Candidates.....Lets see your Tax Returns

Worry about something that matters ... (0.00 / 0)

to the people.

Given privately funded political campaigns and television broadcasting companies that rake in the dough from political advertising, we are going to get almost nothing but candidates with loads of cash. It's bad enough that it's already so hard for non-establishment candidates to step forward (especially ones from outside the party structures). In the absence of publicly funded campaigns (combined with free air time), why give them less of an incentive to run?

Grok Your World
grok: to understand something in a deep and empathic way

---

by: John Driscoll @ Fri Mar 31, 2006 at 07:35:50 AM CST

The issue is simple.... (4.00 / 1)

It's their money which they have earned themselves in various way and if they want to tell us how much they have earned during their lives it's their choice and that's the stance of most people in the nation.  Grow up and realize that the people aren't interested in your childish aspersions and predictions.  And as for the idea that somehow that those from private industries are going to have a set of conflicts more damning than what a publicity hound and ineffective public servant like Mr Reilly has. For example how about the incongruity of having a Roman Catholic investigate that very church's crimes and infidelities...  I haven't seen him pushing for the punishment of that institution for their criminal behavior in letting pedophiles run free among the states youth....

---

by: strrbr @ Fri Mar 31, 2006 at 08:52:16 AM CST

Are you saying (0.00 / 0)

that Reilly, because he's Catholic, should have recused himself from the Church scandal?  Frankly, that strikes me as silly.  Reilly took a fair bit of criticism for his report on the Church - some of it fair, IMHO - but it was more reflective of his excessive caution in things like this (which has shown up in other contexts as well) than of any reluctance to go after the church of which he's a member. 

---

by: David @ Fri Mar 31, 2006 at 10:44:45 AM CST

[ Parent ]

"Millions overnight" (3.00 / 1)

I don't really see what the big mystery is.  Patrick was a partner at major law firms for several years, and more importantly, he held very high-ranking positions in two of the biggest corporations in the world.  And his wife has been a partner in Boston's biggest law firm for years.  Is it really so surprising that they're reasonably well off?  It's also possible that the reluctance to release tax returns comes more from Diane than from Deval - some law firms are very sensitive about publicly revealing their partners' individual earnings, and releasing their tax returns would of course mean everyone in town would know how much she makes, which could create problems for her with the powers that be at her firm.

---

by: David @ Fri Mar 31, 2006 at 10:50:48 AM CST

i'll second that lack of surprise (0.00 / 0)

Starting salaries in Boston, for corporate lawyers right out of law school are approximately 125k +.

That's for an associate with zero experience. Oh yeah, and there's a bonus, usually in the neighborhood of 30-40k.

This whole "he's got a big house and another one" thing is nuts.

He and his wife make money. Get over it.

---

by: polk @ Sun Apr 02, 2006 at 00:01:41 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Personal Finances (3.00 / 1)

The syllogism that the voters have a right to know who is paying for a candidate therefore candidates must submit their personal fianances into public record is woefully inaccurate.  The greater connection is the contributions made by the various groups of constituents around the state.  Go to OCPF and look up each candidates list of donors that'll tell you who is "buying" the election

I encourage any of you to review the "employers" of the donors look at who donated to the Attorney General's campaign even though they had business before his office.  Look at who is contributing to each campaign because that is who is buying the election.  This is the  more apros pos syllogism Mr. RightMiddleLeft.

Moreover, why is it our duty to question how Mr. & Mrs. Patrick choose to spend their money.  Both he and his wife have been very successful in the private careers and decided to build a home in a community they enjoy.

Mr. Reilly chose to make his finances public and I, as a member of that public, could not care less.  More signifigant to me is the actual contributions to the campaigns.  Who is contributing to the candidates, are the contributions in fact a corporate contribution.  That is the real question that needs to be looked.  You want to get upset about something, look at the contributions...

Finally, the statement that it is bad politics for a governor to declare bankruptcy is just absurd.  Politicians and people declare banruptcy all the time and are unaffected.  Moreover, do you Mr. RightMiddleLeft have some inside information about Mr. Patrick's finances that none of the rest of us do or, more likely, is this mere conjecture on your part hoping to muckrake in area where you have no knowledge or clue...

