Deval Patrick is of course the 71st Governor of Massachusetts.

To answer your next question, no, I’ve never had a donor ask me to spend $$$ on specific candidates.

That said, thanks for the extra info. I didn’t realize the $5k total was to all party committees combined. That makes a lot more sense, at least in theory. That said, in practice, it still leaves things ripe for abuse for local committees.

Re: unions, Paul… a union has hundreds or thousands of members. I think that’s different than an individual. I’m not saying I agree with how this aspect of the law works or not, but I think there’s a clear distinction. Don’t you?

Yet the ticking and tying OCPF, which dings candidates for math errors, didn’t notice anything amiss until the Boston Globe did all the resaerch and put it in the paper.

Look at what she was willing to do to cover for Reilly.

Cahill left the fold, so she can look can seem like she is tough on corruption wiithout paying any personal political price.

Ernie opines that this indictment isn’t much better than the probation one. And the case does post an interesting question. Let’s say, just hypothetically, that you’re an elected official charged with overseeing a multi-million dollar state-run operation; you’re running for another office; and some outside group that wants to kill your candidacy runs a couple million bucks in TV ads saying how badly you’ve mismanaged that operation, thus calling into question not only you but also the operation you oversee. Is it illegal to run ads defending the management of the operation? And if it is, should it be?

When your election campaign staff is involved, then you have crossed the line. Seems pretty cut and dry to me.

Plus, I want to add a third option. If you get involved is sleazy at best, criminal at worst campaign practices, if you’re a Democrat, don’t hire Republican staffers and get them involved in the dirty work. That’s what did him in.

But let’s be honest here. It’s a matter of time before the courts throw out limitations on political activity. The State SJC threw out the disclosure requirement like 8 years ago, Citizens United of course opened up a lot more.

So I think the opposite of what you suggest is more likely to happen.

The State law cracks down on INDIVIDUAL donations. And with the Union Rule David referenced above, today an individual can give less total in a year than any Union can give in one check directly to a candidate.

What surprises me is they didn’t come down hard on the aspects of this that seemed like money laundering.

Can someone say, “hey, town committee, I’ll donate $10k to you, if you spend $9.5k on my son?”

It’s pretty clear that this is more or less what went on. How does that not meet the very definition of money laundering?

Any legal types want to look up our money laundering and campaign finance laws and give a second opinion?

Finally, it’s pretty clear we need to update our campaign finance laws and bring city, town and ward committees in line with the contribution limits we place on candidates. There’s no reason on earth why someone should be able to hand a town committee a $10k check, and I say that as someone who’s on a town committee.

Why now? A bold new beginning? I doubt it.

“It certainly would be prudent for prosecutors and state legislators to look at their laws to see if this sort of analysis applies.” —Paul Bradshaw

Case in point: Elizabeth Warren. She basically has the full support of rank and file Democrats across the state, as well as progressive independents, but there are plenty of “blue dogs” who are registered democratic and quietly (or not so much) playing nice, if not endorsing, Scott Brown.

Unfortunately, being the dominant party in Massachusetts means we have all too many people who are on board because that’s the only way they could have a shot at meaningfulness, or winning election, rather than because they believe in the ideals of the Democratic Party.

Not all of them are necessarily even conservadems. They’re just DINOs in the sense that they care more about their friends and power than they do policy. Just witness the ideological contrasts of our current and former Speaker, and the (same) people in leadership who put them both in power.

And then witness the fact that the Speaker before them got in power, unpunished, through Republican house votes.

So, yeah, there are “machines” in Massachusetts, but they’re neither based on party nor even ideology. They’re based on power and old-school allegiances that have little to do with the modern Massachusetts Democratic voter.

And guess what? Tim Cahill used to be one of them. Were he not damaged goods from these ethics abuses, he’d probably still be.

What I think is weird is that large donations to a city committee can be used to help candidates that don’t represent anyone in that city.

What would I do? Glad you asked.
- keep the contribution limits from individuals to state parties where they are;
- increase the contribution limits from individuals to candidates, say to $1,000, or maybe even higher;
- lower the contribution limits from individuals to local party committees, say to $1,000; and
- require that the local party committees must make expenditures on candidates who, if they win, will represent at least one person in the locality, which would of course include statewide candidates as well as legislative and local candidates running to represent that city or town.

And yes, Paul, I agree with you that it is weird that unions, apparently alone among all non-profit organizations, are allowed to donate $15,000 from their treasuries directly to individual candidates. So I’d close that loophole too.

Are ya with me?

And Paul Ferro, are you suggesting John Walsh did something illegal? If not, cut the “look what a Democrat did” act!

You also realize that John Walsh’s vaunted voter-turnout machine to help Deval from 2010 was financed in large part by $5,000 checks to the Democratic State Committee (where did that $5,.6 Million come from? Elves?) They even have a name for it “The 71st Fund” so named because Deval is the 71st Governor of Massachusetts.

You’re complaining about a very strict law that has been around since you and I where listening to Nirvana because they were the “hot, new band.”