One thing that I was wondering is why a candidate would decide to do a fundraiser asking for $10,000 contributions from wealthy contributors? Why publicly align yourself with a president crossing new frontiers in durable unpopularity on a daily basis? Doesn't it take enough nerve to ask for $2300 checks from contributors? Don't you want to distance yourself from the failures of the past, especially if you're not connected to them?
I see that as tragic, disastrous politics – but there's a reason why you'd do it: because you're addicted to special-interest money, and because you're afraid to ask the real people living in your district for $100 contributions.
It shouldn’t be that difficult. Why some people are saying, I really need it. I’m used to it. I’m used to getting that ad book money. I’m used to getting the lobbyist money. I’m used to the PAC money. I can’t do without it.
We can do without it. Our constituents want us to do without it. For better or worse, whether they’re right or wrong on this issue, whether it’s a real problem or just a perception, when you ask your constituents what’s the biggest problem when it comes to campaigns and financing of campaigns, they will say, the influence of special interest groups. [...]
Now that it’s 1: 54 on June 8th, in the morning of the last day of our Legislative Session, I am asking the Members of this body to support the real clean elections amendment, the amendment that will say no to special interest money now.
Because you know what? If we don’t, I guarantee the moment the other one passes, if it even passes both Chambers, I guarantee there are going to be people in this room who are going to be rushing to those lobbyists, and those PACs, and those contractors, and those special interests to please put money in my coffers now.
I need a leg up on my challenger in 2006, because somehow I can’t go and ask the real people in my district for a $100 contribution. Why is that so tough? Thank you, Mr. President.
—Sen. David Cappiello, Senate Transcript, 6/7/2005
Maybe Cappiello can't be bothered to ask commoners for $100 to support his campaign, but I know that Chris Murphy isn't above a little bit of grassroots love. He came by in November to talk with MLN readers about Iraq without asking for a nickel, so I'll do the ask – can you give $100 – or even $10 or $20 – to help Congressman Murphy fight back against the $10,000 checks Bush will be raising for his opponent this week? The MLN fundraising page can be accessed over on the left column of this page, or by clicking here.
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.
