Latest news with #TheCourant
Yahoo
3 days ago
- General
- Yahoo
President Trump pardons former Gov. John G. Rowland – 'wonderful final resolution'
Twice-convicted Republican Gov. John G. Rowland has been pardoned by President Donald Trump, according to multiple media reports. . Rowland's possible pardon had been rumored in political circles recently, but it did not become official until Wednesday. CNN, The Hill, and other outlets reported the pardon online. In an email to The Courant, Rowland wrote : 'I am deeply humbled and appreciative. I have been blessed with a wonderful family and friends that have been through a great deal over the years. This is a wonderful final resolution.' Word spread quickly late Wednesday afternoon at the state Capitol in Hartford, where longtime Rowland loyalists and members of his administration have since become lobbyists. Various officials declined to comment. Christopher Keating can be reached at ckeating@
Yahoo
27-04-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
A 1992 vote limiting CT spending a central issue in coming state budget battle
Gov. Ned Lamont says he consistently maintains two guiding principles as his mantra in restoring Connecticut to fiscal health after years of budget deficits: Don't raise taxes and don't break the state's spending cap. Now, Lamont is facing fellow Democrats who have voted to disregard both principles. The legislature's budget committee voted last week for a two-year budget that blows through the spending cap, and the finance committee voted to raise taxes on the state's wealthiest residents. Lawmakers voted to impose a capital gains surcharge of 1.75 percentage points on top of the 6.99% rate that the wealthiest earners currently pay, meaning that the new rate would be 8.74%. Known for a non-confrontational style in negotiations, Lamont did not use the word 'veto' but he made it crystal clear that he is against raising taxes and against breaking the cap. 'Obviously, I'm a little stricter about the spending cap than people on both sides of the aisle,' Lamont told reporters last week in Cheshire. 'But we'll be able to get there.' Asked by The Courant if he would continue his seven-year stance against capital gains tax increases and other revenue hikes, Lamont responded, 'I think you're correct on that. We've got a good budget. It's balanced. We don't need to raise any revenue. As you know, I'm not somebody that goes for tax increases. What I have done is cut taxes for working families and the middle class. I think that's the best way to get progressivity into our system without scaring people out of state.' A resident of Greenwich for more than 40 years, Lamont has watched fellow wealthy residents move to low-tax states like Florida, including some who keep their home in Fairfield County and still declare residency in the Sunshine State by staying there for six months and one day. 'Look at the numbers,' Lamont said. 'Look at the 10 states that are adding population. They either have zero or lower income tax than we do. And they're not all Sun Belt states. They're not all going there for sunshine. People are leaving California. That's got some sunshine, too. There are a variety of reasons that people move. For the first time in a long time, people are moving to Connecticut and more likely to stay in Connecticut. We need this [wealthy] population. That's how we keep our economy growing.' Lamont said he also opposes a separate Democratic plan to increase the state income tax on the wealthiest residents if they also receive federal tax cuts from President Donald J. Trump and the Republican-controlled Congress. In a sign of a potential compromise, Lamont seemed open to trading a new child tax credit that Democrats favor for the property tax credit that he proposed. Lamont's budget called for increasing the property tax credit on the state income tax to a maximum of $350 per year, up from the current $300, but the Democratic-controlled tax committee last week ignored the request. Instead, Democrats approved a child tax credit against the state income tax that has relatively few credits and deductions when compared to the federal system. Democrats have been pushing for years for a child tax credit, and the latest proposal calls for a permanent, refundable credit of $150 per child for a maximum of three children, or $450 per year. That represents a sharp drop from an original proposal of $600 per child for an overall total of $1,800 per year. With various pressing needs on the tax and spending sides of the complicated state budget, lawmakers say they are often unable to award as much tax relief as they would like. The full tax credit would be available to single parents earning up to $100,000 per year, heads of households earning up to $160,000 per year, and couples filing jointly earning up to $200,000 per year, according to an analysis by the legislature's nonpartisan fiscal office. The credit would start on Jan. 1, 2026 and would save families a combined $82.7 million per year. Lamont seemed prepared to trade off the two tax cuts in a possible exchange that could lead to the enactment of the child tax credit for the first time in state history. 