So the 5th District now has a replacement for Ed Markey. I am sure I’m not the only fairly-close observer who still doesn’t know all that much about Katherine Clark. (I couldn’t make a one-on-one meeting the other editors had with her pre-primary.) As a State Senator it is inherently tricky to make an individual name for oneself and still play the game effectively; The Senate President seems to get all the press and credit, and one can argue that the more independent one is, the more likely one runs afoul of the paths to actual legislative power.
The issues that got her notoriety in the primary were the expanded wiretapping bill (which on balance I agree with), and the pension reform bill. I’m not sure what those tell us about what kind of work she’ll do in the House, should the Democrats have a chance at a majority, or even a working relationship with Republicans (a fantasy).
What do we know what to expect of Katherine Clark? What’s her issue area?
So since she’s replacing climate hero Ed Markey, I’m encouraged by this:
At her victory party Tuesday night in Stoneham, Clark acknowledged the dysfunction in the capital, but said she is determined to try to combat climate change, toughen gun laws, and fend off proposed cuts to Social Security and Medicare.
… She points to Senator Elizabeth Warren as a model of how she hopes to operate in Congress, fighting for liberal priorities. But she said she also believes she can work with the GOP on legislation to spur private-sector investment in energy-efficient buildings.
Emphasis mine.
I suppose it is too early to say that the worm is turning on Congressional intransigence on climate issues. But there is a growing sense that clean energy and efficiency is good business, something to be encouraged regardless of ideology. Witness conservative enthusiasm for solar energy in Georgia and Arizona. And companies like our own EnerNOC are treating building efficiency as an energy source in its own right — frack your own buildings before fracking the earth!
In addition to the bipartisan Shaheen-Portman bill on building efficiency, Clark might also champion Ed Markey’s legislation to encourage utilities to become more efficient.
Again, efficiency is good business, especially for Massachusetts. It would be terrific to have Ed Markey’s replacement become a partner.
What else can we expect from her?
bluewatch says
It’s unfortunate that we elected a Congresswoman, but we don’t know where she stands on many issues. We might get a clue if we examine a list of the substantial contributions that Katherine Clark received in thefew days prior to a “lightly contested” election. She received contributions from several corporate PACS, including:
AT&T
Microsoft
Raytheon
She probably had to ask each corporate PAC for the donation, and she probably had to tell them where she stood on the issues that are important to these major corporate donors. So, they know where she stands!
striker57 says
Congresswoman-Elect Clark recieved a $5,000 contribution from my Union’s federal PAC after the primary. She didn’t ask, we approached her after having endorsed another candidate in that race. We approached her because she has a voting record as a State Representative and State Senator that made her the easy choice in the final election.
So what do we expect? An open door and a willingness to listen on issues we consider critical to our industry and workers overall (extending the federal UI comes to mind). A continuation of her voting pattern from Beacon Hill to Capital Hill. And a strong work ethic.
striker57 says
Katherine Clark voted for the State Senate bill increasing the minimum wage. I expect her to cast the same vote in Congress.
bluewatch says
It’s nice that your union gave $5,000 to Clark, without being asked. Somehow, I doubt that AT&T, Microsoft, and Raytheon work that way.
Perhaps, you have common ground with these corporations. Some military contractors are giving money to Democrats because they want the sequester to end, and they want increased spending on defense and surveillance systems. That spending also represents good jobs. All three corporations employ many people in this state.
At any rate, your union’s expectations are probably similar to the expectations of AT&T, Microsoft, and Raytheon: An open door and Willingness to listen on issues that they think are critical.
jconway says
It’s politics. At the end of the day, until we enact comprehensive campaign finance reform it’s a pipe dream to expect candidates to run on zero contributions which is the standard you seem to be holding our new Congresswoman to. The proof is in the pudding, I agree with Charley that she was one of the least defined candidates in the primary. Like him, I would’ve thrown my vote to Sciortino had I lived in the district. But based on her State Senate record we can expect a voting record similar to Ed’s-and that is frankly one that is not too favorable to corporate interests.
bluewatch says
I don’t expect candidates to run on zero contributions, but I do expect that they will take donations from individuals and PACs that reflect their views. Here is an observation:
Elizabeth Warren did not take contributions from any of these corporate PACs when she ran for office, even though she had an expensive highly contested election against an opponent with deep pockets.
striker57 says
Would be my Union’s priority after years of a recession and stalled economies. So we might in fact have something in common with particular employers whose economic health relies on the economy growing. And AT&T and Raytheon are partially unionized employers whose unions have supported legislative initiatives that benefit corporate interests because the result also means jobs.
