Candidates Plan Frantic Final Weekend of Primary Campaign.
Candidates in Tuesday’s Democratic and Republican primaries are crossing the state in an attempt to find and meet registered party members on a a sunny summer weekend.
Linda McMahon has 5 stops scheduled today, all in Fairfield County, where a big chunk of registered Republicans live. McMahon usually announces a couple of events a day. Her downtown walks are longer events than the ones she’s doing today. Volume is what counts now.
Quixotic rival Rob Simmons is concentrating on media interviews, according to a recent report. Wholesale, not retail, he says. The better to reach and educate “ignorant” members of the public, who Heidi Simmons, his wife and a 2006 Lamont campaign contributor, finds so frustrating. As Simmons draws closer to the end of what is likely his last campaign, his benediction to public life is surly complaints about how stupid is the world outside the shrinking universe of Simmons supporters.
Dan Malloy will start Saturday with a breakfast foray into Ned Lamont’s hometown of Greenwich. After that, he joins running mate Nancy Wyman at six events around the state, starting in Norwalk and ending in Waterbury. One of those is a Caribbean and Jerk Festival in Hartford. Politicians at a jerk festival. Something for readers to ponder. Malloy will spend Sunday visiting some churches. Connecticut Republicans don’t usually campaign in churches.
Tom Foley’s weekend schedule is fluid, according to his campaign. His online schedule includes 8 events on Friday, 3 of them in Darien, the rest in western Connecticut. He’ll spend Saturday in the central part of the state, starting in Bristol and ending in Orange. He’ll make a quick visit to Simsbury, where Oz Griebel lives, though he’ll be campaigning on his own there, according to a late change in his schedule. Campaigns are keeping a close eye on which local notables their opponents try to latch onto in the final days.
Foley will spend most of Sunday in eastern Connecticut, where there aren’t a lot of Republicans, but enough that they could be crucial in a close race. The former ambassador has been showing significant strength in that part of the state. Turnout could be higher there due to the presence of former congressman Rob Simmons on the ballot in the U.S. Senate race and a primary for the congressional nomination (though the 3 candidates in that contest have had little money to spend on getting voters’ attention). Eastern Connecticut could prove to be a primary night bonanza for Foley. He ends the weekend closer to home at an event in Westport.
UPDATE: Ned Lamont released an ambitious schedule last night. He’ll start the day in Dan Malloy’s Stamford, followed by quick hits in Fairfield, Westport, West Hartford, East Hartford, Hartford, and Waterbury.
18 comments
I have identified the three Connecticut towns that will be completely “Pol-Free” this weekend. For the complete list, call 1-800-shutup!
The real question is, when does Mike Fedele admit that he made up his Bibb ads?
http://www.ctmirror.com/story/7159/confusion-reigns-over-fedele-attack-ad
Kevin,
When the Supreme Court rejected Tom Foley’s appeal his lawyers speculated that the Court hadn’t actually ruled against him, just declined to get involved in the middle of a political camaign. WRONG! The Court’s written opinion is now out and it rejects each of Foley’s claims ON THE MERITS. I guess that there are some things that money can’t buy.
http://www.jud.ct.gov/external/supapp/Cases/AROcr/CR297/297CR122.pdf
Observer,
Try reading the sources identified in Fedele’s ads. They are accurate.
Considering we have >10$Billion in deficits, don’t you it’s time to elect someone who has shown they can shut something down?
Fedele and the Oz are old Hartford hands. Part of the problem.
If you need to be reminded of the problem Ct is facing consider this.
http://mainstreet-ct.com/marl/2010/08/07/before-you-vote-on-tuesday-look-at-this-graph/
What part of state government has Foley promised to shut down? What program? The fact is that both Oz and Fedele have been much more specific about what needs to be done. Perhaps that is because Foley is making it up as he goes.
The Source… the majority is one of the most conclusory and lazy court opinions I have ever read. Essentially, the majority concludes that, with regard to double dipping contributors, the statute is ambiguous, so the court must look at extratextual evidence and legislative history. Great. But the majority then fails to actually do any analysis of the legislative history. Instead, it comes to the unsupported conclusion that there are two competing goals of CEP, encouraging candidates to participate and also ensuring that when candidates do participate, they have grassroots support. Without citation, the court concludes that the former interest trumps the latter.
The concurrence is essential reading (it is a separate url http://www.jud.ct.gov/external/supapp/Cases/AROcr/CR297/297CR122A.pdf), and, in my opinion, too polite. Judicial niceties and basic politeness require the concurrence be written “respectfully” but I will state what the tacit conclusion must be: The majority got lazy, and refused to truly engage the legislative history.
Essential, although the concurring judge would have concluded the statute was unambiguous as to its rejection of double dipping of the sort done by Mike Fedele and Mark Boughton (meaning no legislative history is necessary), he humors the majority and does a lengthy analysis of the legislative history for them (it would be generous to describe the majority’s review of all the debate in the legislature as cursory). The analysis in the concurrence is too lengthy to summarize, but I sincerely hope you read it…. you will find that there can be no doubt at all that no one in the legislature, or even the SEEC, ever thought that double dipping would be allowed… in fact it is quite clear that everyone presumed the 100 dollar limit would be strictly enforced, and viewed it as a critically important part of CEP.
