Following the report that Chris Shay's failed to disclosure who paid for his trip to Qatar in 2003 until questioned about it by The New Republic this month, Diane Farrell's campaign came out swinging.
"Chris Shays - a self-described champion of full disclosure rules - appears to have been less than forthcoming about the funding for his trip to Qatar which preceded his first trip to Iraq in 2003 according to an article in The New Republic. The story says that funding for that trip can be traced to the government of Qatar, something that is forbidden by the U.S. Constitution.
"This certainly appears to be a violation of House ethics rules and may put Congressman Shays in violation of our Constitution as well. Congressman Shays' actions appear make a mockery of his rhetoric. I call on Congressman Shays to explain his actions. I call on Congressman Shays to explain why he never included on his federal financial disclosure form, as required by House ethics rules, that the trip was funded by The Islamic Free Market Institute. According to the story, this is 'a nonprofit group founded by GOP ally Grover Norquist and run by a protege of disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff.'
"Congressman Shays owes this explanation to all his constituents in the 4th Congressional District. We should hold our elected representatives to the highest ethical standards. Congressman Shays has not met them."
U.S. Rep. Chris Shays, a national champion of campaign finance reform, admitted he failed to fully disclose who paid for a trip that enabled him to become the first congressman to travel to Iraq after its invasion by U.S. troops.
Shays, a Connecticut Republican in a tight race with an anti-war challenger, said he did file a detailed travel disclosure form with the clerk of the House as required.
So Mr. high and "campaign finance reform" mighty Chris Shays is caught red-handed and had to confess to the crime. Well, isn't that special.
04.25.22 (RADIO): WSHU Latino group call on Connecticut lawmakers to open a Danbury charter school
06.03.22 (OP-ED): KUSHNER: "Career Academy ‘a great deal for Danbury"
On September 26, 2007, ten plaintiffs filed suit in response to an arrest of aday laborers at a public park in Danbury, Connecticut. Plaintiffs amended their complaint on November 26, 2007.
The amended complaint states that plaintiffs sought to remedy the continued discriminatory and unauthorized enforcement of federal immigration laws against the Latino residents of the City of Danbury by Danbury's mayor and its police department.
Plaintiffs allege that the arrests violated their Fourth Amendment rights and the Connecticut Constitution because defendants conducted the arrests without valid warrants, in the absence of exigent circumstances, and without probable cause to believe that plaintiffs were engaged in unlawful activity. In addition, plaintiffs allege that defendants improperly stopped, detained, investigated, searched and arrested plaintiffs. Plaintiffs also allege that defendants violated their Fourteenth Amendment rights when they intentionally targeted plaintiffs, and arrested and detained them on the basis of their race, ethnicity and perceived national origin. Plaintiffs raise First Amendment, Due Process and tort claims.
Plaintiffs request declaratory relief, damages and attorneys fees.
On September 26, 2007, ten plaintiffs filed suit in response to an arrest of aday laborers at a public park in Danbury, Connecticut. Plaintiffs amended their complaint on November 26, 2007.
