Social Networks We Use

Categories

CT Tech Junkie Feed

Some Customers Say Transition From AT&T To Frontier Has Been Bumpy
Oct 29, 2014 2:26 pm
(Updated 7 p.m.) Customers who previously had AT&T Inc. landline, Internet, and video services were switched over to...more »
Social Enterprise Trust Honors Entrepreneurs Who Hope to Change the World
Oct 28, 2014 11:51 pm
Entrepreneurs interested in making social changes across the world as well as growing their bottom line are an...more »

Our Partners

˜

Foley & McKinney Are In The Fundraising The Lead

by Christine Stuart | Jan 10, 2014 7:39pm
(22) Comments | Commenting has expired
Posted to: Election 2014

CTNJ file photo (Updated Saturday 1:14 p.m.) The campaign finance reports aren’t officially due until midnight, so it’s difficult to say which Republican gubernatorial candidate has taken the lead, but Sen. John McKinney and Tom Foley have both raised more than $100,000.

According to his report filed with the State Elections Enforcement Commission, McKinney raised $101,080 from 1,109 individuals. That brings his fundraising total to $134,167. He will have to raise $250,000 in donations in order to get the matching grant from the state, which is $1.25 million for the primary.

Foley, the 2010 Republican nominee, whose report didn’t show up on the state website until Saturday raised $101,261, bringing his total up to $131,827. Foley largely self-financed his 2010 campaign to the tune of more than $10 million, but is considering using the state’s public finance system this year.

CTNJ file photo McKinney’s donations, totaling no more than $100 per individual, were raised at fundraising events held at homes from Westport to Wethersfield, in addition to some bigger ticket fundraisers at the Greenwich Country Club and Zandri’s Stillwater Inn.

McKinney also paid more than $22,000 to Tusk Productions of New Jersey. The firm, headed by Alexandra “Ali” Almour, boasts that she recently consulted for former state Sen. Dan Debicella’s congressional race against U.S. Rep. Jim Himes. She also served as finance director for former U.S. Rep. Rob Simmons’ 2010 failed U.S. Senate campaign.

McKinney’s campaign bragged in a press release that the fundraising totals are even more impressive because until this week most of his opponents were still exploring a run for governor, which allows them to raise $375 per donor, instead of the $100 per donor maximum.

Danbury Mayor Boughton, who just officially jumped into the race this week, raised $39,069 during the fourth quarter bringing his total fundraising total up to $53,614, according to documents emailed late Friday.

Sen. Toni Boucher of Wilton, who is still exploring a run for governor, raised $37,060 in the fourth quarter of 2013. That brings her total up to $66,659. Shelton Mayor Mark Lauretti, who just announced his candidacy, raised $1,200.

Joseph Visconti of West Hartford reported having raised $805 in the fourth quarter of 2013, while Gordon Ward of Manchester has yet to report his totals.

Democratic Gov. Dannel P. Malloy has not said whether he will seek a second term, but in the meantime he’s been aggressively raising money for the Democratic Party. The Democratic Party has yet to report its fundraising total for the fourth quarter, which is expected to include the fundraising trip to California in October.

McKinney has criticized Malloy’s meeting with a state contractor during that trip. Malloy has said he didn’t solicit money from Lenny Mendonca, whose company has received millions from the University of Connecticut and the state Office of Healthcare Advocate. The Democratic Party recently had to return a $10,000 check when it was pointed out that the donor was a state contractor.

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Share this story with others.

Share | |

(22) Comments

posted by: art vandelay | January 11, 2014  12:43am

art vandelay

McKinney may think he’s in the lead for the Republican Nomination, but I hope better heads prevail.  If McKinney wins the Republican nomination for Governor, they can kiss the November election goodbye.  There is no way in heck any true Conservative Republican in their right mind would EVER vote for this RINO.  He’s the worst RepliDemocrat the party has to offer.

posted by: art vandelay | January 11, 2014  12:44am

art vandelay

The best thing McKinney can do for the Republicans is to withdraw and get out of the race.

posted by: Mopar | January 11, 2014  12:28pm

Mopar

McKinney may be in the lead with money, but if he comes out ahead in the Primary it will guarantee a victory for Malloy with all those Republican gun owners John pissed off.

