PMA was a lobbying firm, founded by Paul Magliochetti, that specialized in getting earmarks for clients in defense spending bills. (Boston Globe, April 2, 2009)
Magliocchetti was a former staff member for the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense, which Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.) now chairs. Murtha is one of several House members who placed millions of dollars in earmarks benefiting PMA clients. (Roll Call, February 13, 2009)
In 2006 alone, PMA successfully persuaded lawmakers to earmark $100 million for its clients, according to a study by the nonpartisan Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. (Boston Globe, October 25, 2009)
PMA’s offices were raided in November 2008 by the federal investigators, and the firm shut its doors in early 2009. (Boston Globe, April 2, 2009))
The investigation has been reported to be about illegal campaign contributions linked to PMA and violations of the gifts ban; Murtha and his circle are assumed to be targets. (New York Times, March 29, 2009)
Capuano is a close colleague of Murtha’s. Capuano alone of the Massachusetts congressional delegation attended a fundraiser for Murtha in September.(Boston Globe, October 25, 2009)
Magliochetti and Capuano had a social friendship including dinners and parties. (Boston Globe, April 2, 2009; an intern’s account of a lavish Capital Grille dinner hosted by Magliochetti and including Capuano and other Congressmen can be found in Vanity Fair, November 2001)
Capuano placed earmarks worth $4.4M for three PMA clients into defense spending bills. (Boston Globe, April 2, 2009)
The three Massachusetts earmark recipients that were PMA clients were Parametric Technology Corp., Abt Associates of Cambridge, and Textron Systems Corporation of Wilmington. (Boston Phoenix, March 3, 2009; Boston Globe, April 2, 2009)
Abt Associates told the Globe that PMA had introduced them to Capuano prior to him placing the earmark. (Boston Globe, April 2, 2009)
Capuano received at least $60,000 in campaign contributions from PMA and associated donors. PMA hosted a fundraiser for Capuano in September 2008. (Boston Globe, April 2, 2009)
Capuano’s political action committee, MASS PAC, received another $47,500 from employees of the PMA Group and its associates. (Boston Globe, October 25, 2009)
Among lawmakers who had received PMA-related donations, Capuano, by his amount collected, was ranked 10th by the non-partisan Center for Responsive Politics. That ranking was based on $57,000 he collected for his campaign account from 2001 to 2008. By adding the $47,500 Capuano raised for his PAC from those connected with the firm from 2006 to 2008, Capuano would rank fourth out of more than 125 lawmakers listed. (Boston Globe, October 25, 2009)
Capuano said he had donated the PMA-linked campaign contributions to charity in March 2009. Capuano did not return the $47,500 in PMA contributions to his PAC until the Boston Globe called him on not having done so in October 2009. He then pledged to donate these to charity as well. (Boston Globe, October 25, 2009)
Capuano has not been named in the press accounts I’ve cited as a target of the federal investigation so far. “Pay to play” is difficult to prove – a Congressman can say he independently supported the projects earmarked, that there was no quid pro quo, he was just trying to bring jobs to his district. Similarly, it can be hard to pin campaign finance violations on the recipient of the donations – it’s easy for a Congressman to say he did not know that straw donors were used and return or donate the contributions. However, whether or not an illegal action can be proven, the appearance and substance of what indisputably transpired is not good. Earmarking is not how government appropriations are best made – earmarks skip procurement best practices such as competitive bidding and prioritization. The heavy weighting of Capuano’s earmarks to military contractors also raises concerns about values and priorities.
Maybe tomorrow!
despicable, full of lies and innuendo.
<
p>Next Sal Dimasi? This is insulting and has no basis in fact. None whatsoever.
<
p>When I have time I will go point for point but not tonight. It will be easy to prove your theories weak and your conclusions without merit or facts to substantiate them.
<
p>I have no urge to sling mud, which is all this post tries to do. It does so recklessly and with considerable desperation.
<
p>You have wasted much time in this endevour and I would implore you to have some class and review your post and cleanse of it of any falsehoods and half truths. You do your candidate no justice with this garbage.
<
p>
Only substantiated facts about earmarks that Capuano did place for PMA clients. I find it vanishingly hard to believe, as Capuano collected the campaign contributions from PMA and its associates, attended the fundraiser they held for him, met clients PMA wanted to introduce to him, and placed earmarks for those clients, that he didn’t know that PMA was “paying to play”.
<
p>For those who like Mike, and want to believe that he was completely blameless in this interaction, you can only do so by believing him to be incredibly naive. I don’t buy it. I think Cap knew very well that he was walking a fine ethical line; the fact that he returned the PMA-linked contributions as soon as they came to press attention would certainly seem to support that conclusion.
to support the conclusion that you have already come to. For example you conveniently leave out of your missive that PMA donated to both Senator Kerry and Senator Kennedy and most of the Massachusetts delegation. It’s true that Capuano received more of that money, but it’s unclear if any of those contributions were illegal. However, in case they were, Capuano donated the entire amount to charity in his district.