I do believe some corporations, similar to my Union, took it upon themselves to reach out to the Clark Campaign. Be it good government or the baldly cynical self-interest, opening the door with a candidate clearly set to win is smart politics if legislation is important to you.
bluewatch says
Sure, I completely understand the reason why your union’s top priority would be jobs. And, AT&T does employ many people. But, I have a big problem when those new jobs are coming from increases in defense spending and increases in surveillance activities. Indeed, AT&T is a major beneficiary of NSA’s payments under the Patriot Act.
Wouldn’t our country do better with a reduction in defense spending, coupled with an increase in spending on infrastructure, education, and research?
And, don’t you think that there is a reason that AT&T donates to Katherine Clark, but has never donated to Ed Markey or Elizabeth Warren?
dca-bos says
is one of the biggest recipients of telecom money in Congress. Just this past year alone he raked in thousands of dollars from telecom company PACs including Sprint/Nextel, T-Mobile and many others. He’s also taken thousands of dollars throughout his career from AT&T lobbyists.
jconway says
Were his votes favorable to those corporations or to the people? And in the case as striker as pointed out, favorable to creating good union jobs in MA. It’s a conflict of interest if the donors steer the policy. We see that with Gillibrand and Schumer and but I have not seen that thus far with Ed or with Clark. The proof will be in their actions.
I agree with bluewatch’s concerns, I personally would prefer a Warren like exclusion of those dollars, but I also agree with Striker that this is how pragmatic progressive legislation can be passed by creating partnerships and creating jobs. Unless it steers her votes away from workers and towards business exclusively, it is not disqualifying.
bluewatch says
I’ve heard the allegations about Markey taking money from telecoms. There’s a difference between individual contributions and corporate PAC contributions. Here is a link to the 2014 AT&T Federal PAC donor list.. Ed Markey is not on the list. (Katherine Clark doesn’t show on this list, because the AT&T donation was within the last few days).
For the last election cycle: Here is a link to the 2012 AT&T Federal PAC recipient list. Neither Ed Markey nor Elizabeth Warren were recipients in 2012, but Scott Brown did receive a donation.
dca-bos says
Sprint/Nextel and T-Mobile. He definitely received their PAC money during this most recent cycle. Markey didn’t take PAC money prior to his Senate race, but there are a lot of contributions over the years from AT&T lobbyists and many others in the telecom industry. He was the chairman and then ranking member of the telecom subcommittee back in the 1990s.
kirth says
Here is the opensecrets.org page for Markey’s Senate run contributions. Telecoms are there, but their dollars are a relatively small amount.
Here is the opensecrets page for Clark. There’s no mention on it of any telecom money going to her.
At this point, I’d like to see a source for bluewatch’s claims.
bluewatch says
Here are the sources that you requested. The information comes from the FEC web pages. Prior to the election, campaigns are required to disclose within 48 hours any donations greater than $1,000, and these disclosures occur almost every day. (OpenSecrets is not up-to-date with this information). The FEC links show the disclosures and they show other donations for that day, including other PACs that I didn’t mention.
Raytheon included on this link
AT&T and Microsoft included on this link.
kirth says
So AT&T gave her campaign $1000, MS gave her $2500, and Raytheon gave $5000. Based on opensecret’s not-up-to-date total of almost $1.5M, those add up to a drop in the bucket, and given they were at the last minute, are most likely just an acknowledgement that she was going to win. Especially in the case of Raytheon, they’d be stupid not to give her something.
JimC says
Should we start calling you redwatch?
kirth says
Based on the content of his comments, I’ve always thought bluewatch was one of those “other-winged” visitors, and his name was in the vein of “I’ve got my eye on you blue guys.”
I could be wrong, but I think it’s unlikely.
oceandreams says
They gave to Rep. McGovern. They gave to Ed Markey. They gave to Nancy Pelosi and to Henry Waxman. In the Senate, they gave $2K to Sherrod Brown, $8K to Sheldon Whitehouse, $10K to Amy Klobuchar and another $10K to Jon Tester. They also gave a lot of money to Republicans. That’s what they do.