I have asked for an explanation of what Tolman has been doing in the 12 years since he last ran for office. In the audio interview with Blue Mass Group posted here, Tolman said he’s done “eclectic things”. He never mentioned getting three patents for gaming businesses. He said in his campaign launch “I’ve never been a proponent of gaming”. Yet he owns 40% of a company that hopes to do business with state lotteries to do side bets on lotteries… He says it is in his “rearview mirror” but he won’t divest until he’s elected… Read the Globe story here.
Please share widely!
evertalen says
I sincerely don’t understand why the Globe is attacking a Democrat over a business that so far has been entirely theoretical. As far as I can tell from the story, the company has yet to launch any actual projects to the public, or turn any kind of profit. Due to the ban on sports betting, it is unclear whether this company will ever even be able to take off the ground. For the Globe to attack a proven, progressive candidate in this way is an absolute mystery to me. Tolman has always been behind the working people of this state, and to try to vilify him for promoting gambling to young people is a complete joke. I sincerely doubt that a lawyer like him had anything to do with the marketing of this company. Jim O’Sullivan should be ashamed. It’s clear where the Globe’s bias stands.
bennett says
Whether or not it is theoretical, or profitable, he has a 40% stake in it. The company promotes itself as making gambling more attractive to young people.
https://angel.co/fast-strike-games
evertalen says
There’s a difference between how the company chooses to market itself, and saying that Tolman has been promoting gambling to the youth, as this article asserts. Also, you seem to have exaggerated points of the article yourself; he never expressed that he was unwilling to divest. If this was seen to be a conflict of interest, I’m sure he would sell his stake, but to think that a company that has made exactly $0 so far in any impacts his stance on gaming is nuts.
annewhitefield says
and he is an owner. Also, he holds the patents. That’s clear. Check the US Patent office. I don’t think he got those for his software programming skills.
evertalen says
A 40% stake is by no means ‘ownership,’ sounds more like an investment to me.
annewhitefield says
owning the technology means owning.
JimC says
“by no means ownership” — no, because it’s not a controlling interest (51%). But 40% is way beyond an investment, it’s partial ownership.
The New York Times Co. owned 17% of the Red Sox, and they were part of the ownership group, and the Globe disclosed it on every story about the Red Sox.
ChiliPepr says
If Mitt Romney owned 40% of a company would you be saying he did not have ownership? What if he is partners with 2 other people, both owning 30%? Who “Owns” the company.
Personally I do not see a big deal with his ownership of this company, but he is partly responsible for what the company does. If he does not like what the company does, he should say something and divest.
Christopher says
…being on the side of working people and promoting gambling are not mutually exclusive. Labor tends to support casinos because of the potential for job creation.
bennett says
It is a regressive tax on the vulnerable. And this doesn’t build anything, you use your phone and gamble against other people, and any place that sells a lottery ticket becomes a hub for gambling. No building trade jobs here.
danfromwaltham says
What better way to help someone who has lost everything, all his/her money, home, job, family, than with a councilor explaining the dangers of excessive gambling.
I hate the lottery, in all it’s forms, like some here hate coal. I consider the politicians who rely and pimp expansion of gaming worse than any owner of a coal fired plant.
wareinmass says
are is great for labor while the project is being built, then come the low wage service jobs, urban blight, and crime.
wareinmass says
are great*
scout says
online sports betting, where the house takes 5% typically, is way less predatory & more fair than they lottery and casino games, which are taking 30%-60%+, if I recall correctly.
If the state is going to be in the gambling business, I would much prefer an online market to what we have now.
JimC says
40% of the company, for doing nothing. No other compensation.
It sounds to me like the company was using his name to make itself seem more respectable to state lawmakers. Apparently they didn’t want to hire him as a lobbyist (and he probably didn’t want to register as a lobbyist), but if we assume that everyone knew the deal … then this is a definitely a question worth raising. And I would not say the Globe “attacked” him on it.
Full disclosure, I recently decided to support Healey, for tangentially related reasons (but not this directly, I hadn’t heard about this).
danfromwaltham says
It hurts me to write this b/c I sort of like Warren. The company touted their access to the legislature and the lottery, to me, that’s selling access. This diary must be promoted and regrettably, Tolman should not be supported. Same goes for Grossman.
demeter11 says
I hear that there is a lot of positive feeling about Warren Tolman on BMG. But whether he is promoting addiction, whether he owns %40 of the company or didn’t get compensation, whether the patents have his name on them or not all pale for me. I do think these are the last things I want in an AG, but in my mind there’s something far worse: He — his campaign — took down the website(s) with his name on them. So, he tried to cover his tracks.
