Foley Goes to Court to Derail Fedele/Boughton
Republican candidate for governor Tom Foley sought an injunction today to keep rival Lieutenant Governor Michael Fedele from receiving nearly $2.5 million in public funding for the August 10th nominating primary. Foley’s lawsuit claims that the statute makes no provision for the joint primary campaign committee Fedele and his running mate, Danbury mayor Mark Boughton, used to qualify for public funds by raising $250,000 in small donations.
Fedele sought and received an advisory opinion after the Republican nominating convention that set forth how he and Boughton could raise and combine funds. Foley did not seek to intervene in that administrative process.
Foley and his campaign committee are represented Horton, Shields & Knox, P.C., the same Hartford law firm that represented Secretary of the State Susan Bysiewicz in her spectacularly unsuccessful action to have a court declare her eligible to run for attorney general.
Foley, who is not well-known to Connecticut voters, is taking a risk with his lawsuit. He’s trying to starve Fedele’s campaign of money. If he’s successful, Fedele’s campaign will collapse. Foley risks adding to the evidence that he’s a bully. Foley’s lawsuit takes on, public financing, which Governor M. Jodi Rell sees as her legacy and the jewel in her tarnished crown. Foley’s sharp elbows may push Rell into making a late endorsement of Fedele, her “partner in government.”
8 comments
Aren’t there accommodations in the public financing laws for this? Didn’t Foley miss the appeal deadline already?
I presume that Foley didn’t object because in his wildest dreams he didn’t think that the commission would possibly allow Fedele/Boughton to bundle duplicate contributions which exceeded the $100 limit and allow those to count towards Fedele’s qualifying threshold.
Why is the CEP commission allowing contributors to give $200 to the Fedele campaign when the limit is $100?
Most of Boughton’s supporters are the same names on Fedele’s list and live in Stamford. When did Danbury’s mayor become so popular in Stamford?
Thievery going on here.
T, here are the answers to your question:
1. No. Read 9-709(a) or other blog postings here.
2. No. There is no deadline. Either that or please clarify your question.
Kevin, your wild-a$$ed imagination and thirst for drama is getting the best of you as usual.
The Foley campaign’s complaint is a completely valid complaint. You’re a lawyer and you know damn well it’s a valid complaint, Fedele didn’t raise his minimum 250K to qualify for the public grant. Since you have such a high opinion of yourself, why aren’t you commenting on the merits of this complaint? Do you think the complaint has any basis or merit or do you think the SEEC did things correctly?
By the way, Dan Malloy raised his 250K and Nancy Wyman raised her 75K. Both of them accomplished this with plenty of time to spare. Fedele and Boughton are either too lazy or simply don’t have the minimum support to qualify for the public handout in either of their cases.
The Foley campaign isn’t “trying to starve Fedele’s campaign of money” Mike Fedele bears the sole responsibility for that all by himself. He didn’t raise enough money to qualify for the public money so he tried to pull a stunt by teaming up with Boughton which is clearly not allowed under 9-709(a). The SEEC’s advisory opinion isn’t worth the paper it’s written on. The legislative branch of Government is the only branch who makes law, not the Executive branch which is what the SEEC is part of. We all learned this in Jr. high school.
The SEEC has another option which is to get a Regulation approved by the legislature’s Reg. Review Committee. You know this Kevin, you used to be a State Rep. and also a one term State Senator before Gary Lebeau beat you in 1996. So don’t sit there all stupid like you have no idea that what the SEEC did is wrong. Under Chapter 54 of the statutes, the SEEC must get its REgulations approved by Regs. Review or they are not valid. An Advisory Opinion that did not get approved by Regs. Review is unenforceable.
There is no “evidence that (Tom Foley) is a bully” where are you getting that from?
I don’t think Governor Rell sees the CEP as her “legacy” and no one really cares if she endorses anyone before the primary. It’s pretty clear she won’t but why do you make stupid speculations like this? Oh that’s right you’re a drama queen, never mind. At this rate you’ll never be able to attain your goal of respected journalist instead relegating yourself to tabloid sensationalist with little or no credibility. That’s truly sad because you’re a pretty smart guy.
EdM, do you think 9-709(a) as written would only apply to CEP participating candidates? Should non-participating candidates in a primary be allowed to merge committees?
grackle,
First question: Yes
Second question: No.
Non-participating candidates have nothing to do with Chapter 157 (CEP) so you have to look at Chapter 155 for your answer. See Chapter 155 and look at 9-616(a). Let me make it easier for you, here it is:
“Sec. 9-616. (Formerly Sec. 9-333r). Contributions made or received by candidate committees. (a) A candidate committee shall not make contributions to, or for the benefit of, (1) a party committee, (2) a political committee, (3) a committee of a candidate for federal or out-of-state office, (4) a national committee, or (5) another candidate committee except that (A) a pro rata sharing of certain expenses in accordance with subsection (b) of section 9-610 shall be permitted, and (B) after a political party nominates candidates for election to the offices of Governor and Lieutenant Governor, whose names shall be so placed on the ballot in the election that an elector will cast a single vote for both candidates, as prescribed in section 9-181, an expenditure by a candidate committee established by either such candidate that benefits the candidate committee established by the other such candidate shall be permitted.”
Candidate committees cannot reimburse one another EXCEPT that “after a political party nominates candidates for election to the offices of Governor and Lieutenant Governor,” which means AFTER the primary.
Funny that you mention that because this is another thing that Fedele and Boughton did wrong. They “teamed up” on some expenses before the convention buy buying signs with both their names on them and passing out joint literature. It’s on their reports, Boughton reimbursed Fedele and Fedele shows this on page 323 of his financial disclosure statement dated 7/1/2010 but no one has picked up on it yet. That’s a complaint just waiting to happen. Just like the whole 9-709(a) situation, the SEEC will probably say there’s no violation of law here either. Maybe I’m wrong but I don’t think so. I guess the only way to find out is for someone to file a formal complaint with the SEEC and let them figure it out.
Boy Bill, errr sorry Justin, I mean EdMfromBranford, you are such a crybaby.
If you or your friends in Foley’s camp are so smart,why didn’t you contest the opinion when it was issued? Asleep at the switch?
No need to contest the opinion when it was issued because it’s meaningless. The law is the law and “Advisory Opinions” especially those that conflict with the law are not enforceable. Stating fact is not being a “crybaby” as you wrongly claim. Are you going to call the judge a “crybaby” if he determines what the SEEC did was wrong? I’ll bet you will. Try that sometime in front of a judge and see what happens.
I don’t really know how anyone could read the law and not see the problem with this. Essentially allowing individuals to contribute twice defeats the whole purpose of the law! Fedele didn’t raise the money that he needed and he got desperate. Honestly, if he could have raised the $250,000 himself do you think he would have taken Boughton’s money? It’s just further proof that this guy’s campaign isn’t viable. He should give it up and save the taxpayers a ton of money. Of course, the fact that he even sees taking public financing for his campaign as an acceptable option is questionable to begin with. Any true Republican would see it’s yet another instance of government waste.