SEEC Fines Gaffey

Sen. Thomas Gaffey has been fined by the State Elections Enforcement Commission for $6,000 plus other expenses for double billing. You can read about the original allegation here; Gaffey apparently double-billed the state and his political action committee for travel expenses and swanky hotels over the years. Gaffey is also dissolving his PAC, and forfeiting its money ($20,000 or so) to the state.

Hilariously, he’ll be required to take a campaign finance education seminar should he form another PAC within a year of the agreement.

Gaffey has been in less-than-reputable territory before, as readers will remember. He was also involved in a scandal in 2002 involving CRRA and mileage reimbursement. Apparently, he billed the state and the trash agency for mileage. Sound familiar?

Somehow, he keeps getting re-elected.


5 responses to “SEEC Fines Gaffey

  1. Somehow, he keeps getting re-elected.

    Meriden would elect a pedofile…as long as he’s a Democrat!

  2. First, I really don’t get why the SEEC refuses to take on elected officials. If you look at their agendas you consistently see the same elected officials names on the dockets and barely anything happens. This fine may seem like a lot, but sure beats criminal prosecution doesn’t it.

    And second, why does it beat prosecution? Where is the State’s Attorney’s office on this? Gaffey’s fine may be hefty but at the same time this guy profited from lying- how is there not a further investigation into this? Is there any criminal liability attached to campaign finance (I think there is) What about embezzlement? If they fined the treasurer what about conspiracy?

  3. Bluedawg… from the June 24, 2007 NYTimes:

    It would also help greatly if the Legislature could be persuaded to approve several laws that have been proposed, and resoundingly ignored, for years. Among other things, they would:

    ¶Strengthen the chief state’s attorney’s office by giving the state’s top prosecutor the power to issue subpoenas during investigations. The Legislature stripped away that power several decades ago when the chief state’s attorney was deemed too aggressive in fighting in-state corruption. The office must have more authority.

    Additionally, I went to one of the Slossberg / Spallone “municipal ethics” hearings and spoke to this very editorial. If I recall correctly, I explained it like this:

    Corrupticut needs to address three issues:

    1) make the laws / rules – contract reform is an example
    2) investigate likely criminals – still nothing
    3) punish convicted criminals – pension revocation is an example

    My guess is that the key players in the legislature recognize that it’s possible to pretend that there’s been real reform in CT. But they also know that barring the reintroduction of subpoena power for state’s attorneys and / or easier use of grand juries… all the other stuff means little… because it has no teeth.

  4. And my guess is that Slossberg and Spallone want to do the right thing. Unfortunately, they’re not a Hartley.

    She’s a rare one who’ll take her grievances to the press. The rest of them may all want to do the right thing… but usually give up.

    We need a Bernie Sanders in Hartford who’s willing to tell Hartford’s Political Class that he’s bringing it to a vote… and he wants their John Hancock on one side or the other.

  5. Bruce Rubenstein

    My understanding of the law is that the SEEC has the power to refer investigated complaints to the state prosecutors….perhaps it was done here or perhaps not…whatever the SEEC did by way of a settlement agreement wouldnt bind the state prosecutors.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s