<
p>You talk about earmarks. But you fail to point out that all of the earmarks in any of the legislation supported by Capuano were transparent. But, of course, that doesn’t support your pre-conceived conclusion.
<
p>Lastly it’s the title of the post that is the most egregious lie. By using DiMasi’s name(indicted for corruption) to associate with Capuano, you imply that Capuano is also corrupt. But you provide no evidence that this is true, concluding only that you don’t like the “appearance.”
<
p>As other posters have concluded, this appears to be timed specifically because Capuano is rising in the polls and your candidate is falling. If you had written this at the beginning of the process, that would be one thing. But this timing and this posting stink.
For military contractors represented by PMA, coupled with large contributions, fundraisers, etc. and I’ll have concerns about those Congresspeople as well.
<
p>
Parametric is not, at least not primarily, a defense contractor. I have used some of their products, and was not overly impressed, but they’re not war profiteers. The linked Globe article says the earmark would fund tracking of nuclear weapons.
<
p>Abt Associates did some work for the Pentagon and CIA 40 years ago. Now they’re working to help eradicate malaria, contracting for FEMA and the HHS Department, and the DC Metro. The linked Globe article says the earmark would fund PTSD studies.
<
p>Lots of innuendo, not much of any substance.
You state that Congressman Capuano threatened to kill a woman. I re-read the article that you linked and it did say that the woman in question SAID he threatened her. It also went on to say that she said “He was concerned for his kid, which I totally understand.” It also said that the charges were dismissed for lack of evidence and that he says he did not threaten the woman.
<
p>Maybe it happened as he said. Maybe it happened as she said.
<
p>But I would not classify it as a “SUBSTANTIATED FACT.”
…whereas plenty of others have chosen to write positive pieces about why they support whichever candidate, you chose to do a hit piece which isn’t cool in my book.
When I noted last week that Sagan making one of the same hit comments he’s already made 500 times on BMG as the first comment in a nice, positive Coakley endorsement piece was uncool, you told me “politics ain’t beanbag”. Here’s some other cliches that come to mind now: You reap what you sow. People who live in glass houses shouldn’t cast stones.
I was objecting to posting a negative DIARY, but I agree Neil has gotten a bit snippier lately. However, I don’t believe he has posted a negative diary AND I have been known to defend Coakley when I felt she was in a no-win situation regarding prosecuting alleged child-abusers.
<
p>I assume “vanishingly hard” means the same to you as “fact” or at least compelling, almost as compelling as truth, and yet you have no facts just unsubstantiated assumptions you find it “vanishingly hard” not to believe.
<
p>You make a clear statement Capuano must have known it was pay to play but you provide NO FACTS, not even a half truth, to substantiate.
<
p>Instead on insisting on making a case NO ONE is buying, spend the time looking at Martha view of civil rights and why she so eagerly advocated a rollback of sixth amendment rights in Melendez-Diaz to save money and make it easier to assign resources. Thank god she fucked up the case because she was on the wrong side of history.
<
p>She thinks civil rights are important for a healthy democracy. I say their important protection against the power of the state.
<
p>How about trying to put Louise Woodward in jail for 15 years? My god, that girl had no intent to kill Matthew Eappin. Martha is a law and order zealot who has a decidedly illiberal view of civil rights.
This is the tag team responding to the news that the Coakley lead is down to 7%, Ignore this…this is their M-O.
Which it absolutely is not, is any of this worse than putting or fighting to keep innocent people in prison?
You must be talking about the Fells Acre case. Martha didn’t prosecute that case but she was Middlesex DA when Cheryl Amirault Lefave’s first trial was found to violate her Constitutional rights and so won a new trial on appeal. In fact Cheryl and her mother Violet were let out of prison by Martha to await a second trial.
<
p>Violet died of cancer and among her last words were, “Don’t vote for Scott Harshbarger.” who was Martha’s former boss and the DA who put Violet, Cheryl and the brother Gerald in jail.
<
p>Martha didn’t give Cheryl another trial. Instead she relesed her on parole with some extrordinary parole agreement terms requiring Violet not to talk about her case for ten years. Can you imagine a parole agreement that was unconstitutional, a direct violation of Cheryl 1st amendment rights? She had to agree to not exercise her free speech about government injustice (she, her mother and her brother have always maintained their innocence) in order to remain free on parole. I wonder if she wouldn’t have preferred a trial.
<
p>When the parole board recommended (unanimously 5-0) that the Govenor commute Gerald’s sentence after 12 years of incarceration, Martha beat it down with a stick. She held a press conference and had the then teanage victims, who were 3-5 years old at the time of the alleged incidents talk about their grief.