'It's a responsible number. It fits within the budget,' Lamont said of the $150 credit. 'They took away the property tax credit, which we had, as one way to pay for it. So that's just a political discussion. … If the legislature thinks we should do a little more [for children], and we've got a way to pay for it, let's look at it.' Lamont added, 'I kind of like my proposal because it helps out folks who are getting squeezed by property tax. You can't do everything. If the legislature feels more strongly about a child tax credit than cutting people's property tax, we'll work with them.' The Tax Equity Caucus, a liberal Democratic group led by Rep. Josh Elliott of Hamden, has pushed for both the capital gains surcharge and the child tax credit. 'We need to make these changes this year because we are not only seeing incredible amounts of dysfunction coming from the federal government, but we want to show the people of Connecticut that we are elected as Democrats for a reason,' Elliott said recently. A recent study by the liberal Connecticut Citizen Action Group and Americans for Tax Fairness showed that the net worth of Connecticut's 14 billionaires, who largely live in lower Fairfield County, increased by $33 billion, or 61%, since Trump assumed office in 2017. At the same time, Republicans say that the wealthiest residents are already paying the largest proportion of the state income tax, which includes capital gains taxes. The latest statistics from Lamont's budget office show that the top 2.5% of tax filers paid 41% of the state income tax in 2022. At the other end, the bottom 49% of filers — representing essentially half of filers statewide — paid only 2.9% of the income tax. Less than 3% of the state income tax is paid by 830,000 filers who are earning less than $50,000 per year in adjusted gross income — for both singles and couples filing jointly. Filers earning more than $100,000 per year pay 85% of the income tax, while those under $100,000, representing 72% of filers, pay the remaining 15%, according to the statistics. While some Democrats are pushing hard for the capital gains tax, some insiders say it would be difficult to reach the two-thirds vote in the state House of Representatives to override a veto by Lamont on capital gains. Democrats have 102 members in the House and would need 101 votes to override. Moderate Democrats could block the override, and moderates like Reps. Kerry Wood of Rocky Hill and Jill Barry of Glastonbury voted last week against the capital gains surcharge and the overall tax package. Lawmakers clashed sharply over spending in the budget committee with Democrats saying they wanted to help the poor and Republicans saying they support taxpayers who voted by more than 80% in a statewide referendum in November 1992 for the constitutional spending cap. The Democratic plan, which allocates millions more than Lamont proposed in his budget in early February, calls for a spending increase of 4.35% in the fiscal year that starts on July 1 and 4.9% in the following year. Two of the committee's leaders, Democratic co-chairwoman Sen. Cathy Osten of Sprague and Republican Rep. Tammy Nuccio of Tolland, spoke passionately and in sometimes personal terms about the amounts of money the legislature would be spending that totals $55.5 billion over two years. Speaking in defense of the responsibility of government to help the poor, Osten said lawmakers must step forward and spend money for residents who are scraping by and having difficulty surviving. 'I listen to people tell me they don't have food. In my own family,' Osten told colleagues during the budget debate at the state Capitol complex. 