As the Boston Globe reported, Deval Patrick recently unloaded some of his stock holdings that “wouldn’t meet some of the liberal “smell tests” for socially responsible investing.” Specifically, that article mentioned:
Those stock sell-offs followed a trend from earlier this year when Deval Patrick sold off his holdings in the nation’s two largest tobacco firms as well as Kerry Healey’s husband’s company prior to the deadline to publicly disclose his holdings. (Interestingly Patrick, a critic of the $1.2 million tax break received by Sean Healey’s company, owned stock in the company himself.) At that time, Patrick’s spokesperson Richard Chacon explained, “When Deval saw these stocks were part of his portfolio, he asked that they be sold, and they were sold earlier this year.”
OK, but if Deval Patrick found those stock holdings offensive to his social and political sensibilities, why not part company with the following items currently in his financial portfolio?
In 2002, the World Policy Institute noted “After a decade of consolidation, the merger [between Northrop Grumman and TRW] will leave the U.S. with three major defense contractors. . .The 1990s bout of government-backed ‘merger mania’ in the military industry accomplished one thing: it resulted in a. . .much more politically powerful corporate military sector.” In a separate article, the institute revealed: “Together Northrop Grumman and TRW have spent over $20 million on lobbying members of Congress and given about $4 million in campaign contributions” Many members of Congress and executive officials have pushed heavily for purchasing items like Stealth Bombers and a national SDI system, purchases that would signify a windfall for Northrop Grumman if approved. . .Several former officials, consultants, or primary shareholders of Northrop Grumman have held high posts in the Bush administration, including Paul Wolfowitz, [and] I. Lewis Libby. Many commentators point to Northrop Grumman as a primary example of a player in the military-industrial complex. By contracting military services to private contractors such as Northrop Grumman, the U.S. Government is seen as avoiding responsibility for its actions.
According to this progressive blog, Deval Patrick is “unambiguously” opposed to the war in Iraq. It is strange then that Patrick should align his financial interests with defense contractors that are profiting from the war. Unambiguous? Do as I say, not as I invest, I guess. Armed with Patrick’s SFI, Google, and Wikipedia, it didn’t take me long to identify these questionable holdings. So, where does Deval Patrick draw the line on socially-responsible investing? Tobacco bad? Military industrial stocks good? Why not just let the sun shine on everything?
Regrettably, Chris Gabrieli, the man who is busy shattering the spending record for a gubernatorial election, doesn’t feel compelled to share any of his income information. Chris, who has been the lightest candidate on substance appears to have adopted a policy of “show little, risk little.” Hey, Chris, I thought we had to “take risks to get results?” What gives?
I note that some still find Tom Reilly’s interest in tax returns “curious”. Personally, I find it open, refreshing, and unabashedly forthcoming.
If Deval Patrick’s limited SFI is any indication, you may also learn that there may be more to what a candidate says once you have seen learned where he gets and bets his dollars.
Taking your last comment first (regarding Reilly’s interest in releasing income tax returns), I would like to hear your response to the question poised in the other post in detail (and I am asking seriously and not snidely). I believe the poster asked why Reilly was so intent on having others release their tax returns, but then didn’t seem interested at all in what they contained (using the Gabrieli screwing and choice of Marie La Fleur despite knowing her self-acknowledged financial problems). It really doesn’t make sense. I see the obvious political advantage for Reilly there given he is a state employee running against two self-made men and therefore his opponents have the potential of something more embarassing in their returns. So it seems that rather than taking a principled stand regarding release of financial information, Reilly is more concerned when the person in question is wealthy, and therefore more likely to have some hidden skeleton in their return information that he can use to smear them. Politics as usual more than something “open, refreshing or forthcoming.”
<
p>
Now, with the above examples. With the exception of PetroChina and their contract with the Sudanese government (I don’t know nearly enough to comment on this contract), none of the above examples indicate that the companies in question have done anything illegal or unethical. These are companies that were awarded contracts by the government. The government, and the military, has need for certain services and equipment and they obtain those services from the private sector. If they didn’t obtain these services and equipment, then we wouldn’t have an army or a national defense. Are some of these services and products being used in an unpopular war? Sure. Would some (if not most) of these services and equipment be necessary and ordered even if there wasn’t this unpopular war? I imagine they would. Are these companies making a profit off of supplying the government? Yes, it’s called capitalism.