When last BMG discussed this candidate I raised the question about what he has been doing for the last 12 years. I also raised some hackles. Especially when I mentioned having read in the Herald that he worked for a hedge fund. As it happens the herald wasn’t the only medium. http://www.lowellsun.com/breakingnews/ci_24472231/tolman-joining-mass-ag-race-thursday#ixzz2zf04yZLB
From the article, “Tolman, who also works as vice-president of a hedge fund, Entrust, that invests in other hedge funds,”
Alas, my question about the last 12 years is getting answered.
JimC says
Maybe you’d like to join the discussion rather than just downrating.
Bob Neer says
As they please. No need to comment on anything.
danfromwaltham says
I have seem to have lost the ability to write a diary even though the suspension was for 30 days. Can you fix?
JimC says
n/t
Christopher says
…but I too would prefer an explanation and contribution to the discussion.
Katie Wallace says
Wow! I was really shocked to read the details of this Globe story. It is so much worse than I expected from the headline.
I am supporting Maura Healey for AG because I feel like AG is a position that really requires someone with special and specific qualifications relating to law as well as a vision for the office. I had always thought that Warren Tolman was a good person but I questioned if his experience really fit this job and also was not impressed with the lack of detailed information about his career in the private sector. Now I truly question his values.
Owning 40% of a predatory gambling company is not a minor thing. You can not say this was a casual relationship. You can not say this is aligned with progressive values. I think this company in his rear view mirror is going to hit him in his…rear end.
Christopher says
We already knew he was more open to gambling than his opponent. I read the Globe article and only found the reporter’s assertion/interpretation that it would promote gambling among young people. I suppose if you are a kneejerk opponent of all things gambling, of which I have learned over the years there are plenty on BMG, then this isn’t going to sit well, but I see nothing in the article that is the least bit unethical or shady on Tolman’s part. Even removing his name seems to be mostly an exercise in trying to avoid headaches which he is hardly the first to do. Tolman knows the law and believes in following it. I support him because he shares many of my views and I’ve known him for a while, and I will say again as I have in many races that I much prefer posts in support of one’s candidate rather than tearing down another Democrat, especially a progressive one. (Yes, Warren Tolman is on balance very progressive; let’s leave absolutism and purity tests to the “Tea Party”.)
bennett says
My mother taught me, “when people show you who they are, believe them.”
I find it sad that people want to ignore what people do and fixate on who they once were. Maybe Warren Tolman was the poster boy for progressives once, but his business dealings, which are only now even slightly coming to light, speak volumes. His responses about this have also been less than forthcoming or adequate–as though he felt since he has been around so long, and “is a friend” to so many- much will be overlooked. I believe people should look at the whole person most of all, their actions.
Christopher says
…but it seems you are the one focusing on this one aspect of who he is. He has been progressive in his public life and articulates mostly progressive positions now. As long as he is willing to enforce the laws regarding gambling I am satisfied.
SomervilleTom says
You’ve already made it clear that you have approximately zero interest in the entire gambling issue. The fact that you are so easily satisfied by his professed willingness to enforce gambling laws strikes me as entirely consistent with your disinterest in the issue.
For those of us who, like me, have less tolerance for the appearance of corruption, I suggest that Mr. Tolman’s STARTING POINT, right NOW, should be to divest himself of his ownership position in this company — specifically including its patents. He lost my vote when he decided to retain his ownership position.
If the legislature was in the process of rolling out a measure allowing concealed carry and striking down the state’s gun control measures, what position would we rightfully assume about a candidate who owned firearms patents and was a forty percent shareholder in a weapons technology manufacturer?
Christopher says
He has indicated he is OK with gambling and I would likewise expect someone with a gun interest like you mention to be less than thrilled with gun laws. What I do not assume is that corruption automatically follows and I’ve never had a lot of patience with “appearance” arguments. Again, as long as that is disclosed and he is willing to enforce the law that might be OK. That said, I care a lot more about guns than gambling so I would prioritize that issue in my own thinking. It happens that Tolman’s strong positions regarding guns is part of what I like about him. I can see the argument for divesting, but if we want to insist candidates do that we should write it into law.
SomervilleTom says
“Disclosed”? Interesting how Mr. Tolman’s prominent role on the company’s website was removed the same day the Globe piece was published.
I guess we also have different thresholds about “appearance”. The SEC says a “major shareholder” is someone with beneficial ownership of more than 5% (for a public company). We are talking about EIGHT TIMES that amount. He similarly OWNS the patents, outright.
My point is that if Mr. Tolman were expressing an analogous view regarding guns while holding a similarly major personal interest in a weapons manufacturer, I somehow suspect you would have more trouble with his credibility.
