Wednesday, April 16, 2008

The Sullivan campaign

A Democratic-oriented progressive blog made quite the big deal about Republican congressional candidate Sean Sullivan's use of former GOP state legislator Richard Foley "consulting" services yesterday. But not everything he implied on the blog site was true.

the blogger implied that Foley, who was the subject of corruption probe in 1993 later dismissed on appeal, was operating out of hotel in Danbury and hadn't filed the proper paperwork with the state to do business in Connecticut. The truth is, Foley maintains a mail box at the UPS store located at the address -- something he's owned since 2000 -- and he is not required to register with the state, only the town which he had done in Naugatuck.

Foley -- operating as the Prince Group -- was paid by the Sullivan campaign, earning $18,000 during the first quarter of this year for polling and consulting services. He hasn't worked for the Sullivan campaign since February when it appears there was a falling out. (Sullivan would only say that "changes were needed, and we made them.")

At first glance it looked like more than what actually turned out to be, especially with the glee and enthusiasm of the initial report on MyLeftNutmeg. But the details didn't match the same level of glee and enthusiasm on deeper investigation.

Foley's involvement with the Sullivan campaign, even briefly as it was, isn't that big a deal. The bigger deal is the Sullivan campaign itself. He is obviously struggling to raise money, and potential donors are going to look at how he's spending money and wonder if that's an investment they want to make. He barely netted $2,000 in the last three months (raising $43,000 and spending $41,000 -- mostly on consultants). If anything, he should take a second look at his "fundraising consultants" who made money from his campaign than what Sullivan was able to put "into" the campaign.


Blogger mlnmatt said...

The mailbox thing is true - they seem to reside at this very respectable looking house in Danbury.

But, of course, what's interesting isn't that he didn't file with the state (and I was quite careful not to state that he was legally obligated to do so before I knew for sure) -- even though that his pushback is baloney, since he doesn't operate the business out of Naugatuck anyway.

Foley has been with Sullivan since quite literally day 1 -- the first check the campaign wrote was on May 9, and that was the day the Prince Group started collecting money from him. It was certainly not a "brief involvement," and I'm curious who told you that it was.

What's noteworthy is that a congressional candidate hired and paid $37,025 to a man so widely known to be corrupt, and apparently only got rid of him because of the quality of his work product. (And while I have referenced his successful appeal in every mention of his jail time, the text of the decision upholds the finding of facts that he took $25000 in bribes -- the appeal was successful because nobody proved that what the bribers got in return was worth more than $5000 to them.)

The questions this leads me to ask aren't about xyz paperwork (though we're not done with Foley yet, certainly), it's about whether Sullivan a) has any fiscal discipline at all, and b) whether Sullivan thinks it's okay to give those who have betrayed the public trust high-paying sinecures using federally-regulated money.

4:35 PM  
Blogger mccommas said...

You're right of course Mr. Hackett.

Let’s just go ahead cancel the election and crown your man for life.

Who needs elections anyway? They are just so passé.

3:00 PM  
Blogger mccommas said...


Well first of all what’s your real name? My real name is John McCommas. Pleased to met you. I think that if you are going to make these kind of allegations you should put your real name to these words rather than hide behind a mask.

I just got around to reading your trash. I hadn't the last time I checked in to this blog.

First that case against Foley was crap from the get-go and you know it. I will admit it was a first class smear job that worked for a while. I recall reading this breaking news way back (in 1992 wasn’t it?) in the Commie Courant and I thought, ‘hummm that makes no sense at all’. I thought at the time that while I would not put it pasted Foley to do something like this, the facts of the case just didn’t add up to wrong-doing. Its not surprise to me that the case was thrown out on appeal. He never should have been charged in the first place.

I really don't know much about Foley’s character. I do know liberals hate him but I have not heard anything fact-wise one way or the other that can lead me to an intelligent conclusion on his character. With nothing to base a decision on, I assume he is an OK guy.

What makes you so sure that he is corrupt other than it would be a good talking point if it was true?

I am constantly reminded of one of Ann Coulter's golden rules. Find the Republican the liberals are picking on. That’s the guy you want to back. That guy is on fire.

Insofar as Sullivan goes, I really don't know what your are tring to say. Even if all of what you allege is true, what does that have to do with the price of tea in China?

If I had Sullivan’s ear I would have told him ALL these consultants aren’t worth a pitcher full of spit. But he is a newbie and made a newbie mistake. He seems to be a faster learner.

As far as you go, I think you need to debate the issues, the real issues, instead of trying to spin straw into gold.

I am sure you could put up a case against Sullivan without resorting to lies that even other liberals won’t believe.

1:29 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home