(UPDATE: Town Clerk’s Office has sent certified letter to treasurer)
The campaign finance report of mayoral candidate John Gomes is now more than one week late, accruing fines for the responsible treasurer that can run from hundreds to a maximum of $2,000 and raising questions about a campaign that has trumpeted the call for transparency.
The deadline for filing was October 10.
Maria Figueroa is treasurer of the Gomes campaign. She has not returned inquiries for comment.
State statute empowers the Bridgeport Town Clerk’s Office to notify by certified mail the responsible party required to file the finance report. If the report continues to lag, an investigation is then turned over to the State Elections Enforcement Commission.
“The penalty for any violation of section 9-603, 9-604 or 9-608 shall be a fine of not less than two hundred dollars or more than two thousand dollars or imprisonment for not more than one year, or both,” according to state statute.
The campaigns of Mayor Joe Ganim and Lamond Daniels met the deadline for filing.
The Gomes campaign had raised close to $300,000, according to the last report filed with the town clerk.
The report in question covers the third quarter reporting period ending September 30.
Gomes Campaign Manager Christine Bartlett-Josie, when asked about the finance report, texted OIB, “I am not the treasurer.”
Two campaign vendors that contacted OIB unsolicited report they have not been paid thousands of dollars.
With the general election just weeks away campaign treasuries will run dry. Modern campaigning relies heavily on paid canvassers to churn out a vote. If not paid in a timely fashion, it’s sayonara.
Finance reports show where campaigns raise and spend resources covering paid staff, consultants, mail plans, media buys, headquarters and more.
The Gomes campaign has repeatedly criticized the Ganim administration for lack of transparency.
The Treasurer must be trying to Figaroing it out
She’s no Barber of Seville!
four hours of Tuesday court video that included about 1 hour of ganim questioning. and ingesting exchanges such as how are campsign workers trained (or not). where’s the coverage on that?
Where is coverage of absentee ballot specifics revealed in court through testimony?
In this case I am aware that nothing is official until there is a ruling, and that rulings can be appealed later. But we have been told that lots of forms, tens of thousands in fact, were distributed by the City for the purpose of requesting absentee ballots, by Gen Now, and many other politically active persons.
So how few were ultimately used to secure actual ballots? How many of those were returned by individuals by mail coming to the Town Clerk? How many were deposited at one of four boxes? And how to fairly assess the ultimate packaging of suspicious ballot dumping with fingerprints from a few that likely are part of a manipulation and the envelopes of the minority of ballots perhaps, that were ordered, and cast by voters into ballot boxes per rules?
It is likely that such info exists from one or more readers who have listened to the court record throughout. Have courage and become a reporter now. You are perhaps a reliable reader and note taker and are not under oath. Is there no one to respond? Time will tell.