I’m not saying that any changes to the law are necessary. If an owner of a weapons manufacturer chose to run for office, disclosed his or her ownership, and was clear about his or her stance towards gun control, then I think the voters are fully capable of deciding whether or not that individual is suited for whatever office he or she seeks.
Political candidates DO lie from time to time. When Mr. Tolman describes his realization that “Keno is here”, it is as if he — oh by the way — happened to have a 40% interest in a Keno equipment manufacturer. Mr. Tolman presents himself with an aw-shucks straight-ahead-guy folksiness. He describes himself as reluctantly being dragged to a conclusion that gambling is here and should therefore be legal.
I am, in this case, struck by the dissonance between that proclaimed reluctance and his aggressive pro-gambling ownership position and his reluctance to divest himself of that position.
Sorry, but legal or not, the man is a fake.
Christopher says
…as it is priorities for me. You are correct about my lack of concern regarding gambling. Guns would be a bigger one and I was just pointing out, admittedly a bit tangentially, that I LIKE his strong anti-gun stance. Even if he did have weapons patents and were more pro-gun it is still one issue that wouldn’t necessarily be a deal breaker if I liked everything else about him. What is wrong with my saying I have less problem with gambling than guns? I’m not sure I like the idea that someone should disown a product he had a hand in inventing. I do not interpret Tolman’s comments the way you do. I’ve known him for a while and know him to be a man of strong integrity. He has told the story of when he first campaigned he led with his union affiliations in a district known to not be labor-friendly, but voters respected who he was and elected him anyway. I DO think people are capable of separating their private interests from public interest and I believe Tolman in particular is so capable.
SomervilleTom says
We each have multiple priorities that we balance when choosing a candidate. I have not chosen a candidate for AG. I don’t have a personal relationship with Mr. Tolman, so I can only rely on what I learn from various sources including BMG.
In looking at the race for AG, I’m more concerned about privacy, militarization of police, and related issues. I don’t see either Mr. Tolman or Ms. Healey addressing those in any substantive way. Ms. Coakley has been far more expansive of government authority in these matters for my taste, and Ms. Healey has not attempted to separate herself from that stance so far (as nearly as I can tell).
I find Mr. Tolman’s handling of his ownership of the gaming company problematic, and that hurts his credibility with me on pretty much every issue. We know about the gaming company — I’m inclined to assume that there is more that we don’t know.
I’m therefore likely to bullet this office in the primary, unless one or both candidates are more responsive to my concerns.
kate says
When you say “bullet” do you mean that you not voting for anyone?
SomervilleTom says
Sorry, I used family slang that is apparently not widely known.
I meant I intend to leave that line blank on the ballot.
Christopher says
…I have to believe it will be addressed extensively before the primary. I tend to separate issues. Not being credible on one issue does not necessarily mean he lacks credibility on others.
jconway says
And I would argue that with the ultimate decision now out of the hands of the AG’s office and hopefully in the hands of the voters, the candidates stances on their legality is rather irrelevant. It’s nice window dressing by Healey to get some separation from Coakley on the one policy issue she disagrees with her on, the one that conveniently she will have the least amount of influence on as AG.
Warren Tolman has comprehensive plans to protect consumers, stop foreclosures, protect unions, protect the environment, go after big banks, big insurance, big pharma, and the gun lobby. I’ve heard crickets on all of those fronts from Healey. He just added a plan to stop campus sex assault and opiate abuse which are also major problems.
I would agree with Tom that it is troubling that neither candidate is devoting any ink on their sites or literature to civil liberties issues. That is a major concern. And while I am not troubled by Tolman having this investment per se, I also disagree with Tolman keeping this investment, it undermines the argument that he will be just as vigilant as Healey cracking down on fraud and abuse in the gambling industry. Selling it would make this go away, and he should also go on the offensive regarding on how he is more progressive. Civil liberties is one of those areas.
SomervilleTom says
I have far more trouble with Mr. Tolman’s reluctance to divest himself now that his ownership position is public — in my view, this is a reasonable demonstration of how he weighs public against his own private interests.
The “civil liberties” issue is my highest priority issue for the AGs office. I want to know how each candidate differs from the current AG, I want to know how each candidate differs from the President and his administration, and I want to know how the candidates differ from each other.
annewhitefield says
I have heard on the the stump specifically about these issues. She is much more straightforward in her answers and gives very specific case references about these issues. But if you don’t vote the tin drum with the louder marching band will win. I encourage you to learn more about Maura, there’s no shadiness there at all. I want an Attorney General who is above reproach.