Today, the Chris Murphy campaign reports that they raised 331 in the 4th quarter of 2007 bringing the total amount raised in 2007 at 1.4 million with 1.2 million on hand.
I was going to do a comparison of Cappiello's numbers to Murphy's 2006 figures when he ran against Nancy Johnson but Gabe at CTLP beat me to the punch.
At this time in 2006, Murphy was reporting that he had raised $422k (which is more than $397k) for the cycle-to-date, had $382k (which is more than $238k) on hand, and had spent only $38k (which is less, much much less, than $161k) for the cycle to date.
Focus on that last number for a second - Cappiello somehow managed to spend about three times more in Q4 than Murphy spent in all of 2005!
He spent about $100k to raise about $130k - putting only $34k in the bank!
And, as conncheck notes above, a little less than half of the contributions came from CHOMP, leaving only $70k from individuals (for comparison's sake, follow the link in this comment to see that Murphy raised about $125k from individuals in Q4 2005 and about $40k from PACs).
There are a lot of ways to spin this, but none of them are particularly good for the Cappiello campaign - which is why the numbers were posted after business hours on a Friday.
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.
Crosspost from My Left Nutmeg
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.