---

by: Silence_Dogood @ Fri Mar 31, 2006 at 11:06:29 AM CST

Fair Enough. (0.00 / 0)

As a Deval Patrick supporter, I think you're right, and that there should be full financial disclosure.  For whatever it's worth, I'll register my opinion via his website. 

---

by: a citizen @ Fri Mar 31, 2006 at 16:39:32 PM CST

If the current requirements are bad, change the requirements (4.00 / 1)

This is all just a huge campaign gimmick, but if there are real conflicts of interest at stake, then change the disclosure requirements.  Why should only candidates who volunteer their fincances subject themselves to scrutiny?

Don't blame Patrick, Healey or Mihos if the current disclosure rules aren't comprehensive enough.

.08 Acres
.0000016% of Massachusetts Political Commentary

---

by: sco @ Fri Mar 31, 2006 at 16:45:50 PM CST

Hear hear! (0.00 / 0)

I couldn't agree more sco.  A candidate laying his or her entire finances on the line for all the public is not the only way to find conflicts.

A blogger no more.

---

by: Andy @ Fri Mar 31, 2006 at 18:48:24 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Do I detect a faint hint of hypocrisy? (0.00 / 0)

R/M/L has a point.  Given the progressive personalities of most (if not all) Patrick supporters, I would be floored if the situation were different you would have the same position.  Say there was a charismatic Wellstone type candidate running for Governor, with no personal wealth but a similar appeal as Patrick.  If you backed this “poorâ€� candidate against four wealthy candidates, you would demand that they all release their tax returns.  Admit it.

Honestly, when Mitt Romney refused to release his tax return against Shannon O’Brien, did you support Romney’s position?  If (and I’ll bet she did) Shannon released hers and demanded Romney do the same, are you honestly suggesting that you would be on Romney’s side on this?

I don’t think so.  We increasingly have a system of government that is only allowing the rich to run for office.  We need public accountability and transparency in our system.  This issue is bigger than Patrick and this one election.  For the good of the process, Patrick and all must release their tax records.

---

by: FrankSkeffington @ Fri Mar 31, 2006 at 18:00:52 PM CST

Not only the rich... (0.00 / 0)

You can run without a dime ... raise a lot of money ... and win. You just have to really like calling up strangers and asking them to give you money.
Granted it's just a lot easier when you're rich ... just like most other things. The only good news is, rich people's intellect often seems to compensate for their wealth.

"The oldest ones are the young ones."

---

by: Will @ Fri Mar 31, 2006 at 18:20:04 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Don't assume we all think alike (4.00 / 1)

Don't say "admit it" Frank, as if we all think exactly the same and you know how we think.  I have never called for nor wanted the full financial disclosure of a candidate, I do not think it is necessary.  Nor do I believe in open government all of the time.  There are justifiable, albeit limited, situations when the public can't have its nose in someone's business or know every detail the government knows.  I think RML's point that every single progressive believes in completely open government is myopic and makes her argument weak because it is built off a false generalization.  Congrats to Reilly for making EIGHT TIMES the poverty line and feeling like he is just the little guy.  Talk about arrogance and ignorance.

A blogger no more.

---

by: Andy @ Fri Mar 31, 2006 at 18:52:57 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Honestly, (0.00 / 0)

"Honestly, when Mitt Romney refused to release his tax return against Shannon O’Brien", I barely noticed, and said nothing about it.  I didn't support or oppose either his position or hers.

When you make assumptions about what other people think, and especially when you present them in such an in-your-face tone, all you do is hurt yourself by making other people see you as arrogant and insulting.  Even if you happen to be partly right, you put people off from wanting to listen to you.

---

by: Cos @ Sat Apr 01, 2006 at 15:15:58 PM CST

[ Parent ]

You say you want disclosure??? An open process??? (4.00 / 2)

Well then why won't Reilly's people tell him to agree to an "open" debate on the issues? 

Now THAT would be be an open process. 

---

by: an0n @ Fri Mar 31, 2006 at 18:27:38 PM CST

How Important? (3.00 / 1)

Have you ever heard anyone say: 

"Well, I think this candidate is not as good a leader, and I don't agree with most of his/her positions, but he/she disclosed tax returns, so that's how I'm going to vote for him/her." 

You never have.  You never will.  I think DP is making a tactical error here, but its really not a key issue for the voters. 

