4/13/2006, 2:49 p.m. ET
By GLEN JOHNSON
The Associated Press
BOSTON (AP) – The United States of America is led by a pair of millionaires who release their tax returns each year. Massachusetts is not.
And if all but one candidate is elected governor this fall, that trend will continue.
In a turn toward the secretive, the majority of candidates running for governor this year are refusing to release their tax returns.
That stands in contrast to 1998, when all of them did, and as recently as 2002, when Gov. Mitt Romney began to buck tradition and keep his tax returns private. Shannon O’Brien, the Democratic nominee, released hers, although her husband did not.
This year, all but one of the candidates for governor are millionaires who have pledged to spend some of their personal wealth on the campaign. Yet as the state and federal tax filing deadlines approach, all of the millionaires – Republican Lt. Gov. Kerry Healey, Democrats Deval Patrick and Chris Gabrieli and independent candidate Christy Mihos – are refusing to release their returns, citing privacy concerns.
Only Attorney General Tom Reilly, a Democrat eager to highlight his middle-class lifestyle, has released them.
“It’s pretty simple: This is a question of being open and honest with voters,” Reilly said last week in a statement when he disclosed his most recent returns. They showed a joint income of $158,000 last year and a federal tax payment of $29,000, or 21 percent of his earnings.
“People deserve to know where our money comes from, what our financial interests are, and what potential conflicts we may have as governor,” Reilly said.
It is an argument echoed by an unlikely supporter – the chairman of the Massachusetts Democratic Party, Philip Johnston.
“I’m not that concerned with the income tax returns themselves as I am the sources of income themselves,” Johnston said. “The federal government has much tighter requirements both on the sources and the range of income disclosed.”
Both President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney annually release their tax returns, even though it is not required by law.
“I’ve always felt that this is something that is part of the price you pay for being in government,” Johnston said.
Pam Wilmot, executive director of Common Cause Massachusetts, a watchdog group focused on government transparency, agreed.
“It’s not the law, it’s not required, but until Mitt Romney, everyone did it and it’s disappointing it’s expanded from there,” Wilmot said.
During his 1994 campaign for the U.S. Senate, Romney chided his opponent, Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass., for refusing to release his tax returns. But during his 2002 campaign for governor, Romney refused to release his own. The then-venture capitalist said he was entitled to keep them private.
Romney pledged that, if elected, he would have his investments managed in a blind trust – something he also criticized Kennedy for in 1994 – and would complete all necessary state financial disclosure forms. He has kept that promise, but the forms he and Healey file annually are notoriously vague and heavily redacted when released to the public.
This year, Healey is again refusing to release her returns, as she did in 2002. She is a multimillionaire who spent nearly $2 million on her own campaign four years ago. Her husband, Sean Healey, president of Affiliated Managers Group, an asset management company, recently sold $13 million in corporate stock, giving the couple ready access to more than twice what Romney spent in 2002.
“I don’t think there’s any mystery about where our income comes from,” Healey said Thursday. “My husband is employed by a public company, and all their records and compensation are public record.”
She said the updated disclosure form she will file next month “actually goes beyond what you can glean from an income tax return.”
None of the other candidates responded to telephone calls or e-mails seeking comment.
Patrick is paid an undisclosed sum to sit on the board of Ameriquest, a mortgage company that recently reached a national lending settlement with 49 states including Massachusetts. He also also spent $300,000 to jump-start his campaign.
He has said he has drawn the line for privacy at releasing his tax return, in part because he files jointly with his wife, a lawyer in private practice.
Gabrieli, meanwhile, is refusing to release his returns despite pledging to do so early in his 2002 campaign for lieutenant governor. Gabrieli reconsidered and said he would not until Romney and Healey released theirs.
Gabrieli, who made millions as a venture capitalist, spent $5 million in a bid for Congress in 1998 and $7 million on his campaign four years ago. He has already seeded his latest campaign with $50,000.
Mihos made millions through the sale of a portion of his family’s Christy’s convenience store chain. While casting himself as an “unbought and unbossed” representative of the common man, he, too, has refused to release his returns.
He has already loaned his campaign $51,000, state records show.
In light of a good discussion on the relevance of financial disclosures, I thought folks might mind this Glen Johnson piece interesting.