<
p>So why did Cheryl not get her second trial, be subjected to parole terms that are on the face unconstitional, and yet allowed out of prison by Martha while Martha fought hard, tooth and nail, to keep Gerald in jail and she did.
<
p>They were found guilty of the same charges and yet Cherly was released under Martha’s watch and Gerald was kept for three more years in prison.
<
p>Even the Wall Street Journal knew the case was a complete miscarriage of justice but Martha stuck to her guns. Spmewhere in the process she was able to put an end to Gerald’s appeals. I think the concept was “finality.”
<
p>In Meledez-Diaz, she is arguing your sixth aemndment rights do not extend to questioning the lab tech in a drug posession charge so that their affidavit stands as true and is unimpeachable even when it’s a false positive. She argued that the cost to the state and the logistics of having lab techs in court was an extreme burden. And yet when Supreme Court justice asked her how California does it, she said they don’t, they’re a party to the Commonwealth’s case. She had to be corrected on the facts and told that that knowing how other states manage was pretty important in terms of making her case. She was emabarrased arguiing the case in front of the Supreme Court and I was embarrassed that she calls herself a liberal.
<
p>In Holy Wood case she argues the law limits the accused right to appeal to federal courts. She’s probably right but she didn;t have to become a party to Alabama’s side. She could have declined or signed an amicus brief arguing the law is unconstituionl (like DOMA.) Again, I’m ebarrassed she calls herself a liberal.
who wants to correct me on the facts, please do. I do not want to make mistakes about issues like freedom and falsely imprisoned.
about post-conviction right to access DNA testing?
This post is about Capuano, his relationships with lobbyists, the campaign contributions he received and the millions in earmarks he placed for lobbyists’ clients.
Your post makes an implication that Capuano is dirty while your candidate is ethically clean and superior. I dispute that.
parading teanage sexual assualt victime in front of the cameras for a press conference, Violet Amerialt’s last words, why Martha let Cheryl out of jail but kept Gerald in jail, why she would shield the Govenor at the expense of Gerlad’s freedom, the biggest failure of Martha’s career as a prosecutor Melendez-Diaz which she argued in front of the Supreme Court, and the amicus brief in the Holy Wood case. Martha is a law and order zealot and her supporters don’t want you to know the truth about her.
Raised by you ad nauseam in almost every post on this site for weeks. This post is about Capuano, PMA, Murtha and pay to play.
On civil rights, she is decidedly illiberal. You can see that if you look.
I guess the polling numbers are right.
<
p>
<
p>…nor has Mother Teresa been “cited” as a target of the federal investigation so far.
<
p>Capuano is not a target or person of interest in the federal investigation.
<
p>Murtha is not a target or person of interest in the federal investigation.
<
p>Only Magliochetti is a target in the federal investigation for exceeding personal contribution limits to campaigns.
<
p>How different is your guilt by association frame,
<
p>
<
p>from the one Obama’s opponents used that he palled around with domestic terrorists?
<
p>You had a week and THIS is what you got? Pfffft.
The investigation is ongoing. None of the articles above supports the contention that the investigation will not extend beyond Magliochetti. It’s reported in several of the account cited above that federal investigators have evidence of straw donations via Magliochetti, a campaign finance violation, but the press reports also indicate that the Congressmen who placed earmarks for PMA clients are also in scope. But the investigation just underscores what was going on here – pay to play is disturbing and not what I want to see from a Rep or Senator, even if there were no investigation underway.
<
p>With or without it, the pattern of contributions and earmarks is deeply disturbing. That’s not how I want my tax dollars allocated and spent.
<
p>
<
p>This is just a stupid way to argue that Capuano is tainted by unethical or criminal acts when there are no facts to support it. You argue guilt by association and that’s wrong and you know it.
That said, there’s significant evidence that Murtha’s hands are not the cleanest. Murtha is a one-man earmark factory. I trust the wheels of justice to root out corruption if it is there. It very well might be. (See TPM for example.)
<
p>Capuano points out that Murtha is also a powerful member of the House, and it is very useful, if one wishes to actually, you know, pass legislation, to have working relationships with such people. Given his district, Murtha’s also a target for the GOP.
<
p>Of course, this is a sticky and delicate line.
And my point – willfully misrepresented by Sagan- is that pay to play doesn’t have to rise to the level where it would support conviction in a court of law to be wrong and the absence of indictment of his candidate thus far does not exonerate him. Sagan has argued that all this with Capuano is of no consequence if he hasn’t yet been a target in the investigation. Wrong. The Feds are investigating pay to play and campaign finance violations involving PMA. Capuano is the 4th largest recipient of PMA contributions in Congress and has placed earmarks for PMA clients. Several good papers cited above have noted that those in Murtha’s circle, including Capuano should be concerned about where the investigation may lead.
Unless you (or the Globe) also added any other amounts “from those connected with the firm” to the campaign account donations of those more than 125 others, you cannot say Capuano ranks fourth.
