awokening was this week's WelcomeFest, the moderate Democrats' Coachella. There, hundreds of centrist elected officials, candidates and operatives gathered to commiserate over their 2024 losses and their party's penchant for purity tests. Panels on Wednesday featured Slotkin, Reps. Jared Golden (D-Maine) and Marie Gluesenkamp Perez (D-Wash.), described as 'legends of the moderate community,' and included a presentation by center-left data guru David Shor, who has urged Democrats to shed toxic positions like 'defund the police.' Adam Frisch, the former congressional candidate and director of electoral programs at Welcome PAC, said his party is 'out of touch culturally with a lot of people.' 'I think a lot of people are realizing, whether you're running for the House, the Senate, or the presidential, we better start getting on track with what I call the pro-normal party coalition,' Frisch said. 'You need to focus on normal stuff, and normal stuff is economic opportunity and prosperity, not necessarily micro-social issues.' Then there is Newsom, the liberal former mayor of San Francisco, who has also distanced himself from so-called woke terminology and stances. The governor claimed earlier this year that he had never used the word 'Latinx,' despite having repeatedly employed it just years earlier and once decrying Republicans who've sought to ban the gender-neutral term for Latinos. Newsom made the claim on his podcast episode with conservative firebrand Charlie Kirk — one of several MAGA personalities the governor has hosted on the platform in recent months. 'I just didn't even know where it came from. What are we talking about?' Newsom told Kirk. The governor, who gained national notoriety in 2004 for defying state law and issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples in San Francisco, has also pivoted on some LGBTQ+ issues. Newsom broke with Democrats this spring when he said, in the same podcast episode with Kirk, that he opposes allowing transgender women and girls to participate in female college and youth sports. 'I think it's an issue of fairness, I completely agree with you on that. It is an issue of fairness — it's deeply unfair,' Newsom said, a comment that was panned by many of his longtime LGBTQ+ supporters and progressive allies. Newsom for months has also muted his tone on immigration issues, avoiding using the word 'sanctuary' to describe a state law that limits police cooperation with federal immigration authorities even as he defends the legality of the policy. The governor is proposing steep cuts to a free health care program for undocumented immigrants, which comes as California faces a $12 billion budget deficit. In recent days, however, he joined a chorus of California Democrats criticizing Trump administration immigration efforts in his state. Moore, who recently trekked to South Carolina, vetoed legislation that would launch a study of reparations for the descendants of slaves from the Democratic-controlled legislature. Moore urged Democrats not get bogged down by bureaucratic malaise and pointed to the Republican Party as the reason why. 'Donald Trump doesn't need a study to dismantle democracy. Donald Trump doesn't need a study to use the Constitution like it's a suggestion box,' he told a packed dinner of party power players. 'Donald Trump doesn't need a white paper to start arbitrary trade wars that will raise the cost of virtually everything in our lives,' Moore said. There are some notable exceptions to the party's border pivot to the center. Govs. Andy Beshear of Kentucky, JB Pritzker of Illinois and Tim Walz of Minnesota haven't shied away from social issues. Beshear, who has vetoed several anti-LGBTQ+ bills, including during his own reelection year, attacked Newsom for inviting conservative provocateurs Steve Bannon and Charlie Kirk onto his podcast. He also drew a distinction with Newsom on transgender athletes playing in youth sports, arguing that 'our different leagues have more than the ability to make' sports 'fair,' he told reporters in March. 'Surely, we can see some humanity and some different perspectives in this overall debate's that going on right now,' Beshear added. The Kentucky governor said his stance is rooted in faith — 'all children are children of God,' he often says. Walz called it 'a mistake' to abandon transgender people. 'We need to tell people your cost of eggs, your health care being denied, your homeowner's insurance, your lack of getting warning on tornadoes coming has nothing to do with someone's gender,' he told The Independent last month. Pritzker, too, recently said that it's 'vile and inhumane to go after the smallest minority and attack them.' This spring, Pritzker declared March 31 as Illinois' Transgender Day of Visibility. 'Walz, [Sen. Chris] Murphy, Pritzker, Beshear — they're not going around talking about it all the time, but they're also not running away from their values,' said one adviser to a potential 2028 candidate granted anonymity to discuss the issue candidly. 'They're in the both-and lane.' The party's reckoning with social issues is far from over. In 2021, then-Pennsylvania Attorney General Josh Shapiro vocally opposed a GOP bill that aimed to ban trans athletes from participating in women's school sports, calling it 'cruel' and 'designed to discriminate against transgender youth who just want to play sports like their peers.' This year, as the state's Republican-controlled Senate has passed a similar bill with the support of a handful of Democrats, Shapiro has remained mum on the legislation. It's not likely to come up for a vote in the state's Democratic-held House, so he may be able to punt — at least a while. As Emmanuel sees it, his party has a long way to go to over-correct for what he paints as the excesses of the last few years. 'The core crux over the years of President [Joe] Biden's tenure is the party on a whole set of cultural issues looked like they were off on a set of tangential issues,' Emmanuel said. Dasha Burns, Dustin Gardner, Holly Otterbein, and Brakkton Booker contributed to this report.