<
p>
So I am not seeing the problem here. These companies are not obtaining all their profits solely from supplying the military for the war in Iraq. In fact, from your post it’s not clear that most of the items you site were bought specifically for the war in Iraq.
<
p>
As for the Sean Healy company tax break, doesn’t that show the exact opposite of what you are trying to imply. Patrick opposed a tax cut that would have indirectly been beneficial to him. In essence, he put his beliefs as to what was right and wrong ahead of his personal gain. Bad, Deval, how terrible of you!
<
p>
Basically, I think this post is really disappointing coming from you MavDem. It’s based on nothing more than innuendo and attempts to make an appearance of something bad when in fact none exists. It seems that after beginning this campaign talking about ideas, you have turned simply to attacks on the candidates, and specifically Deval, based on issues unrelated to the campaign. Besides his stance on the income tax rollback, your posts have not focused of late on Deval’s policy stances. Instead you have relied on these character attacks that are unseemly, but the hallmark of the Reilly campaign to date. You have continually advocated that Reilly is the man you has the best and most detailed policy stances, but instead of advocating those stances or comparing them to the other candidates, you (and the Reilly campaign) have decided instead to attack the other candidates on tangentially related issues.
<
p>
I also want to address something related. I think that one thing that Gabs and Deval have over Reilly is their experience in the business world (not taking away anything from Reilly’s commitment to public service, just a fact). If Healy is going to attack the Dems on taxes, spending, and other fiscal issues, I think having a Democratic candidate with business experience is a nice counter to that. By having the ability to project the image of a business friendly democrat who views the private sector as a friend rather than foe of the agreement and having the experience of controlling costs and increasing revenue in order to generate profit, a Dem with business experience can reach conservative Dem and independent voters in a way that other Dem candidates can’t. Wasn’t that the appeal of Romeny, a successful businessguy who can fix the economic problems of the state (or at least that was the image he was able to project and people seemed to respond to).
Wahoowa, I have seen the idea of financial transparency repeatedly dismissed on this site. My post and my research are examples, based on the limited information that Patrick has filed (Gabrieli, of course, has filed none), of some of the issues that may be raised with financial transparency. Once Patrick chose to dump some stocks and keep others, it makes analyzing those he kept a legitimate exercise. The line between tobacco and defense contractors seems thin to me, but you may have a different opinion.
<
p>
Furthermore, to suggest that I am only now raising the issue of financial transparancy is inaccurate to the point of being laughable. My first three user posts on BMG – posted on April 13,April 15, and again on April 15 – were on this exact subject. How can I be anymore consistent that that? Answer: I can’t.
<
p>
As for the question raised in David’s post, I don’t see an inconsistency. Tom Reilly apparently was concerned that Chris Gabrieli would never show his income tax returns to the public, not to him. Should Reilly have asked to see St. Fleur’s returns, you better believe it. And he paid a price. However, there is nothing to suggest that he would not have acepted the same promise from Gabrieli, sight unseen. Naive, maybe. But inconsistent, no.
Can you cite your proof that Patrick “chose to dump some stocks and keep others” based on his moral values?
<
p>
That is an allegation by Frank Phillips, repeated by yourself and other Reilly backers.
<
p>
The fact is, Patrick sold stocks. Anything beyond that is pure speculation.
How about the quote from Patrick’s spokesperson about his first stock sale:
<
p>
<
blockquote.At that time, Patrick’s spokesperson Richard Chacon explained, “When Deval saw these stocks were part of his portfolio, he asked that they be sold, and they were sold earlier this year.”
<
p>
He obviously found something distasteful about those stocks. The remaining stock sales would seem to follow the same pattern.
Can you point me to a link to the statement?
<
p>
The only relevant link from a search for “Deval Patrick Alliant Techsystems” is to a “statement of financial interests for calendar year 2005” filed with the MA state ethics commission.
<
p>
A search for the same terms in the Globe archive points only to the Frank Phillips article.
Where to begin.