<
p>If you didn’t make that addition, then this is a misrepresentation.
The Globe piece you have just quoted says it very clearly: if the $47,500 contributed to Capuano’s PAC is included, he ranks 4th in PMA-linked contributions among the 125 lawmakers listed.
The Globe’s assertion is clear; their methodology is not. They do not say that they treated the rest of the 125+ recipient’s donations the same way they treat Capuano’s. If they don’t do that, the #4 ranking is meaningless. And misleading.
It looks to me as if this lobbying firm was urging Capuano to get earmarks for businesses in his district — probably as difficult a task as undertaking to convince a horse to eat a carrot. Further, it’s quite typical of lobbying firms to contribute to those whom they lobby.
<
p>So B.i.t.h.B., if I read the substance of your concerns, they sound more like objections to lobbying per se. And there is nothing wrong with being dubious of our current system of lobbyists and earmarks. All the things that have occurred could be perfectly legal and ethical within our current system. I think we need more evidence before we can say that there’s a suspicion something illegal or unethical has occurred.
<
p>In Murtha’s case, though, the sheer volume of his earmarks and the fact that many of them, I believe, lie far outside his district constitute ample grounds for suspicion.
But as I said to Sabutai below, if you think this behavior of lobbyist-linked contributions buying access for firms that then get earmarks is all good, then at least you know what you are getting. Like the commenter from the Somerville Voices piece above, I don’t. I think military appropriations should be made through a budget prioritization process and bid out. In the PMA case specifically, the news reports indicate that there is also evidence that many of the PMA-linked contributions were illegal in and of themselves (e.g. via straw donors) and that PMA flouted the gifts ban.
<
p>It is hard to prove quid pro quo as I note above, and hard to pin illegal donations on anyone but the donor. But I find it incredible to believe that Capuano did not know funny business was occurring. I don’t think he’s that dumb or that naive.
I said as much above, i.e., that legal does not equal ethical. Did you note the horse-carrot comment at all? At all? If there be earmarks, do you expect Massachusetts to get none? Do you expect Capuano to place only those earmarks for corporations his staff has discovered on their own? What lobbying firm on the planet does not contribute to legislators whom they lobby?
<
p>Since nuanced didn’t work, let me state my answer to you more sharply:
<
p>Your objection seems to be that Capuano works does not work in Smurfland. Your evidence supports no stronger an accusation.
I think the Congressman knew he was engaging in pay to play and funded things that wouldn’t have been otherwise in return for a load – we aren’t talking about the usual max contibution from a lobbyist to a Rep – of contributions.
<
p>I don’t think expecting better is “operating in Smurfland”.
I am disagreeing with you without downrating!
<
p>Amazing, isn’t it?
<
p>It turns out the rules of ethics for Congressmen have been codified and are clear and you can look them up, and laws regulating lobbyists and campaign donations too have been codified and you can look them up… which would have been the responsible way to make a charge against how a Congressman has conducted themself.
<
p>If you were making a serious case, and not just throwing in references and potentilly daamging charcter attacks, such as the kerfuffle at the dog park, you would learned about the law and demonstrated where it was being crossed or how it should be changed.
By the New York Times, Boston Globe, Boston Phoenix and other major press outlets. I’ll stand with them on this.
seen this before the last week of a campaign …Judy M. might remember some of the last minute stuff thrown at Frank Bellotti way back when, some things just dont change.
And given a pass on the latter by many who should know better because of the former.
that they are both successful Italian politicians. And every body knows ………………….”they” are are liberal and ethnically challenged?
<
p>Honey we’re all ethnically challenged. On this blog for one thing.
<
p>You can do better than this.
<
p>
I have no ethnic bias in this matter.
Not ethnics!
When Bean compares DiMasi to Capuano and calls the two Italian-American politicians corrupt. Now she’s arguing guilt by ethnic background. Where’s does Capuano’s Irish heritage fit into that calculation?
This stuff doesn’t really need refutation. If anything the nastiness of it helps Mike.
<
p>p.s. Please lose the graphic. Please?
You’re a one-man sleaze machine, willing to peddle any misinterpretation.
I don’t mind that you break the rules at BMG to speak your mind but I have to laugh at you for calling me a sleaze machine on a thread in which you make baseless accusations about Capuano who is not a person of interest nor a target in an investigation that started over a year ago. Yuo claim that none of the articles tule him out which may be one of the stupidest justifications I have ever heard for baseless accusations. Sleaze? Yes! What you posted.
<
p>If you want to talk about any of the statements I made about Coakley above. I’m happy to engage in a debate on it.
If we are going to ban Neil for “peddling misinterpretations” then we would have to ban you as well.
There isn’t one.
<
p>There are carefully documented facts.
<
p>Neil, I’ve probably called you out on 50 misinterpretations, the ‘ethnic slur’ canard you are peddling above just the latest. This post is about pay-to-play; you have no answer to that so you try to insult my motives.