---

by: DaveS @ Fri Mar 31, 2006 at 18:39:39 PM CST

Interesting point, terrible case for it (4.00 / 1)

You have brought up an interesting point, but when you make it with unfounded accusations and personal attacks, your point gets lost. If you can't make your case without vindictivness you may want to re-examine it and definatley change your style.

Privacy is also a liberal or I should say an American mantra. I'd rather see an independant, private review of taxes for conflicts of interest. Would this satisfy your concerns?

Currently reading A Reliable Wife by Robert Goolrick

---

by: JimCaralis @ Fri Mar 31, 2006 at 19:55:54 PM CST

Yes, that would be the way to solve the problem without public (0.00 / 0)

disclosure . I would have no problem with an independent review of the tax returns.That is a great solution, thank you.  As you will note, I also was concerned about the tax returns of all the candidates ,not simply Patrick. The Patricks are r simply unique as newbee rich people who can't spend it fat enough. .I have seen many people like that crash and burn financially. It would be terrible for this state in such economic difficulty to have a governor go under. Their high cost of living $500,000 per year on her "best guess" after tax Ropes and Gray salary of $300-400 thousand is a concern, and the presumed windfall from coca cola stock options while the stock was going down in value raised my eyebrows. The Patricks  always lived way over their head based on the velocity of refinancing and second mortgages on their Milton houses. They even borrowed from Harvard to keep up with their lifestyle. and remember the tax liens that they admitted were a problem during their struggling years. They were cute in releasing that tidbit during the Lefleur fiasco. Patrick was Clinton's strong arm in the justice department and slapped around many large corporations for civil rights violations, rightfully so . But coincidentally, immediately after leaving Justice he scored big time financially with the buddys of those same corporations he prosecuted. Maybe a Tet de Tet, who knows but he truly discovered how to morph an altruistic endeavor into a profit making business model. There is always a give and take in business and one does not get that lucky financially right after leaving government unless they hit the lottery . As someone who has been in business and finance for more years that I care to remember ,my instincts cry out that  something is going on here that is not kosher. Unfortunately, it apears there are only a few business people like me on this blog that get it . The others love the slickness of Patrick and he tells them what they want to hear about all their favorite issues but and are afraid to unwrap the onion to see what is really the essence of this candidate. He may still be all right once he is unwrapped ,so why hide the truth.

---

by: rightmiddleleft @ Sat Apr 01, 2006 at 03:01:34 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Just the facts please (0.00 / 0)

RML you are a little out of control here.  I think you should be supplying some facts.  Do you know the Patricks personally, is that how you are able to assert that they have "always" lived "way over their head" as you claim?  Your entire comment is based on speculation and your own assumptions, hardly the stuff of a good argument.  I hate Reilly as a candidate, I never hide that fact, you don't like Patrick as a candidate, that is just fine, but when you and I attack either we at least should do so by backing our opinions up with facts and analysis, both of which are devoid in this comment.

A blogger no more.

---

by: Andy @ Sat Apr 01, 2006 at 05:03:37 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Most of this is public record and at the Norfolk registry of deeds (0.00 / 0)

which you can look up online especially on the Milton house. It is all there in black and white. Is it the job at Texaco? Is it the stock options at coca cola? They are all online , just google them.  A lot of this has also been reported in the papers the past few months. What is it that you don't believe is factual andy?. I believe i have tried to ask a legitimate question by questioning his debt load vs income vs net worth. Nothing is personal here. I actually commended him in past posts for presumably making a lot of money right after working for the government. Kudos to him for being so smart. Reilly wasn't that smart in the money making department. I am asking fair legitimate questions. So please Andy ask me which statement that I made do you seem to question?

---

by: rightmiddleleft @ Sat Apr 01, 2006 at 07:52:12 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Let's try these statements (0.00 / 0)

"The Patricks are r (sic) simply unique as newbee rich people who can't spend it fat (sic) enough."  Any facts to support this?

"The Patricks  always lived way over their head based on the velocity of refinancing and second mortgages on their Milton houses."  If the whole problem you are raising if financial disclosure how can you possibly know that they spend more than they make, if you know what they make then why push for financial disclosure?

"As someone who has been in business and finance for more years that I care to remember ,my instincts cry out that  something is going on here that is not kosher."  This statement has no bearing without some indication of what you do.  Are you a receptionist for a Fortune 500 company?  It is a nice claim, however, I am in business too but that is misleading because I am not in the financial end of things so I don't have a clue as to financing businesses.

