The arts matter, folks. I should know. Therefore, while the state's finances are in the toilet, and we've had major big time whoop-de-do legislation on transport/ethics/pensions, my state rep has been filing legislation to require the sterilization of wind instruments. And why?
Earlier this month, the Globe reported the legislation had been filed by state Rep. Paul Donato, D-Medford, one of whose constituents is Lorenzo Lepore, a dentist who spent 10 years developing an instrument sterilization system that costs between $50 and $320 per treatment per instrument, to kill the germs he says can last for long periods in the instruments.
State campaign finance records (search here) show that Lepore has donated $1,550 to Donato since 2006.
Welllll now, let's not jump to conclusions, correlation doesn't equal causation, and I'm very sure Mr. Donato can't be bought so cheaply. Right?
But at the very least, for those of you who have been searching for the sequel to Fluffgate … I think we have it.
magic-darts says
There are a lot of ‘progressives’ that have it in for Paul Donato because of the gay marriage issue. Let’s remember, his stance on gay marriage is the same as President Obama.
<
p>Donato is a great rep – who works tirelessly for children, the poor and seniors in his district. Anyone can tie any legislators to special interests because that is the way the campaign finance system is set up. That is what we need to change. Don’t just single out one of the hardest-working and effective state reps in metro Boston.
ryepower12 says
Legislators have records and should be held accountable to them. Your damn right I’m angry with Paul Donato because he thought I was a second class citizen. Vote against my rights — and what am I supposed to do? Just sit down and take it? And I think you forget a lot of the women in his district who were clearly angry over his position on matters of choice – including his vote on the buffer zone, which protects women in Massachusetts from having to go through the harrassment, danger and violence that women in many other states go through because they lack buffer zones. That’s a rather large issue now, don’t you think?
<
p>However, Charley wasn’t complaining about marriage equality or any of that. He didn’t even mention it. He was complaining about how a small set of campaign contributions is quite possibly influencing legislation in an area that matters a great deal to a professional opera singer — the arts. As we saw with Dianne Wilkerson and others, a very small sum of money in the grand scheme of things can be used to influence votes and legislative behavior. Donato should give Lepore back those campaign funds to end the appearance of impropriety.
magic-darts says
There are lots of important issues out there – gay marriage and choice among them. And if there was a chance that Donato’s vote would ban gay marriage or end abortion rights in the state, I would certainly vote against him. But, these issues are settled in Massachusetts and – like him or not – Donato is an incredibly effective state rep for his district and a true champion of the disadvantaged. And taking a cheap shot at him because he got some contributions from someone who favors a certain bill is nonsense. That is the way the system is set up here. Should legislators refuse money from pro-choice activists because they vote a certain way – of course not. We need to change the campaign finance system. That is why we don’t have contested elections here. What is broken is the system, not the individual legislators who play strictly by the rules.
kbusch says
magic-darts says
There won’t be any true reform until there is campaign finance reform.
kbusch says
farnkoff says
who do in fact have a “financial interest” in abortion’s continued legality/availability?
kbusch says
I think s/he gets the balance exactly right. Stomv, too. Not everything that aligns with financial incentives is bad. It is not always bad, but it is always suspect. A solid case needs to be made — in this case that clarinetists are getting sick.
<
p>For some reason, I want to point listeners to Schubert’s excellent Der Hirt auf dem Felsen for soprano, clarinet, and piano, D. 965. Say here. It also strikes some very nice balances.
kbusch says
That’s not what zeros are for.
ryepower12 says
A) Absolutely, I can expect legislators to ‘refuse’ donations from particularly interested parties. Lepore wasn’t just some random supporter of the bill. He stands to gain a lot of money should it pass – and the bill’s Lepore’s baby. Donato should immediately send back the donated funds if he wants to avoid any appearance of impropriety. Period.
<
p>B) His marriage equality votes were when things weren’t so close.
<
p>C) The buffer zone bill took years to get through and was not ‘automatic.’ His enthusiastic support of that bill may have meant something important, if he gave it.
