The latest poll numbers?
No. The thousands of dollars from lobbyists that each campaign has taken, as reported by Kim Atkins at the Herald. (Most of the money is from state lobbyists, except Patrick’s: his $24,000 reflects $10,000 from state-registered lobbyists, plus $14,000 from the K Street crowd in Washington. Is that better? Worse? Dunno.)
Wouldn’t it have been nice if all these guys had sworn off lobbyist money? Mihos already did – good for him. Gabrieli and Healey certainly should – they haven’t taken much yet, and God knows neither of them needs it. And, frankly, Reilly and Patrick should do the same. Compared to the millions of dollars they’ve both raised – Patrick raised over $300,000 in the first half of August – these amounts are drops (largish drops, but drops nonetheless) in the bucket. The bang they’d get for shutting lobbyists out of the fundraising game would be worth a lot more than the bucks they’ll get if they keep taking it.
Candidates, repeat after me: “no money from lobbyists.”
Isn’t Gabrieli a lobbyist for the interests he holds near and dear in Bessemer Venture Partners? I mean, why pay a lobbyist to donate to your campaign when you can write your own check?
<
p>
Bessemer Venture Partners – venture capital source for for-profit charter schools, and how many other corporate beneficiaries of state and local tax dollars?
Deval’s money seems to come in part from Texaco and Coca-Cola lobbyists, indicating that they’re friends or co-workers from years past. It’s hard to imagine that either company would have to lobby very much for Deval’s support — he already knows what the company’s objectives and goals are.
<
p>
Aside from that, though, what kind of lobbyists? Other than “state” or “Washington” lobbyists, these could be any organization. It’s one thing if it’s “Big Oil” donating to Reilly, which would indicate that his claims of standing up to Big Oil are phoney. It’s another thing if it’s the SEIU’s political branch. From that article and your post, we have no idea.
<
p>
To be quite honest, I don’t think I’d mind it at all if gay rights, environmental, or labor lobbyist groups (to name a few issues) donate to Democratic campaigns. Do you?
This is the biggest myth in politics. A lobbyist is a hired advocate to espouse a point of view. To me, it matters little if they are for abortion rights or right to life or the US Chamber of Commerce – they are ALL trying to influence a legislator to vote in a way favorable to them. MOST of their activity is compiling and providing information and analyses pertinent to various issues (quick – would you know what the UFFI problem was before it was repealed without the Realtor loby?)
<
p>
Saying a political opponent has taken money from a lobbyist you disagree with is like sayign that…well..you OPPONENT disagrees with you!
<
p>
D’oh!
<
p>
To me, a gay rights activist and an oil company executive are equally guilty of ‘purchasing’ a legislators vote with their donation. Please remember, most purehearted activists and advocates are actually reigstered lobbyists as well.
you are very wrong. It’s like David v. Goliath here.
<
p>
“To me, a gay rights activist and an oil company executive are equally guilty of ‘purchasing’ a legislators vote with their donation. Please remember, most purehearted activists and advocates are actually reigstered lobbyists as well.”
<
p>
Do you think for an instant that the lobbying from each of these people is created equal? When your money is coming from Big Oil, or other very large conglomerates, that is very different when your getting your money from individuals who give a shit about a cause.
<
p>
Yes, both are trying to influence the outcome, but the oil lobbyist is far less democratic than the guy working for a non-profit environmental group which relies largely on small donations of its members. To my mind, this places unions (teachers, firefighters, etc) squarely in the middle of the two types – they are more representative of groups of people, unlike the oil guy, but also have more money (union dues are a bitch) to throw around to make their point.
If a lobbyist for an organization is giving cash to a candidate, they are trying to buy influence. Period.
<
p>
The Dean/Kos/MoveOn netroots phenomenon has been working within that system: They’re influential largely because they’ve been able to raise lots of money from jes’ folks — thereby buying influence for that bloc. To us it may be exciting; but to the establishment, it ain’t romantic, it’s just another funnel for cash. The Religious Right — same thing, although they also bring a lot of social capital (organizing power) to the table.
<
p>
So I’d go further: All campaign donations are bribes. Some are meant that way; some are meant “purely” as encouragement and thanks. They may be large or small, aggregated from many individuals or a big chunk. But the establishment interprets all campaign cash the same way — as a means of influence.
Charley – I don’t know why, but sometimes there is a subsequent post that SAYS – I agree with Peter – but I’m still all zeros on ratings; except when I’m GIVEN zeros to make a comment disappear, as happened with the Bonifaz folk.
Sixes all around!
There are many lobbyists who are also political activists, fighting for good causes and contributing money to candidates in whom they believe, just like the rest of us. Yes, there are many lobbyists who are just trying to buy influence, but you’re completely wrong about some activists who represent all kinds of worthy causes – from breast cancer to Medicaid recipients to anti-death penalty groups.
Dem – you don’t want to think of them as ‘lobbyists’ because you support/agree with their aims.
<
p>
Really – I have been lobbied by defibrillator manufacturers who want to place their product in schools, landlord groups who want rent escrow to encourage more rental housing, stem cell researchers who want a shield law passed to protect their company – ALL of these lobbied in the State House, and all of them felt that their activities would make the state a better place.
<
p>
What about the families of corrections officers killed by inmates already serving a life sentance who lobby FOR the death penalty? Are they ‘unworthy’? They want to make DCI more effective and safe. What about docotors who lobby to be able to set a cap on Medicaid patients, whose treatment is reimbursed by the state at a rate about 60% of the actual cost, so they can avoid the Phyrric decision of all or none? Are THEY unworthy because they want to be able to continue thier practice, and are wiling to take some patients, but cannot have the practice overrun?
