I know I mentioned it somewhere in a comment but I wanted to put out a full post so other would be able to pick up the discussion. Murray’s campaign spokesman has confirmed over on my site that Tim Murray will be taking the public financing. This is actually pretty substantial news because Murray’s decision does not jeopardize the Dem ticket in the general election. I explain the reasons behind this in another BMG post and SSL mentions it as well. This is a very important issue because the LG decision’s can have significant impact on the general election. If Reilly or Patrick win and Goldberg is their running mate and she hasn’t accepted public financing then her decision will cost us to the tune of $750,000. I haven’t heard from either campaign what their intentions are though I have directly contacted the Goldberg campaign.
1. Should Murray really give a damn about the post-primary finance results? He’s gotten through two hoops (sigs and convention), and his only focus should be his next hoop (winning the primary).
<
p>
It sounds as if you’re giving him credit for making sure that the Dem “ticket” will get another $750,000 thanks to his decision… and that seems a bit over the top.
<
p>
2. Isn’t the analysis for Lt Gov public financing an awful lot like the Govs race? One supah-rich* (Gab; Goldberg), and two not-supah-richs (Reilly, Pat; Murray, Silbert). Should we hvae expected a different outcome?
<
p> * Supah-rich means you have $Texas in the bank. You could finance your own campaign. You could give your own campaign million(s) before the caucus.
Let me clarify a little. My post wasn’t meant to be about Murray per se, it could as easily have been about Silbert. I mentioned Murray because I have direct confirmation from the campaign that he is opting in; I don’t think Silbert has made her announcement yet. The real point of the post is contained in another post acutally, the one I linked to above. I am trying to highlight the importance of the LG candidates’ decision to publicly finance or not. I am really aiming at Goldberg because she is the least likely to go the Reilly/Patrick route and most likely to go the Gabrieli route.
<
p>
I am also aiming at undecided voters who are leaning Goldberg. Her decision to deny the public financing will cost Reilly or Patrick dearly come the general election. If she doesn’t accept the public money and gets put on the ballot with Reilly or Patrick she will cost the ticket $750,000. What I want to know from the Goldberg campaign is whether she will pledge to write a check to the Dem ticket for $750,000 if she gets put on with Reilly or Patrick. If she won’t make that pledge then I think people should seriously consider another candidate (of course my money is on Tim Murray, by far the most qualified and able candidate in the race). But I really don’t want to make it a biased thing. We need to look to make the strongest ticket for the general election and Deb Goldberg’s denial, should she deny it, of the public financing may cost us dearly.
but think it’s a bit tacky to ask her to make that pledge. Her job is to get herself elected LG, and she should make decisions as such. If the rules suck, lobby to change the rules.
<
p>
I hope she does exactly what you suggest, but I hope nobody from the Gov campaigns or the MA Dem Party puts it to her quite like that.
i understand what you’re getting at but i think it’s a pretty obvious: if goldberg gets on the ticket, she’ll be able to contribute a lot more than 750k to the campaign, so ti’s not tragedy if the campaign loses public financing by having a multi-millionare on the ticket.
Goldberg hasn’t said that she will contribute her own money to the ticket. My point is that she needs to say that. I think Goldberg needs to let us know that her advantage now won’t be our liability later.