From the Globe:
It is certainly one of the grandest quarters ever for a candidate for attorney general: a $1.4 million Charlestown townhouse. For four months, as Maura Healey and her small staff worked to launch her candidacy, she used the home where she lives as a working office for some of her political operations. Healey does not own the property, but because she lives there, her campaign was not required to pay rent, saving some hefty bills in its early low-budget efforts to jump-start her candidacy for the Democratic nomination.
This article was printed in yesterday’s Globe. I found it interesting, and I have not seen much discussion about it on this site. I think this is an issue directly related to how Healey has chosen to run her campaign — skirting an ethics dilemma.
On the seriousness of the allegations, the Globe explained:
The judicial ethics panel has repeatedly warned judges to be extremely cautious about showing any appearance of involvement in partisan issues, even in cases of family members. In a 2005 opinion, the Massachusetts Committee on Judicial Ethics addressed a similar issue now facing Healey and her partner. An unnamed judge, whose daughter was living at home while also managing her brother’s run for public office, asked the committee if the daughter could put up a campaign sign on the family lawn. The panel said such a political activity was “strictly forbidden.”
If Healey has been a top attorney in the AG’s office for 7 years, an office charged with investigating political and ethical violations, how did candidate Healey find this to be an acceptable arrangement? To quote further from the Globe, Healey said, “We reviewed the rules for public servants and judges and we have ensured that we have complied with those rules.”
Did Healey misinterpret the meaning of the word, “involvement” in the campaign? If even a lawn sign is “strictly forbidden”, it would seem to me that running a statewide political campaign out of her home for four months would be a serious violation.
For a candidate that has erroneously called out her opponent for “breaking the rules” in the past, this raises some questions.
… is that Mass Equality chose to respond to this issue by posting the Globe article to Facebook with the following commentary:
The basis of the Globe article is that Healey’s partner is a judge who owns the $1.4million dollar townhouse that they make their home in and that Healey HQ’ed her campaign in. The story would be the same if Juliette Kayyem had done the same as her husband is also a judge.
To imply that Healey and her partner are being targeted on this not because there is a possible violation of the judicial code, but because of some anti-LGBT bias is a disservice to Mass Equality and the progressive ideals that we share as Democrats and as residents of Massachusetts.
Not so much a deliberate anti-LGBT bias as an example of not yet having ironed out all the marriage equality wrinkles. Married couples generally do own their home jointly. I would say that we need to look at the reality as opposed to the nuances of the paperwork. Healey should in fact be treated exactly like Kayyem in this context and both of them should be allowed to do campaign work out of their home regardless of whom they are hitched to. I can see bans on certain direct involvement on the part of spouses/partners who are judges, but it seems this ethics panel could use the same lightening up a bit that would also have done the ethics panel that ruled Dan Wolf couldn’t simultaneously run for/be Governor and own Cape Air.
out of someone using their own home for campaign-related activities?
This is some high comedy.
That’s not the issue.
The issue is that Ms. Healey does not own the home, the property in fact is owned by a sitting judge, and the Healey campaign did not pay rent for its use of the home.
It strikes me as not unreasonable to construe the amount of “imputed rent” as a contribution from the judge to a candidate for Attorney General. Sorry, but I don’t think that can be so easily dismissed.
Not so long ago, William Weld took out a mortgage on his previously unencumbered Cambridge mansion in order to fund his election campaign. He and his wife subsequently used the home-mortgage deduction to eliminate their federal tax liability for 1991 (they reported joint income of $166,277). When the “mistake” was publicized, they corrected it. Democrats who objected to this cozy arrangement were loudly criticized by the GOP as being similarly overly concerned about “minor mistakes”.
It seems to me that if the same situation were played out with a Republican candidate for Attorney General, at least some of us would be appalled and would not be shy about saying so (including yours truly).
I think the optics are bad, I think the apparently cavalier attitude towards undue influence on a judge is bad for a candidate for AG, and I think the juxtaposition of this with the similarly (but more pronounced) cavalier attitude of Ms. Healey’s predecessor makes this more significant than it would otherwise be.