I like how you’d start with the guy supporting a different candidate, and not the one saying that NASA is supressing evidence of ancient cities on Mars.
<
p>Strange how you’re suddenly concerned about this now that Coakley is slipping in the polls…
to fall into the trap. Don’t go there with the tag-team. Eyes on the prize. The tag-team shows all the flexibility of a gold-medal winning Olympics gymnastics team when it comes to arguing their “points” and then calls other people “obnoxious” or “shameful.” Don’t go there with them. Make calls in support of your candidate. Make sure you get your friends, family and neighbors out to vote. Be a one-man GOTV squad. That’s how Mike wins…not this crap. Cause it’s crap.
the tag team aspect of these two, as well. I wear my zero like a badge of honor. lol.
I do think a title like “Cozy with lobbyists doesn’t sit well with me” would have been more accurate and less inflammatory.
<
p>It is interesting that by being a public servant, who never earned more than the low $100s if that, Mike Capuano showed a net worth of a cool 3.6 million.
<
p>Not to mention the millions in his campaign fund, and all those donations from lobbyists. That being said, I am not a forensic accountant; I hire one when I need one and have a client to pay for their services. Disclosure: That is very rare in my legal practice as I normally represent those of modest means in cases involving family or child welfare law.
<
p>I also find it odd, and it feels less than genuine to me that a person who has declared assets of more than $3,600,000.00, many of them liquid, still does the “oh poor me” and “one of the guys in shirt sleeves” routine.
<
p>That doesn’t mean Mike Capuano is ‘corrupt’ – or that he has violated any laws as opposed to carefully gaming laws and benefitting as much as he believes is legal from his chosen profession. Whether one calls that chosen profession “politics”, “governance” or “elected public management” it is surely true that financially, Mike Capuano has done better than Martha Coakley has done. Some may like this, some not.
<
p>The fact is that I simply prefer Martha, and consider that the concerns raised in this post are concerns that bear watching. However, financial behaviors can be unappealling without being illegal, as I think most of us know.
<
p>The “honest services” type of case honest services issue explained are difficult to prove, but the ‘growth edge’ of trying to avoid financial gain as the reason for government action.
As has been stated, Congressman Capuano has been a smart investor over the years. His money is not liquid, but smart real estate purchases in Somerville. He owns a few mutli-family houses which of course in Somerville are now worth hundreds of thousands over what he paid for them. Perhaps a million or more even. Look it up. Do the research and explain. Why? Because it show him a shrewd investor in direct contrast to Coakley.
<
p>It is terrible that the man invests in a community that he cares about and lives in? Also one that he helped revitalize by being a great mayor. Come on, your post is at best more association, distortion of facts and attack for an attack sake than any substance and you should know that.
<
p>Martha Coakley has no personal money because she choses not to invest well but takes donations from defense attorney’s who defend big dig contractors. All true. Should I start a post ‘ Martha protecting murderers’ or Martha, protecting abusive priests’?
<
p>Of course not because this campaign should be debated on everything else but. Throw the mud, get more smoke in the argument, it is foolish.
I normally don’t like snide quips, so forgive me the upper post (Mr. Pagliuca’s comment has gotten under my skin and this post seemed to follow suit) and allow me to elaborate:
<
p>Can the author please point to a single new piece of information that this post provides to the readers of BMG?
<
p>Most of your post is listed almost verbatim from the articles you cite. Of the 16 relevant citations in your post, you only actually cite 5 articles (actually, you just cite 2 articles 11 times). You have basically taken two articles and combined them to pass them off as a new thought. I find that disingenuous.
<
p>If this offered anything to the political discussion of this site, I could see in giving the author the benefit of the doubt. As far as I can tell though, there is nothing new offered here which leads me to believe that this is nothing more than an attempt at rehashing old mud slinging.
<
p>Voter turn out will be low enough. Lets not drive it down with negativity about other candidates. That goes for you too Neil.
<
p>
Have not been aware of it when it has been discussed in other threads and asked that I post links. Now I have.
<
p>A lot of people here appear to have bought the campaign image of Capuano. I don’t buy it, and his history with PMA is among my reasons.
And I know Mike Rezendes recirculated it to illuminate how passionate sense of right and wrong drives Capuano.
<
p>I’m surprised that you view Mike’s behavior that day as a problem with his temperament and I copy a couple of paragraphs here for folks who might have been so distracted by the headline of implied criminal behavior that they were viewing the diary as one big anti – Italian slur.
<
p>I’ve been following your posts and diaries for a long time, and I don’t want to believe you intended to imply anything like that, but I’ve experienced how those not so subtle speculations about Americans of Italian extraction poison the very atmosphere of a political contest. So I guess I’m should be thankful that you ended your diary with pointing out that Mike had not been named as a target in any federal investigation without adding yet.