Wouldn’t surprise me if John is getting funds from Democrats anyway; Just to help Malloy win. It can’t really backfire, After all McKinney does tend to vote with the Democrats, even if by some miracle he did win the election little would change.

posted by: StanMuzyk | January 11, 2014  11:18pm

@Art:  Why waste your focus on John McKinney as you already believe he won’t win.  Suggest giving Shelton Mayor Mark Lauretti your attention
as a dark-horse, but a very viable winner.

posted by: Joebigjoe | January 12, 2014  9:47am

I wont vote for McKinney but this is part of a larger more serious issue. The National Republican party establishment trying to destroy the conservatives or Tea Party wing and move to the center which has shown doesnt work for them.

This bothers me so much that I honestly feel that they cant be that stupid and there is a conspiracy here where they want to remain part of government because something is going to happen to our government.

posted by: redlady | January 12, 2014  10:11am

Perhaps Visconti needs to take aim at a write-in campaign. The CTGOP cannot help any candidate.  Gun enthusiasts don’t seem to grasp the financing of campaign theory…it’s called Write A Check. So, they know what they want for leadership, but aren’t putting money in the game. Therefore, a grassroots write in might be the only way to protect us from the llikes of McKinney/Boucher/Bought on/Foley - all of which have no love for the 2nd ammendment. If they can’t/won’t get behind that, what else would they compromise once in office

posted by: StanMuzyk | January 12, 2014  12:11pm

@Art: You are “on the money” once again.  McKinney doesn’t need to be around—when we have Mayor Mark Lauretti—who can defeat Gov. Malloy.

posted by: StanMuzyk | January 12, 2014  4:21pm

Mopar:  Your political viewpoint is taken in that prospective. You cite McKinney’s money in campaigning against Malloy - when our Governor uses our taxpayer money for his election campaigning nationwide. He used taxpayer money to get elected—“and spends our money like he feels it comes from a bottomless pit.”  Deficit spending is Malloy’s specialty, and people who don’t pay income taxes—and only vote or a living—living off of freebies—will all vote for him.  It’s no wonder the state is broke. Malloy doesn’t need to get reelection money from Democrats, as you allege McKinney does—- as he takes enough money from the state for his continual campaigning.

posted by: LongJohn47 | January 13, 2014  10:11am

I’m loving this conversation.  Good luck getting a gun nut elected Governor.

posted by: StanMuzyk | January 13, 2014  11:21am

@LongJohn: We already have a gun nut in the Governor’s chair.

posted by: Joebigjoe | January 13, 2014  2:53pm

No new Republican governor is going to overturn the law and especially not with a Dem legislature. This has to be overturned by the courts. However a Repub governor can try to modify this law so that people can still legally buy what they want but still need to go through the stupid registration process. To me that stinks but it would be better than what we have now.

That could also fly because the further away we get from Sandy Hook and the more we learn, the more people who were not passionate about this topic are realizing that the law is garbage, hurts law abiding citizens, and its a mental illness/ gun free zone issue more than a gun issue so compromise might work.

Heaven help the people who have Dargan in their district if they re-elect that fool.

posted by: Jesterr72 | January 13, 2014  5:16pm

Why use words like “bragged” or “boasts” when describing Republican-related efforts? How often do you use it for Democrats???
Your bias is showing….AGAIN.

posted by: LongJohn47 | January 13, 2014  5:27pm

Joe—“gun free zone issue”—are you implying that we should have guns in schools?

How does the law “hurt law-abiding citizens”?

posted by: Christine Stuart | January 13, 2014  6:24pm

Christine Stuart

Democrats brag and boast and tout all the time. I’m certain I’ve used those adjectives with a wide range of personalities. That’s hardly a “gotcha,” but please keep trying.

posted by: Joebigjoe | January 13, 2014  6:59pm

Not implying Long John. Saying it directly.

Do I want a teacher with a holster? Absolutely 100% not. Not necessary.

All you need is one teacher or administrator in each school and here is exactly how it would work.

It would be voluntary to go through special training, retraining, and mental health checks before and periodically.