Politico
37 minutes ago
- Politico
‘Trump movement' turns on Cornyn, poll finds
MAGA loyalists have put Sen. John Cornyn's reelection campaign in a Texas-size hole. An early May poll commissioned by the American Opportunity Alliance, a major conservative funding group linked to megadonor Paul Singer, shows the Texas Republican down 17 points in a head-to-head primary matchup with state attorney general Ken Paxton. Below the top-line of Paxton's 52-percent-to-35-percent advantage, the poll found a clear divide between those voters who were defined as 'Trump Movement' voters and those who were 'Traditional Republicans.' In the former category, which made up of 58 percent of the electorate, Paxton had a 45-point lead. Among the latter, who made up only 35 percent of voters, Cornyn had a 27-point lead. The findings reflect a increasingly prominent divide among Republican primary voters in Texas where an insurgent hard-right faction has been steadily gaining ground in recent years while ousting more traditional GOP elected officials. Paxton, who has faced federal investigation and impeachment, has long been a darling of right-wingers in Texas, while Cornyn — first elected to the Senate in 2002 — is considered a pillar of the establishment GOP. In a speculative three-way race with GOP Rep. Wesley Hunt, who is exploring a bid, the margin barely narrowed with the Cornyn trailing Paxton, 43 percent to 27 percent, with Hunt receiving 14 percent. There was some good news for the incumbent in the poll. Despite trailing Paxton significantly, he is still viewed favorably by the Republican primary electorate in the Lone Star State — just not as favorably as the state attorney general. The poll, conducted from April 29 through May 1 among 800 Republican primary voters, is among a series of public and private surveys all showing Cornyn significantly trailing Paxton. They have sparked increasing concern from national Republican operatives about a potentially ugly and costly primary, as well as the possible elevation of a scandal-plagued candidate who might be at risk in a general election. The American Opportunity Alliance's interest in the race is notable; it's one of the key donor consortiums in Republican politics and its members including Singer and Chuck Schwab are some of the biggest funders on the right.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Fact Check: What we know about 'Big Beautiful Bill' banning states from regulating AI for 10 years
Claim: H.R. 1, commonly known as the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, contains a provision that bans states from regulating artificial intelligence for 10 years. Rating: Context: If the "Big Beautiful Bill" becomes law, states and local governments would be unable to enforce any regulations on AI systems and models involved in interstate commerce for 10 years. There are exceptions for any laws or regulations that facilitate the rollout, operations or adoption of AI models and systems. A budget bill that Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives passed on May 22, 2025, allegedly bans all 50 states from regulating artificial intelligence for a decade, according to claims shared on social media in early June. As the Senate prepared to take up H.R. 1, more commonly known as the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, people online expressed their concerns about the alleged AI-related provisions in the legislation. For example, one X user shared this claim (archived) on June 2, 2025: Similar claims also appeared in Facebook (archived) posts (archived) around the same time. Snopes reviewed the text of H.R. 1 and found a provision that bans states from regulating AI systems "entered into interstate commerce" for 10 years in Section 43201 of the bill. Paragraph (c) in that section outlines the 10-year moratorium on states' AI regulation: (1) In general. – Except as provided in paragraph (2), no State or political subdivision thereof may enforce, during the 10-year period beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act, any law or regulation of that State or a political subdivision thereof limiting, restricting, or otherwise regulating artificial intelligence models, artificial intelligence systems, or automated decision systems entered into interstate commerce. In other words, if the bill becomes law, states and local governments will be blocked from enforcing any regulations on AI systems and models that are involved in interstate commerce for 10 years. The phrase "interstate