<
p>
<
p>Howevber that story knitted into eThe
So her understanding is not the same as approving! There are many possible responses to being afraid of a large romping dog (note that it was not aggressive, just playing with other dogs) short of picking up a baseball bat and threatening it and its owner. I would prefer to be represented by someone with better conflict resolution skills, less angry entitlement and arrogance, and less cozy and ethically questionable relationships with lobbyists for military contractors. That’s all.
I wasn’t challenging you on the dog event, but on the implications that your diary is one big anti Italian slur.
And trying to create that spin to throw up smoke around the questionable practices and earmarks of your candidate is shameful.
Could you stop it with the downratings? Things are heated enough without downrating perfectly factual and polite exchanges.
As has been pointed out to you, this diary is odious because it peddles in innuendo and association. You’ve got an awful lot of mud flinging around to land at this:
<
p>
<
p>And you have the hutzpah to act defensive and injured when people call you on what is inarguably a hit piece of the worst sort. Until Mr. Capuano is named as a target there’s not much here to say except some people he has had associations with have legal issues. Well, there’s not a single politician in or out of Washington, D.C., who can say they’ve never had associations with people with legal issues. If there’s evidence demanding that Mr. Capuano be investigated, the Feds will do their jobs.
I read BMG precisely to avoid this kind of unsubstantiated BS.
<
p>It’s going to be very hard for me to read another post by Bean in the Burbs. This diary is disgusting and Bean’s defenses are worse.
By themselves, they were enough for me to say ‘no way’ to supporting Capuano.
<
p>The investigation is just an added element out there looming. It is likely to take down more than one Congressman. Capuano may be canny enough that it won’t include him, but that doesn’t make the contributions, the lobbyist dinners, or the earmarks right. Neither does attacking me.
Please stop the downrating and the personal attacks. You’re embarrassing yourself and your candidate.
Documented in the NYT, Boston Phoenix, Boston Globe, Roll Call and other sources cited above.
<
p>What are your sources?
I missed this yesterday. I do not think Coakley would support any of this nonsense. But ‘Bean as a Capuano supporter I would encourage you to continue as it just might do enough to discourage people from voting for Coakley in the primary.
<
p>My sense is Coakley will still likely win anyway, but it wouldn’t hurt Capuano if you continued anyway. I’ll take what I can get.
BMG has been ‘bash Coakley’ and ‘bash Coakley supporters’ central for weeks.
<
p>People should know about the contributions and the earmarks. If good government and ethics isn’t your thing, if you don’t care about the revolving door with lobbyists, or lobbyists’ paid access, if instead a slim record on certain liberal votes is more important to you, then maybe Capuano’s your guy. Good luck to you.
are not the only claims you make. You make claims that Capuano like DiMasi broke the law but you cite no facts to back it up. When called on it, you defend your claim saying none of the articles exhonerate Capuano, which is the stupidest defense I’ve ever heard. No one is buying it but that doesn’t make you less culpable for your specious claim.
I ask if he is. There’s a difference. Based on what we know – the contributions, fundraisers, lobbyist dinners and the earmarks, there is reason for concern- as was reported in the Phoenix and the Globe among other news sources. Are those papers also ‘despicable’ and all of the other insults hurled in this thread? The earmarks and the contributions are facts. I would say that we are in a similar place with Capuano as we were with DiMasi before he was indicted: concerning relationships, appearance of pay to play. Many on this blog have expressed concerns about why progressive lawmakers reelected DiMasi speaker right before the indictment story broke. I would argue that the reasons resemble the the ones motivating the intensely hostile reactions by some Cap supporters to this post and the facts it outlines. People want to believe the best of a candidate who shares their ideological convictions, particularly if they’re already committed and supporting him. People stuck by DiMasi until the indictment because of the good work he did opposing casinos, supporting gay marriage etc. I think similar blinders are in place for Capuano. We know enough now to be concerned – “I’m getting pork for my district and contributions for me!” isn’t a legislative philosophy we should be accepting without question.
as evidenced in “Oh spare me”, whether intended or not, does not come across as respectful. I do not assume this is representative of all Coakley supporters. However it does not facilitate useful discussion, IMO.
<
p>I’m jumping in because the poisoning of our government by campaign contributions is a long-time concern of mine.
<
p>What you haven’t addressed above is the miserable way in which all big campaigns are financed. There are currently only two ways to be a viable candidate: (1) be very wealthy yourself (single-digit millionaires don’t qualify) or (2) accept contributions from the very wealthy. The very wealthy will be some combination of PACs and individuals, all of whom expect to have disproportionate influence over the official.
<
p>I am a Capuano supporter and I admit to having concerns about who “owns” him. However, concerns of this type should extend to all candidates. With the exception of Pags, they all need a certain number of big donations in order to be competitive. For this reason, I am sure that wealthy individuals/groups “own” the other candidates. This even goes for Mr. Kahzei. He talks about not accepting money from PACS and lobbyists, but he needs large individual contributions too. He can’t do it all with small donations. Pags is another case – as a wealthy self-funded candidate, he can afford to be more independent. However, I haven’t heard about any pledge of his to avoid big donations so I suspect he is not that independent either.