<
p>
You may disagree with their point of view – so that makes them evil lobbyists, while those you agree with are angels come among us?
So if all campaign contributions are forms of bribes, why does it matter that some of their contributions come from lobbyists (professional bribers?)?
only the professionals actually take them up on it!
That seems to be the latest spin from
insideroutsider based campaign. When will these “inconvient truths”stop coming in? That’s today’s spin cycle in the Herald.Because the record numbers of (often first time) individual donors raising hundreds of thousands of dollars doesn’t more than balance out $24K from lobbyists.
<
p>
Who do YOU think Patrick is more beholden to? My money (no really, my actual money) is that he’s beholden to the voters, because that’s his donor base.
Every candidate depending on how big the office gets a check from the government for a certain amount of money, for an MD the Irish equivalent of a Congressperson they get 30k, any penny they spend over the 30k is out of their own pocket. No corporate donations, no nothing, you spend up to 30k gov reimberses you. Makes races a lot more grassroots oriented and a lot less airwave war.
<
p>
If only we could follow the lead, but the people in power are the people who are corrupt so therefore anti corruption laws wont be passed.
Like I said in the post, he’d get a HUGE boost from refusing lobbyist money all together, and it wouldn’t actually cost him very much.
As my candidate of choice: Come on, Deval — give it back.
especially one so painfully low as Massachusetts has (compared to other states), is that it doesn’t really matter who gives.
<
p>
So DP and Reilly got a nice chunk of change from varying lobbyists. These donations are nothing when viewed in the scale of the amount of money that these campaigns are raising and spending overall.
<
p>
Sure, giving $500 (or $1,000 for a couple) might get you a handshake and a picture and the candidate will remember your name. It’s not like it buys you the office next door and the ability to write legislation and get the Governor to sign it.
If it doesn’t really do them any good, why have lobbyists shelled out over $70,000 to the Gov candidates so far?
<
p>
Answer: because it works. You really think they’re donating to the candidates that they want to win? My guess: most of them have donated to everyone (with the exception of the DC guys who may well only have donated to Patrick). I’m happy to be proven wrong on that one, but until I am, my assumption is that they donate as a way of purchasing access. And remember: even if a lobbyist donates the same amount as you, only the lobbyist actually trades on that donation. You pretty much cut your check, vote for your guy, and then go back to your regularly-scheduled life. The lobbyist uses that donation for access in order to do his or her job, namely, advancing his or her clients’ interests before the state.
<
p>
Patrick, Reilly, and every other candidate loses almost nothing by refusing lobbyist donations, and makes a big statement against the Big Dig culture. Frankly, it strikes me as a no-brainer.
1 – I’ll concede that these donations do buy a level of access. If I’m a lobbyist and I personally max out and raise another $5k from friends, then I’m doing so with the understanding that the candidate, once in office, will take my phone calls. However, what these levels of contributions don’t buy is any sort of quid pro quo beyond that. No single lobby is responsible for any of these candidates’ success or failure. No future governor is going to be so beholden to the lobbyist or their client that they’ll throw their personal agenda/values/beliefs out the door once they’re in office and act as a puppet to the big bad influnce peddlers. So Reilly/Patrick/Gabrieli feels obligated to take a phone call, and the lobbyist gets a chance to make his case. Do you really think that scenario would be impossible if they returned the money?
<
p>
2 – Registered lobbyists aren’t the only people buying this kind of access. Businessmen do it. Non-profit groups on all sides do it (PAC check plus solicited contributions from members). They all have agendas just like the lobbyists. Do we ask the candidates to return PAC checks? Donations solicited by non-profit groups? How do we know who gave out of the goodness of their heart and who’s trying to buy access? Short of public financing of campaigns, there’s no way to separate the good from the bad when it comes to campaign contributions.
seems like a good idea to me, and candidates routinely refuse it. As for not being able to separate “good” donors from “bad,” separating registered lobbyists from everyone else seems pretty straightforward to me.
I know a man who’s a CEO of a corporation. While keeping it vague, his business can benefit from decisions made by the state government. He has money to burn and makes donations to plenty of candidates for district and statewide office. He’s not party-loyal so long as it helps his business. He makes these donations “so that when he calls a legislator, they take his call.” (It’s not an exact quote, but he said something like that to me.)
<
p>
So businessmen get access but lobbyists don’t? We freeze out PAC checks, but what about the organizations who solicit donations from their members? Do you think the candidates don’t know when a non-profit raises them a few thousand dollars?
<
p>
Picking and choosing who we hold to a moral standard and who we don’t is hypocritical.
because we can’t practically stamp out all influence-peddling through campaign donations, we shouldn’t try to stamp out the most patently obvious varieties?
<
p>
Look, I assume that if Riley Bechtel tries to cut a check to any Gov candidate, they’ll have the good sense not to take it. No, you can’t control all of this stuff. Why not control what you can?
The candidates I tend to back have the hardest time matching their opponents in fundraising. They’re less connected, less business-oriented, and generally know fewer rich people. So if someone wants to cut them a $500 check just in case they get elected, I don’t mind. If I’m supporting someone, it’s because I trust that they can’t be bought.
<
p>
Sure, the candidates will shy away from money from Riley-Bechtel, but only because of the embarassment factor. If Healey’s husband offered any of the Dem candidates $500 they’d probably send it back because it’s news when they accept it, and it’s a pointless distraction.
<
p>
I just don’t see this as an issue. If it’s such a big deal, then the way to deal with it is to push for public financing of campaigns, not just pick out the few donors who we can identify as having less-than-altruistic motives.