This case is an example of bad facts making bad law. At least when the U.S. Supreme Court decided Bush v. Gore, they had the good sense to declare it non-binding on future courts. The reason? Likely because when something so important is argued on the fly, without the litigants even having the opportunity to do adequate research, mistakes are bound to happen.
The majority opinion here is a good example of why the court would be wise to police itself in that way and should adopt a similar policy. I really believe that, had it been another CEP participant and not whale Tom Foley challenging Mike’s eligibility, the court would have come out completely differently. Moreover, it is, in my opinion, hubris to believe you can come to a well reasoned, final and non-appealable conclusion with regard to an important case of wide public interest less than an hour after oral argument. This case proves my point. The majority clearly began with the conclusion that it was going to bend over backwards to support the SEEC’s view, and came up with poor, inconsistent and illogical reasoning to support that view.
There is an old law school saying that when facts and the law support you you argue the facts; when only the law supports you the argue the law; and when the facts and the law are against you you just argue. Foley is clearly in the last group.
The record is clear. Six state judges (one on the Superior Court, five on the Supreme Court) considered Foley’s claims. Five of the six rejected them outright. The remaining judge rejected two of his three claims.
The truth that the Foley people want to ignore is that the lawsuit was a sham from begining to end.
Not sure what Foley is doing this weekend, but check out what he was doing in 1891 and 1993…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ghj_GBPG2-o
LOL.
* 1981…
Much as I hate to defend Foley, I don’t think much of attacks from people who don’t identify themselves.
Ken,
Do me a favor. Read the entire concurrence, including all of the legislative history, and then tell me you still think the majority got it right as far as the double dipping. Do you honestly think the legislature intended for a governor and lieutenant governor to only have to raise 75,000 each in order to qualify for CEP?
Justice McLachlan and Justice Zarella, two of the most conservative justices on the court, were both recused, along with Justice Eveleigh (he is now kin to Mike Fedele) who is known on the complex litigation docket down here in Waterbury for being extremely reasoned and very thoughtful. If the case wasn’t so political, there would have likely been a very different panel. I guess what I’m saying is, it’s better to be lucky than right.
In any event, Mike will likely lose on Tuesday night, becoming just a footnote in state electoral history and a handsome portrait in the Democratic Caucus room, but the rest of us will have to live with this bizarre interpretation of CEP for a long time after.
At a minimum, this case was clearly not frivilous or a sham. There was a legitimate argument to be made that the SEEC acted improperly.
Also, does anyone have an updated list of the current newspaper endorsements for governor, both on the D and R side?
Fuzzy,
My guess is that at least two out of three of the justices you named would have written something like:
“What matters is what the legislature said. If it had intended to prohibit counting duplicate contributions it would have said so. It didn’t. It is not our role to decide in they ment something that they didn’t say……” or words to that effect.
Really Ken? I think they would have written something like “What matters is what the legislature said. The statute plainly and unambiguously states that ‘[t]he candidate committee shall return
the portion of any contribution or contributions from any individual, including said candidate, that exceeds one hundred dollars, and such excess portion shall not be considered in calculating such amounts . . . .’ In the present case, the candidate’s joint committee, having received donations in excess of the one hundred dollar limitation, must return those funds.”
But again, you seem to like the majority’s opinion that the statute is actually ambiguous and not plain. Which brings me back to the original question I asked you. Do you believe that the legislature intended to halve the number of donors a candidate committee is required to receive by allowing persons to donate to both governor and lieutenant governor who are campaigning jointly?
And here are the facts that I think are bad in this case…
1) Mike was tantalizingly close to making it on his own (229,000 raised). Do you think it would have changed folks opinion if he had only raised 176,000, and was looking to combine 174,000 of Mark’s money?
2) What if Tom Foley wasn’t suing, but instead Oz Griebel? I’ve said it before, SEEC plays kingmaker where one candidate has opted not to participate and isn’t a wealthy self funder (see Attorney General’s race). Do you think Mike would have still been so sympathetic?
3) Worse, what if it was someone else suing Mike who had legitimately raised 250,000 on their own? Does that change the opinion?
This was a bad, poorly written statute to begin with. The first case challenging it had a very odd set of facts, a bad set of facts, and now we have bad precedent. Congratulations.
Fuzzy,
I understand your position. Indeed, I started out thinking the same thing. However, after ready the trial court’s memo, all of the Supreme Court briefs (the AG’s was by far the best) and the Supreme Court opinions, I think the court made the correct decision.
Janet Peckinpaugh seems pretty confident about Tuesday…
Peckinpaugh Announces Location for Primary Victory Party
(Essex, CT) 08/06/2010 The Peckinpaugh campaign team invites our volunteers, supporters, and the press to The Griswold Inn Tuesday, August 10th at 7:30 pm to help us celebrate Janet Peckinpaugh’s primary election victory.
Watch the results come in with us at one of the oldest continuously operated Inns in the country. Light hors d’oeurvres will be served and there will be a cash bar.
Come celebrate with Janet and help her thank her hard-working volunteers for all their efforts!
The Griswold Inn
36 Main Street
Essex, CT 06426-1132
(860) 767-1776
http://www.PeckinpaughForCongress.com
Another day another Foley robo call attacking Mike Fedele. Does this sound like a man up by 15 points? Not really.
Look out Tom they are BOTH gaining on you.
Leave a Comment