Lastly if this is all online then why are you shouting to the wind for financial disclosure?  You seem to suggest it is all online anyway according to you.  Something isn't kosher all right, it is your argument.

A blogger no more.

---

by: Andy @ Sat Apr 01, 2006 at 17:33:36 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Maybe honesty is the best policy (0.00 / 0)

---

by: rightmiddleleft @ Sun Apr 02, 2006 at 07:33:51 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

your "best guess" seems low to me (0.00 / 0)

I don't know how much Diane Patrick earns at Ropes & Gray.  But if 1st year associates are earning $125,000 - which they are - I think it unlikely that she's not pulling in close to a million or more a year before taxes.

---

by: David @ Sun Apr 02, 2006 at 22:29:02 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

No, no, no, no, no - only REPUBLICANS are in that wealthy 1%! (0.00 / 0)

Frank - Duval Patrick is merely channelling Ted Kennedy, who hasn't EVER released his tax returns in over 40 years.  See, it's all that Halliburton stock he picked up when it was still Brown & Root and supported LBJ with cash bribes...why would it make any difference to the electorate how Ted clips his coupons, when he can ROAR about the iniquity of the wealthy so beautifuly?

Yr. Obedient Servant, Peter Porcupine, Republican

---

by: Peter Porcupine @ Fri Mar 31, 2006 at 23:08:19 PM CST

It's D-E-val. (0.00 / 0)

If you're going to pile on here, at least get his name right.

Sheesh.

Beyond 495 - Reality-based Commentary With a True Blue Perspective
Deval Patrick has a posse.

---

by: Susan M @ Sat Apr 01, 2006 at 00:10:19 AM CST

[ Parent ]

I liked 'Mariposa' :-) (0.00 / 0)

BMG: Reality-based commentary.

---

by: Bob Neer @ Sun Apr 02, 2006 at 00:11:03 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Although real names are MUCH better (0.00 / 0)

I think everyone knows how I feel on the subject of pseudonyms ...

BMG: Reality-based commentary.

---

by: Bob Neer @ Sun Apr 02, 2006 at 00:11:55 AM CST

[ Parent ]

I like Mariposa too. :-) (0.00 / 0)

I'm going for consistancy though, and BMG was one of the few places left that had me listed as Mariposa.

When I roll out Beyond 495 (v.2) it will be adios, Mariposa.

 

Beyond 495 - Reality-based Commentary With a True Blue Perspective
Deval Patrick has a posse.

---

by: Susan M @ Mon Apr 03, 2006 at 12:02:38 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Interests, not income (3.00 / 1)

I'm not really concerned, just by way of example, whether the Patricks made $250K or $500K last year.  I figure just about anyone running seriously for a top office is going to be rich beyond my dreams.  After all, it takes money to make money, and it takes money to raise big-buck contributions, if you're not rich how can you ever know the rich people that write the fat contribution checks.  (Democracy?  Ha!  Plutocracy more like it, but I digress.) I could care less how much they got paid for being a high-rolling exec or a hotshot State Street lawyer.

What I as a citizen think I DO need to know is their interests, their major investments.  That's where conflicts of interest can come in.  What are their big stock holdings?  Do they own huuuuge tracts of land in Massachusetts?  That kind of stuff, that can color they performance in office.  For instance, I'd be mighty leery of a candidate for SoS that had large holdings in Diebold.  I want to know where their personal financial interests intersect with their public duties and responsibilities should they win office.

---

by: CongaMonDem @ Sat Apr 01, 2006 at 00:45:54 AM CST

Unilateral Disarmament (0.00 / 0)

A couple of points about the tax disclosure issues.  As Deval himself as said, about his economic situation, some of this discussion seems to question whether Deval, as a black man, is entitled to so much wealth.  We all have heard how many rooms there are in the vacation home that Deval is building in the Berkshires, but has anyone ever heard how many rooms are in any of Mitt Romney, Kerry Healey, Christy Mihos, or Chris Gabreili's homes?  It does seem like a double standard to me.