commerce" broadly refers to business or activity that crosses state lines. But in the context of this bill, the distinction likely doesn't mean much. As a result, we've rated the claim mostly true. The Supreme Court has said activities that happen entirely within one state can still count as interstate commerce if they have a significant enough impact on the national economy, as David Brody, a civil rights and technology legal expert, explained in an article for Tech Policy Press published on May 27, 2025. That means many AI systems would likely be subject to the federal rules if H.R. 1 passes. However, there are some exceptions to the 10-year moratorium on states' AI regulation — notably for any laws or regulations that facilitate the rollout, operations or adoption of AI models and systems, according to the bill text. Snopes reached out to the White House and the office of U.S. Rep. Jodey Arrington, R-Texas, who introduced H.R. 1, for comment about the 10-year moratorium on states regulating AI and the purpose of including it in the bill, and is awaiting responses. Multiple Republican lawmakers have voiced support for the 10-year moratorium, with some saying a patchwork of state laws doesn't support innovation and others stressing the importance of a federal approach to AI regulation. But other federal and state lawmakers as well as watchdog groups have strongly opposed the proposed rule over concerns about limiting states' ability to deal with potential harms caused by AI. For example, U.S. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., said in an X post on June 3, 2025, that she "did not know about" the section of H.R. 1 that bans states from regulating AI for a decade, adding that she is "adamantly opposed" to the provision. Hundreds of state lawmakers across the political spectrum also signed a letter addressed to the U.S. House and Senate on June 3, 2025, expressing "strong opposition" to the 10-year moratorium on AI regulation. The letter read in part, "The proposed 10-year freeze of state and local regulation of AI and automated decision systems would cut short democratic discussion of AI policy in the states with a sweeping moratorium that threatens to halt a broad array of laws and restrict policymakers from responding to emerging issues." Nearly two weeks earlier, a coalition of advocacy organizations, including Common Sense Media, Fairplay and Encode, also called on congressional leaders to oppose the provision, writing in part that AI companies would have "no rules, no accountability and total control" if it were to take effect. In a letter dated May 21, 2025, the groups wrote: As written, the provision is so broad it would block states from enacting any AI-related legislation, including bills addressing hyper-sexualized AI companions, social media recommendation algorithms, protections for whistleblowers, and more. It ties lawmakers' hands for a decade, sidelining policymakers and leaving families on their own as they face risks and harms that emerge with this fast-evolving technology in the years to come. Discussions about AI companions and possible issues arising from their use have gained prominence in recent months. For example, research from Drexel University in Philadelphia suggests that inappropriate behavior, including sexual harassment, during conversations with AI chatbots is "becoming a widespread problem," the university said on May 5, 2025. Consumer Reports, another advocacy organization, also raised concerns about states being unable to deal with a variety of issues that AI technology poses, including sexually explicit images, audio and video created without a person's consent. Snopes has previously looked into other claims about the "Big Beautiful Bill," including whether it contains a provision allowing the U.S. president to delay or cancel elections. Arrington, Jodey. "Text - H.R.1 - 119th Congress (2025-2026): One Big Beautiful Bill Act." 2025, Accessed 4 June 2025. Brody, David. "The Big Beautiful Bill Could Decimate Legal Accountability for Tech and Anything Tech Touches." Tech Policy Press, 27 May 2025, Accessed 4 June 2025. Cornell Law School. "Commerce Clause." Legal Information Institute, 18 Sept. 2018, Accessed 4 June 2025. Hendrix, Justin. "Transcript: US House Subcommittee Hosts Hearing on 'AI Regulation and the Future of US Leadership.'" Tech Policy Press, 21 May 2025, Accessed 4 June 2025. Open letter from consumer advocacy organizations to congressional leadership. Common Sense Media, 21 May 2025, Accessed 4 June 2025.