'When I'm providing food for different people in my family, they don't have the money for it. … This last weekend, it was Easter, and for me, that's a big deal. Not for everybody, but for me, it's a big deal. I went to someone's house. She's close to 80. I've been trying to get her to get the mold removed from her house for two years now. I had to get her to sign some papers, and she said, 'I don't want to be embarrassed by asking for help.' … She has given to this state and this community for 50 or 60 years, and these are things that government does to help people out. Now, we could say we don't need any of that, and we should take all of that out of this budget and not help any of these people out.' Osten added, 'There's a section in the Bible that says when I was hungry, you fed me. When I was incarcerated, you visited me. That passage means so much to me. It's how I've lived my whole life. … I just can't see that government is always bad. … There is a reason for good government, and this is a budget about real people with real families and real problems. … I'm going to do what my grandmother did, and she never let anyone in the Depression leave her door without getting a bowl of soup. That's the kind of person my mother raised me to be — to always help those out. I'm not going to let them die on the vine.' After Osten's impassioned speech, Nuccio talked about her childhood and said the government simply cannot afford to meet every need. Too much money, she said, is being spent on various state programs. 'I was just as poor. Welfare mom, four kids. The whole deal,' Nuccio said of her early days. 'I was the kid getting free lunch. My mother was single at the age of 27 years old with four kids. I understand the social net. … There is a lot in this budget that is not just to help a needy person. … There is no way that I can support something that is so far over the spending cap. … We don't have the revenue in the governor's package to pay for this level of spending. It's not there. … It's discouraging that this is where we are at. … We are in this budget blowing through the constitutional amendment that says we have to stay within that limit.' Nuccio added, 'We are basically spitting in the face of residents' who voted for the spending cap in 1992. Fiscal concerns With dozens of groups seeking money at the state Capitol, various organizations have been disappointed by the decisions made so far by the legislative fiscal committees. Those groups are expected to continue lobbying over the next six weeks. The Connecticut Hospital Association says the appropriations committee made progress, but not enough, as the hospitals will continue to lobby the legislature. 'We thank the committee for their efforts to reject more damaging proposals offered by the governor's administration earlier this year including harmful out-of-network caps, which would severely hurt health care affordability and access, and avoiding additional regulatory burdens that would delay or impede critical healthcare transactions,' the association said. 'However, we must emphasize that adopting the administration's proposed tax increases and payment reductions will result in devastating effects that will worsen financial burdens on hospitals at a time when they are already struggling. These policies, on top of no action to increase Medicaid reimbursement for hospital care, will make it more difficult for hospitals to meet their mission of caring for communities, growing and supporting the health care workforce, and investing in innovation to advance quality care.' The budget committee voted to restore Medicaid money for ambulance providers, which 'sends a strong signal that the state budget should prioritize the services we provide to people who are most in need,' said Bill Schietinger, the regional director of American Medical Response, who serves as chairman of the Connecticut EMS Advisory Board. 'Connecticut's ambulance services are always there when someone needs us, yet Connecticut reimburses EMS providers for only a portion of the services we provide.' Concerning the spending cap, Lamont said it is uncertain what might happen in the future regarding federal budget cuts, which some have said could range from $200 million to $1 billion for Medicaid alone. 'But we don't do it now as the normal course of business,' Lamont said of blowing through the cap. Despite any differences, Lamont described the legislature's work as 'a good start.' He expressed optimism that he and the legislature can reach a final compromise on the two-year budget by the time the General Assembly adjourns the regular session on June 4. 'We're pretty close,' Lamont said. 'They're a couple hundred million over the spending cap. That's within the context of a $26 billion budget. We'll be able to figure this out.' Christopher Keating can be reached at ckeating@
Yahoo
20-04-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
CT face-off unfolding on taxes. Where there's a fight and who might have to pay more.