<
p>D) The fact that you gave me a zero for my comment appears to be in violation of the rules of the road. If you can’t take the heat, get out of the kitchen.
farnkoff says
Of cases where people with a financial interest in this or that matter pending before the state have given the legal maximum to a whole host of legislators, as well as the governor himself. One example- Brian Joyce filed a bill to ban the use of electric shocks on children for behavioral modification. As far as I know the bill died- not sure precisely where. But I noticed that Matthew Israel, the owner of the one facility that actually does engage in this practice, a place called the Judge Rotenberg Educational Center in Canton, has donated to Deval Patrick and others. This is just one example that I researched only because I happened to be interested- contractors, businesspeople and various professionals who have a financial stake in matters great and small (minutia of the tax code, “burdensome” regulations, etc.) are always donating- they probably donate more often than idealists or “issues people” who are motivated by justice and the social good writ large. Everyone has donors like this instrument-cleaner.
ryepower12 says
And feel free to bring those cases to light and ask those reps and senators to give the money back.
ruppert says
There are lots worse in the House, just ask Ernie.
ryepower12 says
Where else have I picked on Donato? Find me a single comment on this blog that I’ve written in the past 6 months about Donato that’s not in this thread. A single one. I’ve written one, maybe two, blogs about him in the course of my life – and those were during the ConCons, when he was voting against my right to be a first class citizen.
<
p>Charley wrote a diary. I commented on it. The extent of what I wrote — my main point — was that, if he wants to avoid the appearance of impropriety, he should just simply give the money back. I guess that, to some, constitutes “always picking on [him].”
bean-in-the-burbs says
I could have taken up a collection and raised $1550 for the Rep. Instead I helped convince gay and lesbian couples in the district to go meet with him and helped arrange a meeting between him and the Medford high school GSA – efforts that proved fruitless, as the Rep. ignored all of their pleas for him to support their rights. I’m sure they’ll all be thrilled to learn that Donato is fighting tirelessly today to protect them from the threat of infection from wind instrument mouthpieces.
woburndem says
Attacking Paul for not listening to a constituent. But I do not think that even with a donation you could count on a vote as I think is the case with most Reps although I am sure their maybe some just as a percentage of the population that they represent. We certainly saw the Senator who prompted the call for Ethics reform showing a % representation.
<
p>Certainly depending on the side you are on Paul Denato may not be your favorite and deserve to be lambasted on BMG. I just have to disagree with Charley since there is no proof this was on a scale of the DiMasi scandal; the evidence is just not there from what I have seen.
<
p>But Bean has a beef and Rep Denato should be a target on this issue amongst the other Reps who do not value personal freedom other then to carry a gun.
<
p>As Usual Just my Opinion
greg says
Magic Darts, shouldn’t you disclose the fact that the Donato campaign has been one of your clients?!?! First you’re advocating Bob Trane for State Rep while getting PAID by him and now this.
gray-sky says
then it should be noted that Charley is a supporter of Donato’s opponent last September.
<
p>In my mind this is much ado about nothing.
greg says
There’s a big difference between merely supporting a candidate and running a business where that candidate is a client. According to the Rules of the Road, one must disclose personal and financial relationships with candidates.
woburndem says
Don’t go trying to take away my progressive pin for this BUT, in Massachusetts any constituent can submit a bill and the rep is required to file it. The test needs to be if the rep is shopping it around for others to sign on and if they are pushing it through the process. Your post is not clear if this is occurring so if you have it put it up man. If not it maybe Paul just did what he is suppose to do when asked by someone in his district. Your correct in assuming that some one filing a bill and looking to get support is likely to make a donation and that is a major issue not yet dealt with in the ethics reform. Since you’re in Paul’s district why not may I suggest you start writing and give it to him in November to submit for you. I think it is a tremendous idea and then we can rally support here on BMG to push it through.
<
p>As Usual just my Opinion
ryepower12 says
is for Donato to just give Lepore back the money. I hope he does that. I would never accept funds from a person who I submitted a bill on behalf of, if I were in an elected office of some kind.
dhammer says
or the Teachers Union, or Mass Equality or the Associated Industries of MA or any other PAC that works to have legislation filed to support their position should give that money back too?
<
p>
stomv says
candidates who take money from those PACs run on issues which are supportive of the mission of those donors. It’s not always specific (“I, Jane Candidate, support the SEIUs mission”); sometimes it’s simply “I, Jane Candidate, support labor rights and issues”.
<
p>If Donato had been talking about disease control and prevention in schools before that donation came in, well fair enough.
jhg says
Those PACs make candidates answer fairly specific questions on their issues before making endorsements and spending money.
<
p>Why would you give money to a candidate if that precluded you from asking the candidate to file legislation, or vote a certain way?
<
p>And how do you define whether or not someone benefits peronsally from a politician’s actions? If a low income person donates to a politician who supports a progressive tax, must the politician return the donation?
