YourCT.com header image 2
← Norwalk: Klondike Park Mayhem Norwalk: Police Get Segway →

Norwalk: Democrats More Generous Than Republicans Fundraising Report


by turfgrrl


October 11th, 2007 · 17 Comments

The hoary chestnut of fund raising political fund raising is that Republicans can easily out raise Democrats. Another is that unions blindly support Democrats. Norwalk is a horse race of a different color. After a cursory review of the filings in the mayors race, I have observed that Briggs pulled in more $1000 dollar donations than Moccia. That Moccia had more $25 and $50 donations, and mostly from Norwalk addresses. That trade unions donated to Moccia. That otherwise, it was a pain to flip through actual paper at City Hall.

There were some surprising names who donated to each campaign. There were some notable missing names. Then again, I did not spend that much time going over every detail. There were people who did, and who photocopied the reports. I’m sure the comments will be lively.

Tags: In the News · Norwalk

17 Responses so far ↓ “Norwalk: Democrats More Generous Than Republicans Fundraising Report”



  • 1 Anonymous // Oct 11, 2007 at 5:37 pm

    It’s interesting how people are looking at this election. $1000 donationations are great but if you take the $50 and $25 donations wich are far below the max allowed it shows you that more people are making the smaller donations but more are voting for that particular person. Hey turf, got anymore figures?

  • 2 anonymous // Oct 11, 2007 at 6:16 pm

    I bet people were photocopying the lists…they’ll be vendettas for years to come!

  • 3 anon again // Oct 11, 2007 at 8:36 pm

    #2-by now everyone know who made donations to whom. They are public knowledge and for 20 bucks you can get your own copy. Reports show you who made the donations but some of them donate to both parties. Some candidates have scruples and some don’t. just because you see certain people on one list and not the other is decieving because some people take donations that others won’t for the sake of appearing unethical. Then there are those who see nothing wrong with taking money from people who may hold an interest in the city.

  • 4 Anonymous // Oct 11, 2007 at 8:37 pm

    Hey, Turf- how much money did each guy raise? Did Briggs beat Moccia with overall cash?

  • 5 Anonymous // Oct 11, 2007 at 8:45 pm

    Hour reports

    Moccia had raised $53,285 as of Sept. 30.Of that amount, $30,479 remained in his campaign war chest Sept. 30,

    Briggs had raised $44,810 and had $33,398 remaining in his campaign coffers as of Sept. 30.

  • 6 mattw // Oct 12, 2007 at 12:52 am

    It bears mentioning that we outraised Moccia in the quarter, and outraised his 2005 final total to boot. On top of the CoH, of course! Woot!

  • 7 Anonymous // Oct 12, 2007 at 8:37 am

    It also bares mentioning that Moccia didn’t take developers money and Briggs did. Why make it sound like Briggs made so much when the same developers offers the same funds to both candidates. and again, keep in mind, the smaller donations represent more people because $1000 is the max a mayoral candidate can accept.

  • 8 Anonymous // Oct 12, 2007 at 8:43 am

    There are developers listed on Moccia’s forms.

  • 9 Anonymous // Oct 12, 2007 at 8:56 am

    Didn’t notice them in the paper. who are they? I did notice Seligson and his wife on Briggs. The amount of money you raise is always a good thing but you also have to take into consideration that there are many who just don’t donate so you don’t know how theyt are going to vote. As was seen in 2005, its anyones guess. Don’t get me wrong, there are good candidates on both sides and thats what voters should be looking at. Stop voting party line and start voting for the person.

  • 10 #13 of the Miserable 25 // Oct 12, 2007 at 12:07 pm

    #9 wrote “Stop voting party line and start voting for the person.”

    A simple concept that many do not seem to understand.

    It is the main reason we keep getting too many schmuck’s/losers in local, state and national politics.

  • 11 Norwalk turns to Condo Hell // Oct 12, 2007 at 2:29 pm

    What if there is no one worth voting for.