Also, I remember 4 years ago when Shannon O'Brien made all her financial information public, while Romney kept his secret, and it all came back to haunt Shannon -- for example, her husband's interest in Fleet Bank (even though she was the only public official to challenge the Fleet Bank merger), his lobbying clients, etc. -- while Romney didn't lose a single vote by hiding his financial information.  In my mind, it would be crazy for any Democrat to unilaterally disclose his or her complete financial records, giving ammunition to the Republicans to spin that information negatively, while the Republican candidates keep their information under lock and key. 

---

by: yellowdogdem @ Sat Apr 01, 2006 at 09:37:40 AM CST

Come on, Deval (0.00 / 0)

I'm a progressive who thinks that all candidates should disclose their income tax returns.  Come on, Deval. Don't be shy.

However, this is not a deal-breaker for me. He's still the candidate I'm supporting for governor.

Incidentally, didn't Paul Cellucci have cash-flow problems when he was governor?

"If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, yet depreciate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground...Power concedes nothing without a demand." - Frederick Douglass

---

by: SimonB @ Sat Apr 01, 2006 at 18:36:05 PM CST

Yes. (0.00 / 0)

IIRC, Cellucci had several hundred thousand dollars of outstanding debt, much of it on credit cards.  It occasionally flared as an issue, but he never defaulted, so ultimately no one really cared.

---

by: David @ Sat Apr 01, 2006 at 18:51:42 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Was it the office ... (0.00 / 0)

Or did Cellucci just do it all for the miles. Maybe the Canadians know.

BMG: Reality-based commentary.

---

by: Bob Neer @ Sun Apr 02, 2006 at 00:15:40 AM CST

[ Parent ]

At least his problems were disclosed. A few hundred thousand of disclosed is not the same (0.00 / 0)

as $8 million nondisclosed. Celucci also lived in a modest house in Hudson

---

by: rightmiddleleft @ Sun Apr 02, 2006 at 07:30:19 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

"Disclosed" (0.00 / 0)

I don't recall the details, but I don't think Cellucci volunteered his credit card debt - someone got onto it.  Credit card debt doesn't show up on tax returns, nor (I think, but I could be wrong) on state disclosure forms.

---

by: David @ Sun Apr 02, 2006 at 19:22:03 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

And then we wonder why the good people don't do politics... (3.00 / 1)

We haven't really talked about the privacy issue...

What makes you, the voter, think that you are entitled to private information like tax returns?

I mean seriously, why do you think you're entitled to this information? Do we have no desire for privacy?

I thought in America we're beyond the "those who have nothing to hide have nothing to fear" mantra that seems to have Europe firmly in its grasp? We don't believe in constant surveillance. We insist on privacy of all sorts of records.

Tax information is private for a large number of reasons. It contains medical information. It contains information about children. It contains tons of information that is easily misunderstood and easily misinterpreted.

If this is the request you make of your candidates for office, stop complaining that good candidates never run.

A lot of people on this forum don't even use their real names! And you expect to know the most private personal details of your candidate's life, available to all for googling.

When you release your own tax return for the entire Internet to see ... then I think you've earned the right to ask to see someone else's. Until then ...

---

by: polk @ Sun Apr 02, 2006 at 00:12:59 AM CST

Conflicts of interest? (0.00 / 0)

"I mean seriously, why do you think you're entitled to this information?"

For starters, because I'd sure like to know that when the Commonwealth contracts for goods or services from a private company, it isn't owned by the government official responsible for awarding the contract and overseeing the program/project in question.  Especially in a state where deeply entrenchedf corruption has been so much the fabric of our public life for so long.

---

by: CongaMonDem @ Sun Apr 02, 2006 at 00:55:28 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Governors don't sign the contracts (0.00 / 0)

This isn't 1780. The governor doesn't hand out every contract in patronage.

The people they hire do, after public bidding processes. We've got laws for that kind of thing.

And there are plenty of conflict of interest laws that prevent exactly what you're talking about.

Lets try again.

Why are you entitled to this information?

---

by: polk @ Sun Apr 02, 2006 at 18:01:37 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Ah, well, there are laws! (0.00 / 0)

If there's one thing the Bush Administration has proven with its wiretapping program, Gitmo, and other civil liberties abuses it's that just because there are laws in our nation, does not mean that our leaders will follow them.

It's just a perception issue, as others have said. Should Deval have to disclose all this information? No, not really. Is it politically better for him to do so? Yeah, it probably is. Except for the fact that there are those who would use his wealth as a reason not to vote for him (which is a silly reason not to vote for him). That, too, is a political problem.