With key legislative committees issuing recommendations, Gov. Ned Lamont and the legislature are working to set the stage for an eventual compromise on taxes and spending to balance the state budget. While the state is headed toward another surplus for the current fiscal year that ends on June 30, Lamont and legislators are concerned about the fiscal storm clouds ahead that could lead to cuts by President Donald J. Trump. Depending on the size of the cuts, Connecticut could be forced to dip into the rainy day fund for fiscal emergencies that has been accumulating in recent years and stands at more than $4 billion. In the coming weeks, Lamont and lawmakers will be grappling over a final compromise as they seek to finalize the two-year, $55 billion budget. One set of solutions was offered by the legislature's Tax Equity Caucus, which says lawmakers should increase the capital gains tax by one percentage point on the richest residents to raise a minimum of $171 million per year as higher taxes could raise larger amounts. In addition, the caucus is pushing hard to create a permanent, refundable child tax credit of $600 per child for the first time in Connecticut history. The way to make this all possible, Democrats say, is by loosening the fiscal guardrails that were created on a bipartisan basis in 2017 and have allowed the state to generate continuous surpluses during Lamont's tenure. But Lamont doesn't want to raise taxes on anyone, and Republicans don't want any changes in taxes or the guardrails. After more than a year of complaints from some Democrats, Lamont agreed to a slight change in the guardrails when he unveiled his budget in February in a move that would allow more spending than is permitted under current law. For years, Lamont has blocked attempts by liberal Democrats to raise the state income tax on Connecticut's wealthiest residents or impose a separate capital gains surcharge that the caucus still advocates. At the same time, Lamont's budget team is bracing for cuts at the federal level that would reach Connecticut. 'Despite the unpredictability coming out of Washington, the administration is having ongoing discussions with legislative leadership about a path forward, after we see a final federal budget, and know its impact on Connecticut,' said Rob Blanchard, Lamont's chief spokesman. 'As the governor stated, he is prepared to use his emergency powers, but not yet. Especially in light of recent economic concerns, his preference is increasing the number of taxpayers in our state, rather than increasing taxes.' Republicans agree with Lamont. 'We're against any tax increases,' Senate Republican leader Stephen Harding told The Courant in an interview. 'We're one of the highest-burdened tax states in the country. We've seen what has occurred when we've increased taxes in this building not that long ago — there was an exodus of businesses and residents from the state. 'When you couple that with one of the highest electric bills in the country and other unaffordable aspects of life, we have an affordability crisis in Connecticut. The last thing we can afford right now are tax increases.' Harding added, 'If you see a budget that has tax increases or modifies or removes the guardrails, you will see Republicans in the Senate oppose it every step of the way. No tax increases, no change in the guardrails. Frankly, when you hear someone say we want to change the guardrails, it is a nice way of saying we want to increase your taxes.' The debate is heating up as the tax-writing Finance Committee and the budget-writing Appropriations Committee are both facing deadlines in the post-Easter days this week, which are key steps in the process before the final negotiations take place between Lamont and top legislative leaders. Lawmakers are hoping to reach a compromise before the regular legislative session ends on June 4, but they caution that they could return to the Capitol in September because the federal fiscal year does not start until October 1 and they might not know the extent of the federal cuts until later in the year. But top Democrats and liberals in the Tax Equity Caucus have another view. Senate President Pro Tempore Martin Looney of New Haven and Majority Leader Bob Duff of Norwalk are proposing specific tax increases that would take effect if Trump and Congress were to enact federal tax cuts for the wealthiest residents. Even if the Connecticut tax increases were approved, the millionaires and billionaires would still see their overall taxes drop because of the federal tax reductions. While middle-class rates would remain the same, the proposal calls for the top rate for the state income tax to increase to 7.99%, up from the current 6.99%, for couples earning more than $1 million per year and individuals earning more than $500,000 per year. Rates would also increase to 7.5% for couples earning between $500,000 and $999,000 and individuals earning between $250,000 and $499,999 per year, according to the Senate Democratic plan. 'Under the last Trump administration, Connecticut's top 1% saved $1.2 billion in federal taxes, while working families saw crumbs,' Looney said. 