  • 12 kathibo // Oct 12, 2007 at 5:51 pm

    Well said #10!! I couldn’t have said it better myself! In the last 10 yrs. since I’ve moved back up here, I’ve seen too many times when “both” parties put up unqualified canidates, just to have someone to run. I’ve seen people that have the morals, values and ethics of “slugs” run for a position, get in, and allowed to make decisions for this city that are only in their interest and don’t care about the people who put them in office to begin with. I’ve seen where “the perverbial” “Blind Eye” has been turned, when actions should have been taken. People with no integrity, flaunt themselves as the most upstanding and righteous individual, meanwhile hiding the fact that the word morals is not in their vocabulary!
    I will admit, that there have been and are candiates, that are just what they seem. That their best interests are not self-serving, and represent for the greater good. They personify what “any” candidate should….characters that we as a town can be proude of. Candidates that we can turn to the youth of today, who are the future of tomorrow and say follow that example.These are the ones, we as voters, should be putting into office, wether the most qualified or not.Not the ones who we have to explain why they are on trial, or what it means to be unethical or have no values, or any of the other dirt that eventually comes out of the closet. Party lines should be forgotten! We should take to heart the lesson we got at the hands of Bush!

  • 13 Watchdog // Oct 12, 2007 at 7:20 pm

    Kathibo, that was brilliantly stated! I’m so with you on this. I think we really owe it to ourselves to meet the candidates before even thinking about casting a ballot. Ever really think about the criteria some people use to vote for candidates? Many pull straight party or are gender or ethnic-specific when it comes to voting. Then there are those who flip a vote based on a photo seen in a last minute flyer. If “sex” really sells, then sadly, we reap what we sow. What a waste!

    How often I’ve come away from a meeting wondering how that character got in there. The irony of it all is that some of these candidates are so devoid of people skills that they are incapable of working with others when they are elected to do so. Remember, there are no credentials required for office. Come judge for yourself.

    Turf… have you any public debate dates handy? The public should definitely have access to them.

  • 14 RADICAL REPUBLICAN // Oct 12, 2007 at 7:24 pm

    I think Kelly and Doug are to big “rockstars” of district D. They are relentless with campaigning and really care what people say. WAY TO GO KELLY AND DOUG!!!!!

  • 15 wart mouse // Oct 12, 2007 at 7:32 pm

    DISTRICT A AND B AND C AND D AND E AND F AND G, H are good republicans people. i hope they win like all of them

  • 16 anonymous // Oct 12, 2007 at 7:44 pm

    Um, wart mouse, just so you know the districts go to E, and nothing higher. I appreciate your enthusiasm, but get your facts straight. But I really do appreciate that and I hope they all win to!!!!
    LOL

  • 17 anon // Oct 13, 2007 at 10:38 pm

    There are so many factors to be considered before you can really analyze this or make any assumptions based upon the amounts.

    I do have to add to the mix that there are a great many Republicans and Moccia supports who have given nominal amounts as a show of support. They do not feel the need to give more because his campaign is perceived as strong and a lot of supporters don’t see the need to build a war chest.

    As for the perception of “Republicans” and “Democrats” in fundraising, I think that a great deal of people are working on the basis of old, antiquated stereotypes. 30-40 years ago it used to be that there was a Republican base made up largely of the upper class. The middle-class lived somewhat comfortably, most had come from poorer roots and they tended to be more “Democratic” and to support government programs.

    But those stereotypes are obsolete. If you look around, you will see that the middle class is getting squeezed out. It’s sad, because it was what made this country great but now this is becoming a country of the haves and have nots. There is now a much smaller and much less comfortable middle class, a larger lower class, and many new who are on the verge of upper class.

    At the local level, the Democratic party now is comprised more of the “nuveaux riche” so to speak. Because they remain comfortable they support government programs. The middle classes are bitter, however. They are for the most part dual income families. They are tired of the constant struggle to juggle work and family responsibility. They regret having to place their kids in daycare and they do not want to support government spending. It is much easier to be charitable when you are not tired and financially stressed. That is the reality of the new Republican base and Democratic base, like it or not. So the $25 and $50 contributions make sense to me.

Leave a Reply