<
p>The best solution is public financing, greater limits on campaign contributions or something similar. In the meantime as long as funding is transparent and legal it shouldn’t be a barrier to any action.
dhammer says
I’ve written candidate questionnaires, they’re never general, they’re always very specific. It’s explicit, if you don’t support positions X Y and Z, we will not support you. Often specific legislation is mentioned and the endorsement is dependent upon whether they say they’ll vote a specific way.
<
p>A candidate that “supports labor rights” but does nothing is far worse than a candidate that doesn’t support labor rights and lets you know it, one’s honest, the other isn’t.
charley-on-the-mta says
Donato is quoted making approving noises about the bill:
So, your point about the constituent filing is true, but then Donato doesn’t have to go trumpeting it.
dcsurfer says
on behalf of his contributor, especially a contributor who is also his constituent. Why is it wrong to work on behalf of a contributor? The leg doesn’t have to vote for it if it is their not convinced. This isn’t at all like Cognos-style behind the scenes corruption, everything is on the table and above-board here. I think that sort of responsiveness is what we should expect from giving money to a candidate, some face time and some issue concern. (Now, if there was a promise of a kickback if it passed, that’s a different story).
gray-sky says
Let’s not try to manufacture a scandal on a slow Friday.
stomv says
Not to toot your horn, but to catch wind of this bill hiding in the reeds and then trumpet your findings on a site read by Democratic brass takes mettle.
bean-in-the-burbs says
stratblues says
…between receiving donations from people who support you, and then filing bills to support mutual causes, and pushing legislation as a quid pro quo for receiving money. A thin one, but an important one. I for one would love to see public financing to make this whole issue moot, but currently this is the nature of the beast.
<
p>The fact that this constituent would financially benefit from the passage of this bill definitely brings it into question more than other cases. It would be pretty hard to prove a quid pro quo without a smoking gun, since Donato can easily argue that this is a measure he would support whether he received this money or not.
<
p>My guess is this isn’t the pay-to-play one could interpret it to be, but a good example of borderline practices that could be wiped out with some real campaign finance reform and public financing of elections.
ryepower12 says
Donato could simply give Lepore his money back. Politicians do that all the time. Want to avoid the appearance of impropriety? Give the money back.
christopher says
First, as another commenter mentioned, legislators in MA file bills on a constituent request all the time, without regard to personal opinion on the merits.
<
p>Second, $1550 since 2006 is a drop in the bucket and completely legal. It appears this constituent didn’t even max out every year. So a constituent contributed and the same constituent requested legislation – big whoop. The Rep. shouldn’t give it back. Does anybody REALLY think this is enough to unduly influence him?
<
p>Third, I linked to the legislation and quite frankly, I think it’s perfectly reasonable to require used instruments to be sterilized. Yes, the constituent might benefit, but it sounds like he might also be in a position to know about germy mouthpieces.
david says
Most “by request” bills are filed but never see the light of day. This one has been debated, and as noted upthread, Donato is talking it up.
christopher says
Even if that’s true my response is still to shrug my shoulders.
liveandletlive says
it would not be a bad idea to have instruments sterilized.
With methicillin resistant staph and even swine flu, it really should already be standard procedure. Especially with brass and wind instruments, where deep breaths are required, germs can be inhaled into the lungs. MRSA can be deadly, and is on the rise everywhere.
It has been reported in a few schools, one student in my son’s school had it. It is easily transferred to door knobs,pens, etc, and is easily picked up by fingers and then br spread all over by those fingers. It can remain silent on a person’s body for years before it rears it’s ugly head by invading an open wound, or entering the lungs.
<
p>Now my question is, is there a school in this state that actually provides instruments to it’s students? I have never heard of that. We have to rent or purchase ours from a nearby music store. So I would assume the expense would be the parents. Maybe legistlation isn’t required, but legistlation requiring that a warning be posted on every invoice and instrument, as well as the options and directions for sterilizing the instrument.
stomv says
Come on — is this really the most cost efficient way to reduce risk of illness? There are lots of things schools could do to reduce risk. Heck, they could hire people to drag kids into the bathroom and properly wash their hands for 90 seconds with soap and vigorous rubbing or any other millions of things.
<
p>The question is not if this would reduce risk. It certainly would. The question is whether or not the decrease in risk is worth the cost — and that’s a question that public health experts ought be weighing in on.
christopher says
In my experience substitute teaching at the elementary level there is quite a bit of emphasis on handwashing that I didn’t see when I was a student myself. Many teachers insist kids wash hands before snack, after recess, etc. Every classroom is amply supplied with hand santizers (with the drawback that some kids find playing with those pumps a little too much fun and end up wasting it).