---

by: afertig @ Mon Apr 03, 2006 at 10:09:52 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

me, too (0.00 / 0)

I'd like to know that too.  I think it's important for us to know about conflicts of interest public officials may have.  I'm just not sure that disclosing their tax returns is the right way to do that.  Tax returns have a lot more private information than just possible conflicts of interest.  And for a married candidate, or a parent, it may involve someone else's privacy too.

Some of the information we're seeking is available in other forms.

For example, if a candidate is a significant stockholder in a corporation, that information is available through the corporation's filings with the SEC.  The officers and owners of a private corporation are on file with the state, I believe.  Cities and towns have home ownership records.  So it should be possible to demand a list of certain kinds of information from a candidate, and have ways to verify that info, or at least have them risk being caught later if they leave something out.

If a candidate wants to disclose their tax returns, I think that's nice.  But I'm not going to think significantly less of a candidate who doesn't.

---

by: Cos @ Sun Apr 02, 2006 at 18:06:56 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Based on the comments from my post it appears that progressives (0.00 / 0)

do not believe that disclosure is important, although Common Cause and the head of the Massachusetts Democratic Party have stated the opposite position. I am now very confused because I always believed that the left promoted transparency in government. 
 

---

by: rightmiddleleft @ Sun Apr 02, 2006 at 07:27:11 AM CDT

They should disclose (0.00 / 0)

Is my position, just FYR.

BMG: Reality-based commentary.

---

by: Bob Neer @ Sun Apr 02, 2006 at 16:50:51 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

disclosure of what? (4.00 / 1)

You're making a misleading blanket statement designed to combine things that don't belong together, in order to elicit an emotional reaction.  I don't know if that's your motivation, but it's certainly unhelpful.

Think about it this way: Bush knew that if Iraq had nuclear weapons, or an active nuclear weapons program, there would be a lot of support for invading to disarm.  Bush also knew that it was very unlikely Iraq actually had a nuclear weapons program.  But, he belived Iraq almost certainly did have chemical or biological weapons.  So while referring to "mushroom clouds" and the like, he made sure to focus on "weapons of mass destruction", which lumped them in together with chem & bio.  The strategy was, scare the country and the congress with nukes that probably didn't exist; then invade, find the cem & bio weapons, and say "look, we were right, they did have WMD!"  All the while knowing that the congress and the public probably wouldn't have let him invade Iraq just because of the chem & bio weapons.

So, what is "disclosure" and "transparency in government" here?  You're clearly talking about candidates making their tax returns public.  You're not talking about making government records or proceedings public, nor are you talking about campaign contributions and expenditures, you're talking about candidates' private tax returns, revealing details of their private lives.  I can think of arguments in favor of disclosing them, and arguments against, so I'm ambivalent about it.  I also don't think it's a critical issue.  If there are conflicts of interest, it is important for a candidate to disclose them (for example, by telling us who his employers are, and what companies he owns significant amounts of stock in), but tax returns are more than that.

On the other hand, I strongly believe in transparency in government, and campaigns.  I think campaign contributions and expenditures must be public information, and I want them to be available promptly and conveniently to the public.  I support a strong FOIA.  I'd like to see legislative and city council voting records online in easy to browse & search form.  I think it's important for meetings of public bodies that make decisions, to be open to the public, and that committees should hold open hearings.  etc.

So, I resent you lumping all of that in together with tax returns (which are private), and implying that those who don't advocate that every candidate make their tax return public, don't support "disclosure" and don't think "transparency in government" is important.  Please engage the real issue, honestly.

---

by: Cos @ Sun Apr 02, 2006 at 17:55:29 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

The disclosure referred to from the outset of my post is in reference to (0.00 / 0)

candidates who run for public office that do not have a public record . As voters we will be entrusting them with significant power which in many respects will control our lives. If legitimate questions about their personal finances are discovered we are entitled to answers. So far there is not one blogger who has provided me with an answer to my common sense  questions about his finances.  I don't care if the candidate is a republican or democrat, we have a right to know if they can manage money. Patrick has a glaring imbalance in his personal debt structure that should be explained before we trust him to control the commonwealth's $24 billion budget. It is becoming very obvious to me that very few people on this blog understand finance. I suspect that there are few business people that blog here because nobody has challenged to to debate the facts on the numbers that have been made public. If you prove me wrong I promise I will give up. But lets simply discuss the facts without getting sidetracked in all this other esoteric blah blah blah. Not referring to you Cos, your points are well taken .