<
p>
There is a huge difference between defense contractors and tobacco companies. We need a national defense. Period. We need someone to provide the necessary services and equipment to ensure we have a national defense. We don’t need cigarrettes. Smoking bad, national defense good. (And when I speak of national defense, I speak in broad terms rather than particular military actions). Would you advocate we didn’t have defense contractors and equipped our military with stones and squirt guns?
<
p>
I don’t think I stated that this is your first regarding financial transparency, so your attack on me is unwarranted on that point. My comment was that your posts generally used to be more substantive and issue oriented but have no turned completely tangential and void of any substance on the issues. Question, does you average voter care more about what stocks the candidate holds or how that candidate is going to bring more jobs to the state, provide a better education for their children, help curb increasing health care costs, etc.? Why don’t we talk issues rather than innuendo.
<
p>
Your response regarding St. Fleur raises an interesting question: If Reilly is so concerned about tax returns but doesn’t have the inclination to then look at the return of his hand-picked running mate despite her acknowledgement she had problems, doesn’t that speak more to irresponsibility and negligence rather than naivete? Picking you running mate is a pretty important decision, and if you cannot be bother to diligence your pick, what does that say about how responsible you would be as governor? Will Reilly make decisions as governor based on incomplete information and negligent research, even when knowing there is something he should be looking at, and then chalk it up to naivete? Maybe it’s just me, but that seems incredibly scary (and irresponsible).
<
p>
Finally, if you are truly concerned about transparency, why is your post so anti-Patrick? Patrick has released financial disclosures which really provide a lot of information (and further, what is it in the tax returns you are looking for that you don’t already have access too?). Gabs has release nothing. Why aren’t you railing against Gabs and his lack of any disclosure besides a throwaway line in your post?
Now MavDem, this is something to be concerned about regarding a candidate. If Tom Reilly is so upset by the Big Dig catastrophe and feels that the relatioship between state officials and Big Dig contractors is a little too “problematic”, why has he accepted $4,000 in donations from these contractors? If we are talking about double standards or one’s actions betraying their words, this would be a perfect example. Just another in a long line of Reilly saying one thing and doing another.
<
p>
Reilly joins recipients of Big Dig donations
By REBECCA FATER, Sun Statehouse Bureau
<
p>
BOSTON — Attorney General Tom Reilly, one of several gubernatorial candidates who have criticized the cozy relationship between state government and Big Dig contractors, accepted a $500 campaign contribution from a former employee of a Big Dig company as recently as June 30.
<
p>
Charles Madden of Melrose, a retired executive vice president for Modern Continental, signed over a $500 check to Reilly dated June 30, 2006, according to the state Office of Campaign and Political Finance Web site.
<
p>
The cash was recorded as being given only 10 days before ceiling tiles in the Interstate 90 connector tunnel collapsed and killed Milena Delvalle of Boston, igniting a firestorm of criticism over one of the nation’s biggest, priciest highway projects.
<
p>
Madden is one of several employees or former employees of Modern Continental who have contributed a total of $4,000 to Reilly since 2003, records show.
<
p>
Gubernatorial candidates Chris Gabrieli, a Democrat, and Lt. Gov. Kerry Healey, the Republican nominee, have also accepted cash from donors with strong ties to Modern Continental, one of several contractor companies that worked on the Big Dig.
<
p>
Reilly, who launched a criminal probe into Delvalle’s death immediately after the collapse, called the state’s overly friendly relationship with Big Dig contractors “problematic” at a July 27 press conference.
<
p>
Madden, one of a handful of Reilly donors with ties to Modern Continental, also gave to the attorney general in 2005 and 2003. State records indicate he retired from his job at Modern Continental in 2004.
<
p>
Reilly spokesman Corey Welford defended the candidate’s record yesterday.
<
p>
“Tom Reilly has been extremely aggressive, taking on Bechtel and the management of this project,” he said. “His investigation led to the most significant criminal indictments in the history of the project.”
<
p>
Campaign contributions, Welford added, “have nothing to do with the work of the office.”
<
p>
Gabrieli, a Democrat and wealthy venture capitalist, collected $1,400 from current and former Modern Continental employees in 2002, when he ran for lieutenant governor alongside gubernatorial candidate Shannon O’Brien.