<
p>I am not saying that any of these candidates are bad people for soliciting and accepting large donations. They do it because they want to achieve a greater good by holding office.
<
p>With the system as it is, the best we can do is to help our favorite candidate as volunteers. Like the big donors, we should be clear to our candidate how we expect him/her to govern. If our candidate wins, we should monitor the person’s performance in office. Until we get meaningful public financing of elections and mandated free television time, we can always expect even the “nicest” official to have to grant a special favor here and there to a big donor. I view it as the price we pay for an electorate that is easily swayed by sound-bites and for media that is self-serving.
I agree that money in politics is a critical concern, and it behooves us to look at and follow the money trail for all candidates for office.
if she wins the primary. I also think that she would do a great job. But I can still question any candidate I wish to if it a position I don’t agree with or if I think a candidate is not answering a question that is important to me. That’s not bashing. On the other hand, you are just bashing.
<
p>Did you dislike Capuano before? If so, why? Have you taken a gander at his record?
<
p>Or is it because he is running against Coakley?
For contributions, johnk. I want better than that representing me.
<
p>I also have looked at his record, and don’t see much there. No leadership on legislation, just pork barrel stuff, with the exception of the OCE, which he was asked to lead because he wasn’t an ethics crusader and would be acceptable to the old bulls.
<
p>I don’t get the love affair with Capuano. I like Coakley in this race, but I’d also be happy to support Khazei. Capuano I hope never to have to vote for – I am completely and utterly unimpressed.
it is what it is. So I guess we’ll know in another week.
Fifty five comments and counting, on a piece of dishonest, distorted, and ethnically-challenged rubbish that is best ignored.
I can’t see Bean in the Burbs as a troll. This specific attack piece reflects poorly on her, but one desperate hit-job doesn’t a troll make. We all get passionate/angry at primary time, and I look forward to all this blowing over.
Every element above has a cite. If it reflects poorly, it’s on Magliochetti and PMA and on Murtha, Capuano and the others in Congress who enabled PMA’s pay-to-play business.
You did tie together a lot of things that set up, at most generous, a set of circumstances that look unpromising (Murtha looks corrupt, Capuano works closely with Murtha, the system stinks). Each step of your circumstantial case is cited by an article that partially says what you want it to say. However, that is a far cry from proving a case.
<
p>I won’t waste the time, but I could just as easily do this:
– Article on pre-Boston case of Catholic archdiocesan child abuse
– Article on initial complaint to Coakley that did not lead to exhaustive investigation of RCAB
– Abbreviated caveat buried in details
– Inflammatory statement from Garabedian
– Article on RCAB convictions, pattern of cover-up
– Second article on initial complaint to Coakley
– SNAP complaint about Coakley.
<
p>Now, I don’t seriously think that Coakley enabled archdiocesan abuse through neglect of her job. Her job isn’t to exhaustively investigate every possible conspiracy behind every crime. But I could very easily put together a post that suggested that, and hope a casual reader wouldn’t investigate it. I could hope that slander would turn off a casual voter. And I’d do that now, even though I didn’t care about it until I liked somebody else better in a head-to-head race.
<
p>Such an article would circumstantial nonsense, utter bulls–t, and my candidate and yours deserve better. But if dark, suggestive slander is your preferred argument to boost Coakley, go ahead.
They are documented facts. Do you really think Capuano is so naive that he had no idea that pay to play was occurring when PMA held a fundraiser for him, steered ~$60K to his campaign and $40K to his PAC, and then introduced clients to him who were seeking earmarks? Do you really? Cut the campaign tactics crap and really think about it.
<
p>If you want to tell me that that’s just Washington, and you love a pork barrell guy, then god bless you, you know what you’re getting and it’s your choice.
<
p>I, on the other hand, am revolted by the account in the Vanity Fair article of Capuano and others being wined and dined at the Capital Grille by Magliochetti. I am pissed off that money that could go to key priorities is instead earmarked to PMA clients. Did you check out the Somerville Voices piece linked above on Capuano’s earmark requests for 2010?
<
p>You know better than some of the others on this thread who are lashing out – “must. deny. defend. my. candidate.” The concerns here are real, and you know it.
The facts are documented. Yes. What is not documented is the explanation you offer. It is a hypothesis lacking in proof, that would get laughed out of any court, laboratory, textbook. Of course you are welcome to believe and spread your explanation because declaring Mike Capuano to be a criminal benefits your chosen candidate. But please don’t call it a fact.
<
p>My concerns are that the system stinks. That is a real concern for Senator Paguaklazi. It is very corruptive of good people, and yes I think when he entered Congress John Murtha was a good person. Then again, Huey Long started out as a nice guy, too.