Here is exactly where the gun would be located. A 229 dollar simplex lock box safe bolted to a floor or a desk or inside a closet.

First of all no kid is getting inside it and if a kid is constantly trying to do that then it shows they have problems and should not be mainstreamed.

This safe bolted down is not getting stolen nor is someone walking off with it.

Bad guy enters the school and the highly trained person gets the kids to go where they are supposed to in a situation like that, and then goes and gets the gun.

It has been proven in every single case that once faced with armed resistance the active shooter kills themself or gives up.

The reality is that 99.9% of schools will never have this situation and 99.9 % of kids will go through 12 years of school having never seen that case opened.

The FBI recenly stated that these school shooters are a new breed of serial killer and go where they will face the least resistance. How about we do something as simple as letting them know there may be resistance so they dont try in the first place.

Human flesh is not a good barrier to a bullet so people can be heroic but to do that successfully they need to get their body against the shooters and then struggle with them.

As for how the law impacts me, I cannot purchase the kind of personal defense /target shooting weapon I would like. Guns do wear out and reach a point where they cant be repaired or work properly. I am a law abiding citizen that has done many good things for people needing help in many situations in my life and I should be able to replace or acquire an additional weapon.

On another note I wonder why Malloy and these other people dont tell it like it is. They wont because they dont want to offend their voters.

Nancy Lanza let her son dictate when they would communicate, how they would communicate, where she could and could not go in her own home. This was being a horrible mother more so than keeping guns in the house. This is a great discussion that the pols should be having about being a parent and parents rights as kids should have very little rights unless they want to move out.

I guarantee that there are alot of punks and future Somers inmates telling their parents the rules of the house and that needs to change. If I ever did that I would get the belt and today DCF would get involved. We’ve created a monster.

posted by: StanMuzyk | January 14, 2014  10:34am

@Joe:  A teacher with a holster could have saved lives at Sandy Hook School. Yet you say: “Absolutely not. Not necessary.”  It’s good to be flexible in making a stance on this issue.  If it could have saved lives—it shouldn’t be “Absolutely not.”

posted by: TCM | January 14, 2014  12:45pm

McKinney has ZERO chance of beating Malloy. Period.

posted by: LongJohn47 | January 14, 2014  6:20pm

But wait, there’s more.  “Highly trained” requires training, another school expense.  If we assume $1000 per course that’s $100 million each year from taxpayers (again omitting private schools).  And of course there are start-up costs – the safe itself, installing it so it can’t be moved, the guns – all together at least another $100 million nationwide.

But even with this “highly trained” person in place, there’s no guarantee that it would make a difference.  Where’s the “highly trained” person when the gunman comes in the door?  Are we only using volunteer teachers whose classrooms are near the entrance?  What happens when they’re in the cafeteria, or on the playground supervising the kids, or in the bathroom, or making photocopies in the lounge? 

Can we be sure that the volunteer administrator in his/her office won’t be the first one targeted?  That’s what happened at Sandy Hook.  And assuming the killer passes up the easy targets (middle-aged people sitting at desks near the front door), how does the volunteer administrator “get the kids where they’re supposed to go” and then make his/her way back to the office, open the safe, get the gun, and go after the bad guy?

Joe, you’ve been watching too many Clint Eastwood movies and listening to the “good guy with a gun” nonsense from the NRA.  Rather than coming up with a $1.65 billion solution for six school attacks, let’s focus on the 30,000 people who are killed by guns outside of schools each year.

(1)  http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=84
(2)  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_school_shootings_in_the_United_States#2010s

posted by: Joebigjoe | January 15, 2014  7:56am

Stan I say that because there are many people out there that would never allow their child in a school with open carry. I’m not crazy about it and when I see a better and safer option I dont see that as needing to be an option. There is a chance of a student hitting a teacher over the head as a total surprise to take the weapon so why bother even going down that path. My path I think takes away the whole “I dont want to have my child see a gun in school” argument as well as a teacher getting jumped for their weapon.

posted by: Joebigjoe | January 15, 2014  8:00am

Long John we cant solve the 30000 gun deaths (fake number)without society changing.