'If Washington insists on handing billionaires another tax break, we will ensure some of that windfall comes back to the people of Connecticut to help deal with the massive federal cuts we anticipate.' A recent study by the liberal Connecticut Citizen Action Group and Americans for Tax Fairness showed that the net worth of Connecticut's 14 billionaires, who largely live in lower Fairfield County, increased by $33 billion, or 61%, since Trump assumed office in 2017. State Rep. Josh Elliott, a Hamden Democrat who leads the tax equity caucus, said the legislature must take action in the coming months due to the moves by Trump. 'We need to make these changes this year because we are not only seeing incredible amounts of dysfunction coming from the federal government, but we want to show the people of Connecticut that we are elected as Democrats for a reason,' Elliott told reporters at the state Capitol complex in Hartford. 'And we're also here to show that people can get elected on this message that is popular in red, purple and blue districts. In fact, the six districts that House Democrats flipped from Republican to Democrat [in November 2024] were all purple districts, and they all were with candidates that focused on this message of economic populism.' Rep. Jillian Gilchrest, a West Hartford Democrat who is a member of the tax equity caucus, said it is now time to adjust the guardrails to allow more spending. 'You can't talk about tax equity in the state of Connecticut without talking about the fiscal guardrails,' Gilchrest said. 'Any conversation we have about new revenue, inevitably someone will say what about the spending cap? Even if we bring in new revenue, we're not going to be able to spend it. So we have to address the guardrails, and the guardrails are not sacrosanct.' But Republicans think they are. State Rep. Greg Howard of Stonington said Republicans want to hold the line on taxes and spending. As a middle-class taxpayer, Howard said he is concerned about the level of taxation. 'I've always thought the tax system is unfair,' Howard said in an interview. 'I think the income tax is solely designed to keep the middle class as the middle class. You can't work your way out of it. The more you work, the more they take. It discourages you from going out and earning more. I've hated the income tax since the day I could understand what it was.' Besides potential increases in taxes on capital gains, Democrats want to help the middle class by creating a permanent, refundable tax credit of $600 per child for up to three children. The proposal would apply to single parents earning up to $100,000 per year and couples earning up to $200,000 per year. The idea was pushed hard for years by former state Rep. Sean Scanlon, who is now the state comptroller, but the measure has not been enacted. While Democrats say that taxes must increase on the wealthy, Republicans counter that the richest are already paying much of the income taxes and pass-through entity taxes that provide huge parts of state revenues. Recent statistics from Lamont's budget office show that the top 2.5% of tax filers paid 41% of the state income tax in 2022. At the other end, the bottom 49% of filers — representing essentially half of filers statewide — paid only 2.9% of the income tax. Less than 3% of the state income tax is paid by 830,000 filers who are earning less than $50,000 per year in adjusted gross income — for both singles and couples filing jointly. Filers earning more than $100,000 per year pay 85% of the income tax, while those under $100,000, representing 72% of filers, pay the remaining 15%, according to the statistics. The top 1%, which includes filers at $1 million and above, pays about 30% of the income taxes. In addition, the state is projected to collect $2 billion this year from the pass-through entity tax, which collects the lion's share from entities controlled by wealthy small business owners. One of the biggest issues facing legislators is deciding how to allocate $1.4 billion in surplus tax revenues that the state has been collecting since before the recent Wall Street downturn. The $1.4 billion is collected under the 'estimates and finals' portion of the state income tax and comes mainly from capital gains taxes on Wall Street that are paid largely by millionaires and billionaires in Fairfield County. The money is kept in a separate category under the 'volatility cap,' created in 2017 by the legislature, which declared that lawmakers cannot spend the money as they had in the past. Under current state law, the state must transfer the $1.4 billion in surplus tax collections later this year to the state's pension funds in order to pay down debt. But House Speaker Matt Ritter of Hartford, the leader of the 102-member Democratic caucus, has called for changing the guardrails and instead allowing the state to spend the money if needed to cover federal budget cuts. Both Republicans and Lamont respond that no quick moves should be made with the tax surplus money because it would require the guardrail changes that need a vote of three-fifths in both the state House of Representatives and Senate. 'We're going to stay the course and control what we can control,' Lamont said recently. 'But I've got to worry what happens in Washington. They represent over $10 billion of our budget, and thousands of so-called state employees are subsidized or paid for by the fed. So we watch that very carefully. I can't avoid it. I wish I could.' Christopher Keating can be reached at ckeating@
