Given the other troubles James Galante faced -- including federal racketeering, conspiracy and tax charges -- allegations of violating Connecticut campaign finance laws weren't that big a deal.
But state prosecutors were right to bring the charges. What was involved was the attempted manipulation of the political system by a wealthy business owner who wanted to get his own way with government and used straw donors to hide his political contributions.
Monday, Galante was in Hartford Superior Court to deal with the state charges against him for making illegal campaign contributions. He avoided a trial by pleading no contest to the charges.
"I think Mr. Galante, in view of his federal case, wanted this thing to go away," said Hugh Keefe, Galante's attorney.
This "thing" will go away for Galante. He is scheduled to report to federal prison on Oct. 15 to serve a seven-year term on the federal charges. He was given a one-year term on the state charges, to be served concurrently with his federal sentence.
But this episode won't go away for the politicians who accepted Galante's contributions. Under his plea deal with federal prosecutors, Galante admitted running a scheme that discouraged competition in the trash business to keep rates high for customers, using organized crime to enforce the scheme. That's not a connection that looks good on a political resume.
[...]
Still, Galante had something of a reputation for collecting and attempting to manipulate politicians. When large contributions were coming from unknown donors, these politicians should have been paying more attention.
Things to consider.
From everyone I talked to who knows the history of Galante and politicians, it wasn't like Galante would just bundle a string of contributions to politicians out of the kindness of his heart. Think about it...40,000 dollars and NOT ONE politician knew about it? Yeah, right.
And as I clearly exposed, my 30 minute analysis of Mayor Boughton's re-election campaign statements (NOT HIS PAC) shows that, in at least one instance, there seems to be a pattern of donations that mirror the donations Galante's associates made to Boughton's PAC.
...and I haven't even brought up other ways Galante could have donated to Boughton (i.e., taking out ads in Boughton's fund raiser ad book). Given what The Hartford Courant reported on back in 2004 and 2005 with the questionable relationship between Galante and Boughton in regards to the ice rink, I'd say that there is MUCH more to this story that meets the eye.
Will we ever truly know what happened? Maybe and maybe not. Remember, investigation and charges were against Galante, not Boughton, DeLuca, or Cappiello's activities. Also, the charges against Galante in regards to giving donations to DeLuca and Boughton were NOT dropped, Galante just pleaded "no contest" to the Cappiello charge and received a plea bargain (in other words, the contributions to Boughton and DeLuca's campaigns are still part of the indictment).
Although were never charged doesn't mean that a crime wasn't committed nor does it mean that an investigation couldn't be opened if more information is presented to the State's Attorney's office.
Given:
* the way the system works (we all remember how long it took for James Dyer to get slapped with charges),
* the great ease in which I found more questionable donations from associates of Galante to Boughton, and
* past questions about the Galante and Boughton's relationship, and statements to the press from Boughton in which he claimed that he never had a social relationship with Galante (although several people witnessed the two together in the box seats of Trasher games)
I wouldn't say that a future investigation into Boughton's relationship with Galante is out of the question by any means.
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.
Textbook 101 on why you shouldn't believe Boughton, DeLuca, and Cappiello.
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.