She lives there with her spouse (or equivalent, not sure what her marital status actually is). Would it satisfy you if her name were simply added to the deed? That would not change much in practice. Regarding rent if I am living in an apartment, but my landlord is a judge is it a problem for me to run for AG? What about if I were still living in the house I grew up in and my parents aren’t charging me rent – is that a contribution? One’s place of domicile is one of those things that should be immune from questioning regarding campaign use. Anything that you have access to anyway like your residence, vehicle, etc. should be allowed to be used for your campaign without question unless it is taxpayer-funded.
She lives with a sitting judge. She is running for AG. If she wins, a sitting AG will be partners with a sitting judge. Yes, that’s enough to give me pause. I would be similarly uncomfortable with a President living with a Supreme Court justice. Ms. Healey could have been more sensitive to the optics than she was. The fact that her campaign later rented space suggests to me that it could have also done so earlier.
I just don’t like it.
A (non)issue that’s already resolved?
See my comment above — Governor Weld filed an amended return after the issue was publicized. In my view, that didn’t change much.
I’m already troubled by the implications of a sitting judge sharing a household with a sitting AG (should Ms. Healey be elected). I expect a qualified candidate for AG to be exquisitely aware of and sensitive to such matters — Ms. Healey chose a different route.
I’m leaning increasingly towards Mr. Tolman as this campaign grinds on.
Are you serious? This is such a silly hatchet job, and you’re buying it?
It’s the sum total of what Ms. Healey is saying and is not saying.
I have a choice between two fine candidates. This is just one of many factors. For example, I am far more concerned about her relationship with her predecessor. I’d like to see Ms. Healey putting far more distance between herself and Ms. Coakley than she has done so far.
Her greatest asset over Warren Tolman is that she’s actually done the job, while he is running a campaign in part based on past insider status. By all accounts, she has been an excellent Deputy AG. On the other hand, there is Coakley. I will say that most of my biggest concerns about Coakley are political, rather than professional. Coakley has been a moderate who’s judgement and values I question. I appreciate Healey differentiating on casinos.
I also do like Tolman. I wish I had a way to vote for him too.
I agree with the general principle of what you’re saying; the AG shouldn’t live with a judge. But people do fall in love, and politics is full of conflicts like this. Recently retired Jay Carney is married to Claire Shipman; Margaret Marshall was married to the late Anthony Lewis, etc. I don’t like any of it, but people are people, and in most cases the prohibition of the conflict would be creepier. (Would anyone Healey can’t run? for example.)
But in this specific case, Healey used her home to run her campaign. I have a hard time seeing that as a problem.
for the fact that Tony and Margaret were under the same roof. Confluence of interest is not the same as conflict of interest.
But Lewis was a journalist. Columnists have a bit more freedom, but I’m sure he would have said he was still a reporter at heart.
Some reporters don’t even vote, for fear of seeming biased.
This regular anguish ” I’m leaning” stuff is getting silly. You’ve got a good brain make up your mind. (Full disclosure I’m supporting Maura.)
I’ve been clear for weeks now about the issues I care about. I’ve been clear for weeks that for all the issues the candidates have spoken about, there’s not a hairsbreadth of difference between them, with the notable exception of casino gambling.
Neither candidate has spoken to the question of privacy, of the FBI behavior involving the killing in Fla, nor about their view about the growing militarization of our police.
I’m happy that you choose so quickly with so little public information available. Perhaps with your insider knowledge, you don’t need to wait for we peons to get the word.
I’d appreciate a bit more respect for those of us who prefer to wait for candidates to publicly speak to substance on issues.
Perhaps you might respond to some areas that your candidate has been reluctant to address.
Would you please contrast and compare the postures of Ms. Healey and Ms. Coakley regarding the investigation of the FBI killing of Ibragim Todashev? What aspects of Ms. Coakley’s handling of that matter would Ms. Healey emulate if elected? What aspects would Ms. Healey do differently?
Similarly, we know now that the FBI shooter in that case was Aaron McFarlane. We also know that Mr. McFarlane had a troubled history during his time with the PD in Oakland, CA. We also know now that Mr. McFarlane was hired by the Boston FBI office in November of 2008.
We also know that he is the son of former police officer. Mr. McFarlane retired from the Oakland PD with full medical disability, after injuring his leg and angle. Apparently his duties with the FBI are less physically demanding than those of Oakland. Hmm. Police officer retires with medical disability from job-related injuries, then finds another law-enforcement job where those injuries are apparently not so disabling after all. Sounds like Mr. McFarlane fits right into Massachusetts.