<
p>What I haven’t seen is that this rotten system has corrupted Capuano in a way that disqualifies him to be Senator. At all, really…just that it could very easily corrupt Capuano or any other senior Democrat. He has questionable connections like any high-ranking public official, and you do an artful job of weaving facts into a story that makes him look bad, same as I could do with Coakley and the RCAB.
<
p>However, as advantageous as you find your preferred narrative at the moment, insisting that it must be the truth does not make it so.
Do you really think that Capuano didn’t know pay to play was going on? If you think he was that naive, OK. I don’t. I think he knew full well the line he was walking, and I think he should have known better. Whether or not he eventually gets sucked into the PMA investigation or escapes it.
I won’t answer yes/no to an unknowable question–I’m not going to get suckered into your false choice. The line between valued advice from an informed party and pay-to-play is very thin in this system. I don’t know what happened, and neither than you. You choose to declare that you think this was rotten, I do not.
<
p>Had you been this upset any time other than the waning days when your candidate is slipping, and Mike Capuano appears to be gaining, I’d be much more attentive to your concern. Just like the sudden interest in the Fells Acre, Amirault, and RCAB cases, these are narratives dredged up to inconvenience candidates, not to score any win for justice. I just don’t want to play this game this time around…but feel free to go ahead.
And was challenged to provide more links by David and others. I felt I should, as it seems to me a lot of people are making a bad mistake in supporting Capuano. This week was the first opportunity I had to put it together and put enough time in to the thread.
I think I was reasonably clear in my comment that it was this comment that should be ignored. I share your hope that a month from now all this rancor will be forgotten.
It is devoid of any ethnic slur or connection- that was invented by your team to avoid confronting the uncomfortable facts. There is nothing dishonest in it – each fact is documented and from legitimate sources. You don’t like the implication of the facts? Neither do I, and that’s why your candidate lost my vote.
Furthermore, this business of earmarks for campaign contributors is sketchy, though I’m sure that Capuano isn’t the only Congressman to have done it. It’s not quite the same as using campaign funds for personal recreation, however, nor is it the same as taking cash or other things of value for one’s personal (non-campaign) usage, in exchange for political favors. You’re right to point out that it don’t look too good. Were you among DiMasi’s early detractors, Bean, or were you of the wait-and-see school? Perhaps in the waning days of the campaign we’ll see one or another of the candidates pledge to forsake and/or ban earmarks altogether.
The hero who saved marriage equality. I also supported the environmental hero, Jim Marzilli. Count me among the twice burned and now shy.
<
p>Thanks for weighing in on the spurious ethnic bias thing.
<
p>Primaries suck around here. I will be glad when we have this one behind us.
Well, actually what I mean is that some of Martha Coakley’s supporters, probably just a very few of them, like to play dirty politics. I think that Martha Coakley probably isn’t even at all involved in it, but, hey, ya never know, so why not just come out with a totally nasty headline like “Martha Coakley plays dirty politics”.
It might raise questions for someone who doesn’t have a clue what I’m talking about, the readers who are just reading headlines and might absorb such blantant attempts to discredit a candidate with no evidence, but by comparison. The old “guilty until proven innocent” has ruined many a career. Martha Coakley should be worried about that, isn’t that her job? Oh yeah, I forgot, she believes in “guilty before proven innocent”, or guilty even if you are innocent, because it’s easier and cheaper for her and all of the prosecutors across the land. If you’re innocent, that’s your problem. One more post and the dirty politics will be gone.
The NYT, Boston Globe, Phoenix and other sources above that detail large PMA-linked contributions to Capuano and Capuano-sponsored earmarks for PMA clients? Or are you just one more Capuano supporter who is lashing out because you don’t like what is implied by the facts? Is “pay to play” all good with you, or are you honest enough to see bad behavior even why it’s by a candidate you support?
already. I’m not OK with “pay to play”, if that’s what it turns out to be. In consideration of his 11 years in the U.S. House of Representatives, this is so small that it is absurd to mull it over again and again.
<
p>What we don’t know is how the other candidates are going to handle campaign contributions, or how they are going to seek out earmarks for our state. Martha seemed to agree with Mike last night that it’s unfortunate that people running for public office have to accept donations, they both said they wished it didn’t have to be that way.
<
p>Should Martha win, do you think she will be very cautious about the donations she accepts, and how do you think she will seek earmarks for the state?
<
p>By the way, I didn’t appreciate Martha Coakley using taxpayer dollars to buy campaign ads on MSNBC and other networks earlier this year, I think it was around March or April. While we were debating the gas, state, and income tax increases, Martha Coakley was buying air waves to let us know how wonderful she thinks she is.
This post is about Capuano and pay to play, not about any of the other candidates.
This diary fails to make the case of a violation of ethical standards or law. link