Before You Vote for Rob Blanchard, Read Special Act 26-1

I read Nicole Stanton's letter for Rob Blanchard with interest, mostly because I agree with her on one point. How Connecticut spends the Federal Cuts Response Fund is worth arguing about in public. So let's have the accurate version.

In November 2025, the legislature set aside $500 million from the Budget Reserve Fund, our rainy day savings. The law was specific. Special Act 25-1 spent it on federal reductions to WIC, SNAP, the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program, health care, school meals, child care assistance and housing assistance. That is the entire list. And it set an expiration date: any unspent balance "shall be returned to the Budget Reserve Fund on February 4, 2026, and lapse on said date." The House passed it 126 to 20. One of the yes votes was Vincent Candelora, the House Republican leader.

Subscribe

February 4 was chosen because it is the day the General Assembly reconvenes. Candelora said as much in January: the emergency procedure "made sense when the General Assembly was not in session," and once lawmakers returned, they "should decide which programs facing cutbacks get funding."

Lawmakers returned February 4. The money did not. Senate Bill 83 was emergency certified, the procedure that skips committee review and public hearings. The Senate voted February 4, the House February 5, and $330,811,954 moved into a new Federal Cuts Response Fund before a single resident could testify on it.

Read what it now funds. Special Act 26-1 appropriates the money for "responding to the policy impacts of P.L. 119-21 and mitigating any action or inaction by the federal government that results in a reduction in funding for any program in this state." November named seven programs. February says any program in this state. The act does say money may be spent "only pursuant to appropriation by the General Assembly," and then appropriates the entire balance in the next section. The Assembly appropriated all of it, once, on the way out the door.

House Republicans offered a substitute. Section 4 of it required that any expenditure "shall be approved by a majority vote of both houses of the General Assembly," and that no money move "before the General Assembly has approved such expenditure or transfer." That is Mr. Blanchard's promise, written as statute, on the floor, in February. It was rejected 48 to 98. In fairness, the same substitute would also have exempted tips and overtime from the state income tax using $128 million of the fund, which you may think is a good idea or a bad one. The bill passed 97 to 48. Candelora voted for the money in November and against the blank check in February.

Which brings me to the most interesting sentence in Ms. Stanton's letter. She writes that Rob Blanchard will "push for greater transparency and legislative input on how it's spent." That is a good idea. It is also a confession that we have neither one now.

Here is the oversight we actually have, and it is the one piece of November's law that survived. The governor sends a spending plan to legislative leaders, who have 24 hours to object. That was a reasonable check when the money was fenced to seven programs and expired in ten weeks. Now it is the only check there is. As of July, four plans had gone through and, in the administration's own words, all had been "approved by legislative leaders without objection."

Which brings us to the dairy farms. The money is real: $22.5 million pledged, $11.8 million to 64 farms in June, $3 million more in October. I am glad those farms got help. And under February's language it is perfectly legal, because almost anything is. But it would not have been legal in November, and the state's own announcement shows why. It cites federal milk pricing, tariffs on supplies, and fuel costs driven by the war in Iran. Those are serious problems. They are not the problem this money was set aside to solve.

Finally, the attack on Amybeth LaRoche. She has never held state office and had no vote on any of this. If her position is that she would have voted no, she is in the company of the 48 representatives who voted against it. You can disagree with them. Calling it a refusal to stand up for Connecticut is something else.

Ms. Stanton tells us she votes blue no matter who. I appreciate the candor. It does explain a letter more confident about who to vote for than about where the money went.

I have an obvious interest in this argument, so discount me accordingly. Then go read the acts yourself. The law said the money came back on February 4. On February 4, they voted to keep it.

Emily Hau is a Republican and Independent candidate for the 132nd Assembly District in Fairfield and Southport. She reads the fine print. emilyforfairfield.com