Would you please contrast and compare the postures of Ms. Healey and Ms. Coakley regarding the hiring of Aaron McFarlane and his subsequent assignment to the Todashev investigation? What aspects of Ms. Coakley’s handling of that matter would Ms. Healey emulate if elected? What aspects would Ms. Healey do differently?
One final question about your disclosure above. You’ve disclosed before that you have a professional relationship with Ms. Coakley (she is your client).
Is Ms. Healey similarly a client of yours?
I do support both of them though for free.
I was under the impression from an earlier exchange that you had been retained by the Coakley campaign.
I apologize for my mistake.
Renting a campaign office 4 months after your campaign began isn’t resolving the issue of who paid for the space your campaign used for the prior months. It shows the need for more space / growing campaign and it now brings you into compliance. The Globe’s issue remains unresolved.
Activist Sits At Own Kitchen Table With Politically Connected Spouse and Decides To Run For Office!
This is a total non-issue.
That’s a bit unclear. Maybe it doesn’t matter, but it would be nice if a basic fact like that could be nailed down.
Presumably they’d have said wife if they were legally married. I would also say their marital status seems to be a rather irrelevant question to me.
If I may be so bold, I think this is the kind of story that only makes a difference along the edges. In other words, only those subject to confirmation bias are affected. If you support Tolman, it seems like something. If you support Healey it seems like nothing. If you have not decided and/or are among the lucky folks who get to wait until September to register an opinion, you probably do not care. The only way this matter is if Judicial Commission acts. Before then if that happens at all? Not so much.
And these sorts of bullshit attacks make me *more* likely to support Healey.
On Tolman posted on BMG if that sort of stuff is going to influence your decision.
Seems like fair game to me.
And likewise to be consistent, I largely find this relationship to have as much import on their abilities to be great progressive leaders in the AG office as Tolman’s business relationships.
I also applaud Tom for sticking to his guns and asking the same essential question of both candidates/campaigns until he gets a sufficient answer. I think those issues will matter far more than the final content of the pledge, the private sector career of Warren Tolman, or this admittedly awkward intersection of Maura Healey’s personal and public life in this instance.
I note your consistency as well.
…I am a Tolman supporter, but I also try to be fair. This issue strikes me as the definition of tempest in a teapot.
The Healey campaign has had no problem posting and responding here on BMG (they were quick to respond to Johnk on the health insurance issue). So the simple solution is for the Healey campaign to clear up what I view as a minor but nagging question – you’ve been an AAG for 7 years, what was the economic situation for the 4 months you ran your campaign prior to having an HQ?
There are plenty of answers that are reasonable and I would be satisfied with:
a). we are married – move on nothing to see here.
b). my name is on the mortgage/lease – move on
c). We have a joint account to deal with the house and common expenses – I pay X into that account each month so this was no campaign donation.
d).Damn, we made an unintentional error and my campaign has reimbursed my partner for those months in question.
The issue raised in the Globe article isn’t about sitting at YOUR kitchen table talking about a run. It’s about using a space (rent free?) to run a campaign. It’s not about LBGTQ rights as marriage equality is legal in Mass. Any unmarried couple sharing an apartment or house that has one of them running for office would face this situation.
Maura Healey has shown a great deal of transparency – much to her credit. A simple answer clears the air.
Finally I don’t see an issue with her partner being a judge. As has been said up-post people fall in love and make life choices without a plan for a campaign in their future (this may not apply to Bill Clinton however). The judge recuses from any case the AG’s office might have – they may have already dealt with this in the past.
Well said, Stiker. Still, it’s a silly non-issue.
As is the wrangling over the People’s Pledge, the relentless questioning of Tolman’s business investments and relationships, how Healey covers her staff’s healthcare, and what the large part of this campaign has been fought over thus far.
I think we are all a little tired of it. At the end of the day we have two good candidates, I happen to be backing the one who’s record I am most familiar with and whose commitments and priorities best match my own. I would imagine that the vast majority of Healey candidates feel the same about their preferred candidate. As Jude Mills Lane used to say, let’s have a good clean fight.
It’s about trying to make her personal life an issue.