<
p>
His donors include John Pastore, president of Modern Continental, who gave $250, and Michael McNally, a former Modern Continental executive who gave $500.
<
p>
Cheryl Cronin, one of Gabrieli’s top campaign advisers, is also an attorney for Big Dig project manager Bechtel/Parsons Brinckerhoff, the company that state critics have called the root of mismanagement at the project site.
<
p>
A spokeswoman for Gabrieli said the campaign is not concerned about the donations, given they were made for a different race.
<
p>
Healey accepted a total of $1,000 in 2004 and 2005, including $500 from Lelio Marino. Marino founded Modern Continental in 1967, according to the company’s Web site. He died in 2004.
<
p>
Healey campaign spokesman Nate Little said the campaign has returned contributions from Big Dig contractors when problems with their work arose, such as donations from Aggregate Industries. Authorities accused the international company of using faulty concrete in May, leading to the arrest of six Aggregate employees. The campaign is unable to return Marino’s donation because he is dead, Little said.
<
p>
Records also show that lieutenant governor candidate Deborah Goldberg, a Democrat, accepted $750
Mr. Maddon’s occupation would appear as “retired” on any donation. How would the Reilly caampaign know of his background, unless: A.) someone knew him personally; or B.) they asked ever donor to staple a resume to their check?
<
p>
If anything, this article should put to rest any idea that the Globe is somehoe biased in favor of Reilly. Acording to press accounts, Tom Reilly has not accepted donations from Big Dig contractors since assuming cost recovery responsibilities.
<
p>
Nice attempt to change topic. Maybe you should try writing your own post and then providing a link rather than “flaming” this one.
First, Madden gave in 2003 as well, when he was still employed and therefore his employer would have been listed. Also, if the Globe can figure this out, given the importance of the issue, I think the Reilly campaign could have also performed due diligence and figured this out as well. Also, he apparently wasn’t the only person affiliated with the company who donates (three donations could be max $1500 and he received $4000). He also accepted contributions from the Madden guy after taking over cost-recovery operations.
<
p>
And this wasn’t an attempt to change the subject, I was making a relevant point (and playing your reindeer game of character assassination). The gist of your argument is that Deval says one thing (I am against the Iraq war) and does another (owns shares of defence contractors). So, I am pointing out that Reilly has a similar problem, he says one thing (Big Dig contractors have a “problematic” relationship with state officials) and then does another (takes campaign contributions from those very contractors).
<
p>
Now, looking at the two which is worse?: A) A strained connection between a statement of policy and share holdings (as I argued before, holding an interest in defense contractors doesn’t negate opposition to a particular military action). B) Taking campaign contribtuions from people who (1) you have criticized other state officials for having a relationship with and (2) you are supposedly investigating for misdeeds.
<
p>
I don’t think I am flaming anything or anyone here. The contributions are relevant to the discussion, as I argue in this post. Also, my posts have been (I though, and the fact I get good ratings seem to indicate others do as well) thoughtful and responsive. I have never partaken in unsubstantiated attacks or name-calling. I used to respect you MavDem, but you have become bitter and taken some personal swipes at me. Typical of the Reilly campaign.
Madden’s name should have had a giant red flag attached to it. The 6/30/06 donation does indeed say “retired” – but a one-step search in OCPF (which I conducted in July) shows that he gave lots and lots of money to lots of people – including Reilly – while he worked at Modern.
<
p>
Anyway, Kim Atkins at the Herald, not the Lowell Sun, should get credit for this find – which she published over a month ago.
Kim Atkins did a great deal of research to turn it up! I doubt one of the rival campaigns sent her that one. 😉
it’s really just a matter of who is on the receiving end of the dropped dime. I doubt Atkins was pouring through OCPF reports. Do you think so?
<
p>
Speaking of which, has BMG ever been contacted by a campaign with information? Just wondering.
Anyone can post a diary here… less so an op-ed in the Herald.
This site has a policy that campaigns need to make themselves known if they are posting. I know that campaigns often pitch stories to the mainstream media as a usual course of business. That been going on since the Election of 1800, if not earlier.