<
p>
First, I note the inference that Glen Johnson draws regarding Patrick’s position on Ameriquest’s Board of Directors. This inference could easily be resolved by disclosing the extent of that involvement with an income tax release.
<
p>
Second, I note Glen Johnson’s surprise that MA Democratic State Party Chair Phil Johnston is backing Reilly on this one. Glen Johnson’s observation underscores a fact that those of us who have followed Tom Reilly’s career already know – Tom has never been the “establishment” candidate and never will be. That is why he is the kind of independent Democratic that Unenrolled voters will trust as a “check and balance” on the legislature. (Otherwise, we will get killed with the “Gang of Three” argument that Romney used so effectively against O’Brien-Gabrieli in 2002.)
<
p>
Personally, I think Reilly, Silbert, and Murray have already proven just how easy and painless it is to share financial information. Patrick, Gabrieli, Golberg, and Taylor should follow their lead.
This user post has a very similar feel to this user post.
<
p>
The article posted here, nearly in its entirety really should have a link back to the Boston Globe, and is very similar to this article, also published in the Globe.
<
p>
Hmm…
<
p>
Same people quoted, saying essentially the same thing:
<
p>
April 13
Pam Wilmot, executive director of Common Cause Massachusetts, a watchdog group focused on government transparency, agreed. “It’s not the law, it’s not required, but until Mitt Romney, everyone did it and it’s disappointing it’s expanded from there,” Wilmot said.
<
p>
March 31
Pam Wilmot, executive director of Common Cause of Massachusetts, seconds Reilly’s notion. ”It has been the norm for the gubernatorial candidates,” says Wilmot. ”It is above and beyond the law, but it certainly would give them brownie points for the good government cause.”
<
p>
Okay, we get it. Some folks have a serious hard on for getting candidate tax returns released. Guess what? Candidates will release what they want, or not — get over it, or work on getting the law changed.
<
p>
Oh, yeah — the law. Deval Patrick, Christy Mihos, Chris Gabrieli, hell even Kerry Healey is following the law. So why the fishing expedition? If there are allegations of wrongdoing, then let’s hear ’em.
<
p>
Oh, sure, reporters are usually so careful to qualify their accusations comments with the caveat that there is no reason to believe there is any malfeasance involved. Right. But as they say in the legal profession, “you can’t unring a bell”. Once baseless accusations are put out into the discussion, no matter how outlandish, or untrue, they are very difficult to pull back in. If you don’t believe me, ask Karl Rove. He’s an expert at it.
<
p>
This tax business isn’t a healthy discourse, it’s a whisper campaign and I am sick and tired of it.
<
p>
BTW – I got quite a chuckle out of your comment that “Tom has never been the “establishment” candidate and never will be.” So Tom Reilly never had any help from the state party on his campaigns? All of his volunteers were recruited from outside the the state party establishment? No elected officials, or other state party members have ever given him an endorsement? He collected his entire campaign fund from small dollar donors who aren’t related to the state party, or his position as AG? Tom Menino never suggested he choose Marie St. Fleur as his running mate?
<
p>
Sorry. Not. Buying. It.
I wish that I could take credit for the previous user’s post, but instead I’ll have to take a little comfort that I’m not the only one who is interested in this issue.
<
p>
A brief look at Tom Reilly’s history will demonstrate why he is not the establishment candidate. He won his first District Attorney’s race against a State Representative who had the support of the Democratic State Party. He won his first Attorney General’s race against a State Senator who had the support (and the nomination) of the Democratic State Party. And this is precisely why Tom Reilly polls so well with Unenrolled, independent voters. Throughout his career, Reilly has demonstrated a willingness to buck the establishment, taking politically unpopular stands against establishment figures such as Senate President Billy Bulger. These positions have not made him popular in certain circles on Beacon Hill where you’ll here, “Reilly doesn’t play ball,” but they are precisely what a Democratic candidate for Governor needs when Unenrolled, independent voters look for a “check and balance” on the legislature.
<
p>
That’s my point.
<
p>
p.s. I’ll try to learn how to post a link. I’m new to this.
are pretty easy. Here’s a primer.
That was very kind of you.