Yahoo
31-03-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Big solar array in small CT town illustrates contention over Siting Council
Along remote Pompeo Road deep in the woods of rural Thompson, Sandra and Noah Sarucia started a bed and breakfast a few years ago with the idea of attracting guests drawn to scenic, unspoiled views. But C-Tec Solar LLC's plan to clear part of a nearby woodland to install a large solar panel array changes all of that, the Sarucias say. 'We have a small BnB business on our property that relies on the scenic road look and feel to attract customers,' Noah Sarucia told The Courant. The Sarucias were dismayed when the Connecticut Siting Council authorized the project earlier this month, and said all Connecticut residents should know that the council can make such decisions regardless of local opposition or community opinion. They're not saying whether they will challenge the decision in court, but noted that residents in numerous towns have been pursuing appeals in recent years. 'We believe that the Siting Council has unchecked power as seen by so many appeals being submitted across the state by folks just like us who weren't given proper notice nor proper information about how to participate in the objection of such irrevocable decisions,' Noah Sarucia wrote. They are not alone in their frustration: At least a dozen individuals, companies and towns have sued the Siting Council over the past four years, challenging its approval of battery power storage farms, high-voltage power lines, cell towers and solar arrays. Just four weeks ago, Granby filed suit against the council for authorizing Key Capture Energy's plan for a 5-megawatt battery energy storage facility not far from the Salmon Brook; the town contends the council didn't give enough weight to evidence of environmental and safety hazards. So far, court appeals against the Siting Council have a poor record of success. The courts have mostly ruled upheld the council's decisions, noting that state law deliberately designed it to make decisions in the best interest of all Connecticut power customers and utility users — with freedom from obeying preferences of neighbors or the local community. But state lawmakers have been looking for ways to give citizens and communities more of a voice in the decisions, and are focusing efforts this spring on Senate Bill 78. It would require the Siting Council to include a representative from the community where a proposed facility would be located; the mayor or first selectman would be responsible for appointing that person. The local representative wouldn't get a vote, but could deliberate with the council's voting members. Currently the council is made up of a representative from the Public Utilities Regulatory Authority, the Department of Energy and Environmental Protection, a designee from the state House speaker and another from the Senate president, and five public members appointed by the governor. In testimony to the Environment Committee last month, Fairfield resident Mary Hogue urged support for the bill. 'These decisions are long lasting, if not forever changes to the landscape and infrastructure of the area. In Fairfield and Bridgeport we are currently dealing with an issue that should have included the citizens along the route of the EDC monopole project so that we would not be at this impasse,' Hogue said. 'Let's learn from this and include more transparency and citizen participation.' Rachel Briggs, staff attorney for the Conservation Law Foundation, said her organization supports the bill, but wants other changes, too. 'Many community members do not find out about proposed projects until it is too late for them to fully participate in the process. Improving notice is a key way the council can improve public involvement and the quality of decisions,' she told legislators at a hearing. The foundation wants the council to notify the public at least 30 days before public hearings, and to use social media, local news media, municipal websites and signs at the proposed project site to do it. In addition, the council should enable residents to sign up for email notices of any proposed project in their town, she said. Betsy Gara, executive director of the Council of Small Towns, also wants the bill to authorize the Siting Council to consider the number of energy facilities already in a community so that no town gets overburdened. 'Although we recognize the importance of the Siting Council process in advancing the state's energy goals, COST remains concerned that the council is approving several facilities in a handful of towns which is placing a disproportionate burden on these communities,' she wrote. But in testimony to the Environment Committee, Gov. Ned Lamont said the bill should fail. 'The Siting Council is a critical statewide body that ensures consistent siting practices for statewide infrastructure. Ultimately, the Siting Council regime ensures that all Connecticut residents can benefit from statewide infrastructure,' he said. 'Municipal participation in Siting Council proceedings is already extensive … disturbing the consistency of the Siting Council's approach will inhibit Connecticut's response to climate change.'