<
p>
I am just wondering if they have started to do the same with the blogosphere.
I can’t remember any negative stuff being peddled to us. In any event, we haven’t blogged any kind of original oppo stuff. And after all, the only campaign that’s gone really negative is Reilly’s, and we’ve had only radio silence from them.
<
p>
It’s interesting … people in the press and the campaigns say they read us, and someone’s obviously paying attention, and personally, I’m willing to be spun like a top if someone had something juicy and straight-up to give us … but they don’t like us that way, I guess.
And David and Bob have had the same experience?
Have you seen them blogging on hot juicy gossipy scoops? Have we written anything that would make you suspect as much?
Since it appears to take place in the mainstream media, I was just interested in whether it has happened in the blogosphere.
Mav…buddy…who’s been dropping dimes to Frank Phelps and all, for the last year and a half? From the first Coke stories, the Deval’s mortages (including the location of his Richmond house) to Ameriquest, United Airlines and now back coke.
<
p>
The Reilly camp has burned a hole in their pockets dropping dimes in this race.
Frank, ol’ chum, my point was rather different. ALL campaigns pitch stories. I’m not scoring who’s ahead in that regard. I’m just wondering if any of the campaigns have reached out in similar fashion to the blogosphere.
But as someone who’s not at all a fan of the Iraq war, I think you’re being dishonest at best by trying to imply guilt by association with defense contractors. Would you rather we didn’t have stealth planes in the event of a conflict that really does concern our national security? The military-industrial complex isn’t to blame for the policies that actually result in military action, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with a company that works to equip our military with the best equipment.
<
p>
By your own admission, Alliant Systems doesn’t even make cluster bombs or landmines anymore, yet somehow they still made it onto your list of evil corporations. Do you have any stock in IBM? Did you know that IBM supplied systems to the Nazis to track prisoners in concentration camps? I hope you’ll agree that’s a far worse crime than manufacturing landmines for the US Army, yet I don’t see you calling for a boycott (forgive me if you are).
<
p>
I’ll grant you that PetroChina seems to be a bona-fide bad company, but the others are just window dressing for your post. And I’m pretty sure this exact subject has already been debated in BMG. Ah yes, last time the subject was raised by greencape. I asked greencape whether he had any mutual funds or index funds that might include “bad” companies. He insisted there’s some sort of fundamental difference, but I disagree — investment money is investment money, intentional or not. Well, some people have financial advisors who manage investments for them, sort of like a personally-customized mutual fund. It’s completely believable that he had no idea PetroChina was in his portfolio, and I’m glad he had it sold when he found out. I’d be interested in hearing what you think about that.
From Tom Reilly’s bio on his website (with link):
<
p>
“Tom’s early career included brief stints as an analyst for the Central Intelligence Agency in Virginia…”
<
p>
http://www.tomreilly…
<
p>
In your original post, MavDem, you criticize Deval for holding shares of L3 Communications because they provide services to, among other US governmental entities, US Government intelligence agencies. GASP, TOM REILLY ACTUALLY WORKED FOR THE CIA!!!
<
p>
I don’t care that Tom Reilly worked for the CIA. Just like I don’t care that Deval owns shares of defense contractors. Hopefully this shows the foolishness of your attack, MavDem.
<
p>
Furthermore, along the lines of full disclosure, why doesn’t Tom Reilly release a list of every matter he worked on in private practice? I’m sure there is something in there that someone could make look unsavory. Or what about his time working in labor relations at Ford Motors? What, Tom Reilly worked for a big corporation on labor matters. That sounds bad. And I bet he got paid for that too!
<
p>
Instead of heading down the wormhole and focusing on these tangential attacks that will not matter at all come September and especially November, let’s focus on what really matters….who has the better plan for the commonwealth. And then once we have a nominee, let’s focus on getting the corner office back to the Dems.
<
p>
the beauty of transparency! You learned that Tom Reilly worked for the CIA from. . .TOM REILLY! No digging around required! It’s all out there for the world to see!
<
p>
We could obviously go back and forth all day (although we won’t because my schedule requires otherwise), but some will find that disclosure matter and some will not.