My idea would not prevent school shootings but will prevent school massacres and thats not Clint Eastwood talk.

Unless there is a change in the way mass shootings have worked, NOT ONE OF THEM has occurred where someone is armed and within 30 seconds of getting to the shooter.

posted by: LongJohn47 | January 15, 2014  10:31am

(this post should have preceded “but wait, there’s more)

Joe – You’re proposing an expensive and unworkable unfunded mandate on our schools.

There are just under 100,000 public schools in the U.S., more than 33,000 private schools, and about 6,500 “post secondary” colleges and trade schools (1).  Last year there were thirty attacks of any sort using guns resulting in 16 deaths and 24 injuries (2).

However, ten of these attacks took place at colleges or trade schools, so we should eliminate them from the analysis.  And of those that took place in K-12 schools, nine were outside in parking lots, athletic fields, across the street, or on a school bus.  I’m eliminating these, too, as your “gun in a safe in some office” isn’t very helpful here.

That leaves eleven gun-related events inside, of which three were apparent suicides with no one else threatened or involved, at least two were spontaneous fights between students who were carrying, and only six were gunmen from outside who entered and started shooting.  One of these gunmen, by the way, was talked into surrendering before hurting anyone by an unarmed administrative assistant.

So 133,000 schools, six attacks by gunmen.  In other words, 99.995% were unthreatened.  This is a nano-risk, so small it can hardly be seen by the naked eye.

Now let’s look at your solution.  You have a gun in a safe somewhere that can be accessed by a “highly trained teacher or administrator” who’s supposed to “get the kids to go where they are supposed to be…and then get the gun.”  The problems with this approach are obvious with only a little thought.

First, you have to convince someone in every school to volunteer for this role.  You don’t mention paying them, but I’d be very surprised that many teachers would want to do something like this without hazard pay (nor should they).  And if this job is vital to the security of the school, you can’t just have one – people get sick and have emergencies, so it’s prudent to have a backup (also “highly trained”). 

Let’s assume a $3,000 stipend (high school coaches make this much, and we’re asking someone to potentially risk his/her life), so just for the first person in public schools the price tag is $300 million nationally.

It’s also likely that some schools won’t have a suitable volunteer, in which case you’d have to hire someone from outside to fill the position.  “Highly trained” security people cost at least $50k/year plus benefits.  If only 20% of public schools are in this situation then that’s $1.25 billion nationwide coming from taxpayers.

But wait, there’s more….

posted by: Joebigjoe | January 15, 2014  12:40pm

Long John I’m not going to disagree with your numbers.

Lets say the number nationwide is 10 billion a year for schools up through high school to do what I said.

The Fed prints up and gives banks 85 billion a month.

Corporate subsidies that they shouldnt get and freeloaders on the 80 different welfare related programs are many billions beyond my 10.

The cost to protect the youth and teachers is nothing compared to the cost of people taking away Constitutional rights of the innocent because of nut jobs that we dont want to pay to deal with.

Another option is you take away the gun free zone concept. At least then you get in the head of the crazy that someone may shoot back and they dont know for sure like they do today that there is no armed resistance within those 4 walls.

The real key though is to be more harsh with nut jobs and change the HIPAA laws but that wont happen as the ACLU will block that.

Look at the 12 year old in Roswell yesterday that shot people in his school. Maybe he thought they were aliens? What we do know is every kid interviewed said this was a troubled young man and that he was weird and would never look anyone in the eye. You dont need to be an adult psychiatrist to determine mental illness but you can be 12 years old which brings me to my point.

Why was he, why was Lanza, why were all these other people mainstreamed? Get them out of the schools and into an alternative situation where they can get help. 

Finally look at the consultant to Rocky Hill and the report today of recommending armed resource officers in every school. I dont think people in Rocky Hill are nuts so why did he make that as a recommendation?

As for the so called 30000 which is an inflated number I care about the innocent who die. I dont care about the gang bangers and other scum that do. I, and others can also tell you that many more than 30000 (how many of those are CT one of the nations most populous states?) are saved from the legal use of a firearm. Why are these statistics not placed side by side by both sides to let people decide which is the way to go with gun laws?