New York Times
28-02-2025
- Entertainment
- New York Times
The Man Behind the ‘Economic Blackout' Served Time for Sex-Related Offense
A grass-roots movement called the People's Union USA was at the center of a request for Americans to participate in a 24-hour shopping boycott on Friday. It urged them to avoid spending money at big-box stores and to stick instead to small businesses or, ideally, not spend any money at all. 'If we disrupt the economy for just ONE day, it sends a powerful message,' reads a line explaining the event on the group's website. The boycott became popular on social media in the days leading up to Friday, spreading widely with endorsements from celebrities including the author Stephen King, the actor John Leguizamo and the singer Bette Midler. But who is behind this group? A man named John Schwarz. In a lengthy bio on the group's website, Mr. Schwarz, 57, details his parents' divorce, his meditation practice and his various homes over the years, including a stint living in New England. While the movement has spread far beyond Mr. Schwarz's organization, with many participants seemingly unaware of the group's existence, some details of Mr. Schwarz's past that were not included in his official biography complicate his place at the center of what appears to be an earnest attempt at economic protest. In 2007, Mr. Schwarz was sentenced by a Connecticut judge to 90 days in jail and five years' probation for disseminating voyeuristic material, according to a representative from the Middlesex County criminal court clerk's office who reviewed court records while speaking with The New York Times earlier this week. According to court records cited in a report in The Hartford Courant at the time of his sentencing, Mr. Schwarz, then 39, had been accused of photographing an unconscious 18-year-old woman's exposed breast and texting the image to her cellphone. 'I have nothing to hide,' Mr. Schwarz said when reached by phone for comment on Friday. 'Yup. I was convicted in 2007 of something that never should have happened and it is completely fabricated.' (The Times identified Mr. Schwarz via public record databases and his previous addresses.) The teenager worked at the Sugar Cube Cafe, a now-closed coffee shop in Cromwell, Conn., which Mr. Schwarz owned, according to state corporate records. In 2006, the young woman told investigators that she and a friend had visited Mr. Schwarz's home to watch a movie, according to The Courant report, which cited court records. He offered them pudding. The teenager ate a few bites but said she stopped because she thought it tasted weird. The two subsequently passed out. She told the police that she had left feeling 'nauseous and weak,' and that she believed she might have been drugged. Mr. Schwarz pleaded guilty on the charge of disseminating voyeuristic material under the Alford doctrine, which means he did not admit guilt but acknowledged that prosecutors probably had enough evidence to convict him. As part of his sentence, The Courant said, Mr. Schwarz was ordered to register as a sex offender. In an email on Friday, the Connecticut State Police said Mr. Schwarz was no longer listed as a sex offender because he had completed his registration term. The sentencing judge, Frank A. Iannotti, 'noted that the drugging allegations were 'unproven,'' and added that 'two 18-year-olds eating something and passing out simultaneously 'doesn't make sense,'' The Courant also reported. 'This whole thing was a big scam,' Mr. Schwarz said during Friday's interview. 'It's going to be expunged. I passed my polygraph test three times. Three times. I did not take a photograph. I did not do anything inappropriate to anybody.' 'I'm not talking about it,' he added, saying the issue was in his past and that it had been a 'sledgehammer' to his life. 'Bottom line is, no matter what you want to say, I served my time,' Mr. Schwarz said, declining to answer further questions before ending the call. Mr. Schwarz says on his website biography that he lives in the Midwest. (A P.O. box in Ringwood, Ill., is listed on the People's Union USA website.) On social media, he goes by TheOneCalledJai and has directed supporters of his organization to follow his personal accounts under the same name as he sells merchandise and solicits donations for the People's Union USA on GoFundMe, collecting more than $93,000 as of Friday afternoon. The money from the GoFundMe will be used for 'building the website, pushing this movement forward, and working toward officially unionizing and forming a nonprofit,' according to the People's Union USA website. The site also promises transparency about where the money will go, listing about $5,000 in expenses thus far on largely administrative needs, including website domain costs and a U.S. Patent and Trademark Office fee. The website promises to offer regular updates. It was last updated on Feb. 26. Mr. Schwarz said on his group's website that the profits from People's Union USA merchandise will 'go toward future operational costs, including payroll, expansion, and ensuring this movement keeps growing and thriving.' While the movement has pushed for people to support small businesses in the United States, the merchandise is being sold through a drop-shipping company. Mr. Schwarz said he is working to shift the group's merchandise operation to a local business in Illinois. 'I have not taken a penny of that money for myself,' Mr. Schwarz said of the GoFundMe money. 'We're selling T-shirts, and I'm using the money for that to pay for the person who needs to go to all the emails that are coming in, because I will not touch the GoFundMe for that, even though I technically could. It says administration and things like that, but I don't want to. I want all of those funds, the people's funds, to go right to what we're building.' Friday's boycott is one of several the People's Union USA has planned for the coming months, according to its website.
