The more I look at Mayor Boughton's re-election finance reports, the more I feel like someone is in a bit of serious trouble once the Galante case gets underway.
...in fact, if the last honest man in Danbury wins re-election, everyone should keep an eye on who becomes the next Council President (read the charter and learn about the city's chain in command).
As reader scan over the finance reports and wonder what the hell is going on, writers, such as Stan Smith of the Hartford Courant, are beginning to question the honesty of Mr. "People over Politics."
James Galante doesn't need me to speak for him.
But I'm having a hard time believing that if indeed the Danbury trash magnate funneled $40,000 in illegal political contributions, as the state contends, the recipient politicians had no idea what Galante was up to.
Sen. Louis DeLuca of Woodbury and Sen. David Cappiello and Mayor Mark Boughton of Danbury all say they had no idea - none - that Galante allegedly was funneling his cash their way through employees, friends and relatives.
But bundlers generally aren't exactly shy about letting the political candidate know what they've done for them. The chief bundlers gain clout and access with politicians because they have demonstrated the ability to raise money - the lifeblood of campaigns.
There's actually legal bundling, when people raise money from others; and there's illegal bundling, when contributors are using their own money.
"The whole art of bundling is to make sure you get credit for it," said Andy Sauer, executive director of Common Cause, the community action group. "I am someone who believes that whenever any campaign contributor is trying to gain favor with any elected official, the way they maximize their influence is by bundling."
So, if we're to believe this latest case against Galante, he went to great lengths to contribute to politician campaigns, but never let the public officials know he was hooking them up.
Maybe. But it doesn't pass my smell test.
Hopefully, Stan will have a chit-chat with the other reporters at the Courant who interviewed the SENIOR city employees in July of 2005 who gave the details about the ice rink (while Boughton could not be reached FOR COMMENT).
Galante and employees of his businesses have been generous contributors to Danbury Mayor Mark Boughton. Boughton could not be reached Tuesday night for comment.
Some senior city employees, who asked not be identified because they fear retribution, have said the city of Danbury allowed Galante to spend millions to quickly renovate the ice rink to comply with league standards -- but without timely city inspections for code violations. The arena was too small for league standards and needed to be expanded to a capacity of more than 3,000. The city employees said they felt pressured to quickly approve the renovations.
The more people read Boughton's re-election reports, and start to put the pieces together, the more people are questioning the mayor's excuses honesty and wonder if there is more to the Boughton-Galante connection that the public is unaware of.
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.
Tick-tock, tick-tock...can you hear it?
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.
