Unless and until Lisa Wilson-Foley comes clean about her relationship with disgraced former Gov. John Rowland, her personal integrity will be in question and her candidacy for Connecticut’s 5th District Congress seat doomed. The only issue for Republicans will be whether they want to see Wilson-Foley be defeated in the primary or the general election.
[...]
Wilson-Foley says that Rowland’s consulting contract with her husband’s business and his work for her campaign are completely unrelated, a huge coincidence.
If that’s not true, it means Rowland and Wilson-Foley conspired to break campaign finance laws.
If we are to believe it’s true, that it was just a coincidence, and if we are to have any faith in her candidacy going forward, here are just a few of the questions Wilson-Foley must answer:
- When did John Rowland start helping with your campaign?
- If your husband and Rowland have been friends for decades, did he ever serve as a paid consultant before your run for Congress?
- If this was the first time Rowland worked as a paid consultant for Apple Rehab, what specifically triggered the need for his services?
- What was the exact nature of the work Rowland did for Apple Rehab? How many on-site meetings did he have with Apple Rehab staff? How many hours did he log? Did he prepare any written reports or recommendations?
- If Rowland was “volunteering” for your campaign prior to or right around the time that his work for Apple Rehab started, and it wasn’t connected at all, didn’t you worry that it might appear like an attempt to skirt campaign finance laws? If you were aware of the possible appearance of a conflict, why didn’t you disclose the dual roles then or when reporters first started talking about Rowland’s campaign role and asking you about it?
- How many other people have a paid role with one of your companies or your husband’s companies and a volunteer role with your political campaign?
- Did you know that Rowland had suggested to Mark Greenberg that he volunteer for his campaign and be paid through his animal shelter when he became involved in your campaign or when he became a consultant for Apple Rehab?
- If the Greenberg revelation is new to you, what do you think it says about Rowland’s ethics and whether he should still be representing the Wilson-Foley campaign?
We'll see if Wilson-Foley's team will answer these rather simple questions...
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.
