Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

Romney raises Bechtel bucks

By

Is anyone surprised by this?

Just 10 weeks before the roof came crashing down in the I-90 connector, Romney accepted generous contributions from both Bechtel and Parsons Brinckerhoff, made to the Republican Governors Association (RGA), of which he is the chairman.

Parsons Brinckerhoff and Bechtel National, the government services subsidiary of Bechtel Corp., gave identical sums, $10,000 each, on the same date, April 27, according to RGA reports filed last weekend with the Internal Revenue Service. Companies or individuals can give unlimited contributions to the RGA fund, which is a so-called “527” political organization.

Romney attended RGA fundraising events in Washington, DC, on April 25, and in New York City on April 26. RGA records show no contributions on those days, but a dozen on the 27th.

And is anyone surprised that Mitt went after old foe Amorello first? “Hrrrrmm, do I go after my big donors, or do I go after a schlubby, ineffectual hack?” Good call, Mitt. Let it never be said you didn’t know where your dough was buttered.

Please share widely!
fb-share-icon
Tweet
0

Comments

  2. How can the RGA be a 527?  It’s made up of sitting governors.  527s are not supposed to coordinate with campaigns.  If I’m part of a 527, and I’m running for reelection as governor, how is that 527 not associated with my campaign?

    <

    p>
    Have I totally missed something?

    • I think that it is ok so long as none of the governor’s directing the funds are benefiting from the funds because that  could be construed as coordination.  If the RGA 527 has paid, professional staff, as I am sure it does, then there is no problem because there is no connection between the governor and the 527.  Not sure if it made sense, I can see the diagram in my head but putting in words is apparently difficult.

  3. Seriously, nobody out there really believes that because Tom Reilly accepted 5 or 6 thousand from Bechtel and other Big Dig contractors that he’s going to be influenced in his investigation of the tunnel ceiling tragedy? Folks, come on, think about it. $5 or $6K out of $5 million in total campaign contributions? One-tenth of one percent? I think not. When you get down to the local level, the town selectman level, and you’ve got one company’s employees contributing $5K out of the usual $50K that a selectman raises, OK, maybe you’ve got some influence peddling but not at this level. Give the guy some credit for having done a decent job during his career. I’m sure he’s pursued other industries and other companies that have donated generously to his past campaigns and nobody made it an issue but now because of the tunnel problem the media has already determined that he’ll be biased. Let’s get real.

    • Then he should give it back.

      <

      p>
      Better to eliminate the appearance of a conflict, even if no conflict actually exists.  I believe that Tom Reilly is a good guy and is not influenced by these things, but I’m voting for him if he wins the nomination.  What about those who have not yet decided?  Will they be as easily convinced?

    • I agree that when you “zoom out” perhaps the total contributed versus the total raised the idea of influence might not look plausible.  However there are a few points to consider.  First, Mass has a very low individual contribution limit to candidates, only $500.  So, if in the span of 4 years of fundraising an individual has given $2,000 that may not seem like much but the reality is that that individual as maxed his or her contributions out to the candidate.  Candidates create the reports which means they know who their best donors are.  They are aware of who maxed out.

      <

      p>
      The second point also has to do with the $500 limit.  If you are a candidate needing to raise tons of dough who would you rather deal with, the $100 contributor or the $500 contributor?  This is where the “influence” or possibility of influence comes in.  When someone is giving you the max you find yourself feeling more indebted to him or her than to the guy who could still give more.  I am not suggesting that Reilly is or can be influence by the money.  The reason for limiting money in politics is two fold.  First, money can directly corrupt, that is obvious.  The second reason is one of appearances and potential.  Money has the appearance of influence.  Why would a big construction company give money to a candidate? Hmmmmm?  Also, there is the temptation.  When someone has for years been helping to keep your coffers full is it unlikely that a candidate will never feel the desire to pay them back.

      <

      p>
      So I am with Charley and Bob, give the money back Tom, you still have tons to spend.  I also would highlight what sco said, if it ain’t that much, then just for the sake of good politics and PR why not give it back and make a big press event out of it?

  4. This is just campaign contributions.  All politicians do it.  Want politicians to only take “clean” money?  How much will the whale huggers donate?

    <

    p>
    There is a reason that politicians spend more money to get the job than the job pays.  Anyway, contributions are small potato items.  The real money is in getting on boards of directors, consulting and lobbying. 

    <

    p>
    The best story in Massachusetts politics about campaign contributions is the time Billy Bulger sought the Senate President’s job.  Two candidates in front of him had much better prospects.  Then some campaign contributions come into the banks of those two from gangsters.  It plays up big in the Boston press.  Billy becomes Senate President.  Priceless.

Archives