<
p>
If you read my post, you will note that I do, in fact, criticize Gabrieli. Of course, I lack the specifics because he has failed to provide them.
<
p>
Wahoowa, this isn’t the first time that we’ve had a back-and-forth and I think we both understand this much: you are about as interested in Reilly as I am in Patrick.
<
p>
I don’t necessarily write my posts for BMG’s active participants, 80% of whom are pro-Patrick. Increasingly, I write them for whoever else might be visiting the site.
You’re demanding different levels of transparency.
<
p>
You’re satisfied at a simple list of employers for Reilly, but you demand that Patrick comment on issues that he worked on while with various companies, and then express outrage at Patrick because those companies did not behave well. Others (not sure if it was you) have suggested that simply working for these companies shows bad judgement. They claim that he should have resigned in protest — as if that would accomplsh anything.
<
p>
Why the double-standard? Why should some things be transparent, others hidden?
NoPolitician raises a very good point. The only thing it says on Reilly’s website is that he worked for the CIA and was in private practice for a while. With regards to the private practice part, that is actually less than what I can learn about Deval (that he worked at Hill and Barlow). Hell, I even know where his wife practices! And as for the corporate experience, all it says on Reilly’s website is that he was involved with labor relations at Ford. Nothing about what he did there specifically. Yet, Reilly disciples demand all sorts of disclosures from Patrick about every single position he has ever held.
<
p>
And you are right, I really have no interest in Reilly. If he should happen to win the nomination I would have to hold my nose and close my eyes as I voted for him. Him versus Healy, I want him to win though.
<
p>
And regarding your intended audience, that’s fine. However, you really cannot expect to post in a public forum like this attacking a candidate and not expect some form of response. If you want to post positives about your candidate, that’s one thing, and I imagine would garner less of a response, and surely a less hostile one (though others will obviously challenge any assertions you make and also compare Reilly’s stance to the others in this race). However, if you are going to write posts that simply smear and attack the others in this race, you really cannot be surprised when others defend those candidates and fight back. In fact, if your whole go is (as it appears you are claiming) to balance out the pro-Devalness of this site, then you have to expect someone to balance your posts as well.
to say, yes, indeed, it has been debated on this site, months ago:
<
p>
“Deval’s stocks and glass houses”
<
p>
<
p>
So how about that? Anyone own the Vanguard 500? Have a Vanguard 529 for kiddo’s college fund? Anyone?
I think the reason that Democrats lose so oftenis that we eat our young. I dont’ care if Tom Reilly worked for the CIA. I don’t care if Deval Patrick worked for companies that may not have always conducted their business in the most ethical manner. I don’t know what to not care about where Gabrielli is concerned. As the media eviscerates Deval and to a lesser extent, Tom Reilly, they give Chris Gabrielli a told pass. I have yet to hear anything about Gabrielli’s business practices, his investments, his ties to developers. I am especially concerned about his ties to developers as this would say something about how he might govern and what his priorities might be. I want to know about things about a candidate hat has something to do with how they might overn. I know when I listen to Deval or talk to Deval he is an ethical man committed to fairness and equity. Too bad that all voters don’t get to really know the candidates, thanall of this “hot air” in the media would mean nothing!
Or is Maverick Dem getting more and more desperate and less and less well reasoned? It’s okay, Mav, your guy is in third. Don’t let the truth or logic get in the way of victory…
<
p>
In fact, when Tom loses his Dem primary, I think he should go the Lieberman route!
Sounds like what the Church was saying about Galileo…
<
p>
“What is it with this guy? Doesn’t he understand that nobody believes his crackpot ideas, and there’s an orthodoxy to enforce around here?”
<
p>
It’s just you. . .
At least that is what they are calling this post on their own blog.
<
p>
Apparently, they like our special blend of “reality-based commentary.”
The Globe blog (Globblog? A new palindrome?) called World War II a “spirited scuffle” and Napoleon “an ambitious up-and-comer”.
Always good to see you in the fray!
Perhaps rather than a debate between the candidates, next time they can put us all on a stage to battle it out.
OK, he sold off some big money stocks. Where did the money go? Is that how he is paying those not exactly common man mortgages and building costs?