  To answer your other question , yes, once the candidate is elected there is no question that disclosure is off the table and the chief executive must manage the affairs of state in private,  subject to scrutiny of the free press and all those other little tidbits of protection from tyranny that we have in our democracy. 

---

by: rightmiddleleft @ Sun Apr 02, 2006 at 20:12:13 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Long View (4.00 / 1)

I'm trying to stay out of the Reilly v Patrick debate here because it seems like everyone has their minds made up and bickering doesn't help anyone. (For the record, I'm for Patrick and I'll happily support the Dem nominee in the general.)

I'm all for transparency, but the issue with financial disclosure that troubles me is what happens to it after 9/19. I wasn't here in 2002, but if O'Brien was seriously damaged by Republican attacks based on her financial disclosures, then maybe that's a lesson we should learn from. Democrats have established a pattern of so thoroughly bruising each other in the primary race that the unscathed republican trounces them in the general. We need to find a way to have healthy discourse in the primary but not shoot ourselves in the foot for the general.

---

by: eury13 @ Sun Apr 02, 2006 at 10:20:14 AM CDT

Patrick & Cheney agree on something (0.00 / 0)

They both don't get what it means to be a public offical.  Just as we had a right to know about the VP's stock deals we need to know if our next gov has a simalar deal in the works.  We all know Deval is rich and we don't care about that, but since so much of his career has been in the private sector we need to know were is loyalty rests.

---

by: Bman @ Sun Apr 02, 2006 at 16:12:40 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Financials are important (0.00 / 0)

That's another lesson to draw, which makes it all the more important. If there is something bad in Patrick's financials, maybe he is not as good a candidate as Reilly. Common Cause is perfectly right to recommend disclosure.

BMG: Reality-based commentary.

---

by: Bob Neer @ Sun Apr 02, 2006 at 16:57:00 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Differences exist.... (0.00 / 0)

People have private lives. Tax returns include a lot of private information.

Just because he wants to keep it private doesn't mean he's got anything to hide.

Sometimes you just don't want the entire world to know intimate details of your private life. Since when is that wrong?

---

by: polk @ Sun Apr 02, 2006 at 18:07:37 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

then don't run for PUBLIC OFFICE! (3.00 / 1)

If you want to keep your life private then the Gov. is probably not the job for you.  If they don't disclose this it is always possible the press will find this out anyway and run a story when they chose not the candidat.  It's better for the candidates to just put it forward themselves.  Like it or not public office is life in a fish bowl and all kinds of things they don't want to the public to know will come out.  get over it or stay home!

---

by: Bman @ Mon Apr 03, 2006 at 07:41:13 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

That's twisted (0.00 / 0)

How are we to protect privacy in America if nobody running for public office at the highest levels values their own privacy, nevermind the privacy of other citizens?

---

by: afertig @ Mon Apr 03, 2006 at 10:13:26 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

True (0.00 / 0)

And how do we get any good candidates if we expect them to do all these things before we'll consider them seriously?

---

by: polk @ Mon Apr 03, 2006 at 15:59:13 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Shannon lost because Romney spent $3,000,000 of his own money (4.00 / 1)

in the last two weeks of the campaign .

---

by: rightmiddleleft @ Sun Apr 02, 2006 at 20:18:35 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

factual correction (0.00 / 0)

I just noticed you called the director of Common Cause "Paul Wilmot".  It's Pam Wilmot - I've met her, I think she's great, and she is definitely not a man :)  Also, she's the executive director of Common Cause of Massachusetts, not Common Cause as a whole.  Would you update the text of your post to reflect these two corrections?

---

by: Cos @ Sun Apr 02, 2006 at 18:01:51 PM CDT

I stand corrected (0.00 / 0)

---

by: rightmiddleleft @ Sun Apr 02, 2006 at 20:19:06 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

fixed it for you, rml (0.00 / 0)

Hope that's OK :)

---

Blue Mass. Group
So what politics do you deserve?

---

by: Charley on the MTA @ Sun Apr 02, 2006 at 21:33:54 PM CDT

[ Parent ]