Adam Reilly has the scoop: several unions that are backing Deval Patrick for Governor have filed “a formal complaint and request for investigation” regarding Ray Rogers’ and The Campaign to Stop Killer Coke’s anti-Deval Patrick activities.
The full text of the letter is posted at Adam’s site. It sets out a lot of the facts that we posted here, and several of the campaign finance arguments that we set out in this post. It then urges OCPF’s “earliest possible attention to these matters and speedy action against such violations as you determine have occurred.”
The signatories are 5 union leaders: 2 locals (223 and 1505) of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, the Boston Teachers Union, Utility Workers of America local 369, and SEIU local 509. SEIU local 509 is listed on Patrick’s endorsements page, and the letter designates its president, Michael Grunko, as the contact person for OCPF.
As far as I know, Rogers hasn’t yet shown up at any Patrick events. Anyone seen him or his fliers anywhere?
So I thought I’d jump in to express two very meager cents on this topic. I support Deval, by the way, although I’ll take any Democrat over Mitt/Healey.
<
p>
This anti-Coke dude seems, from what I can tell, to be a relatively “real” hard-core anti-corporate activist, who’s gotten his jaw all bent about Coke and decided to take it out on Deval. I’m guessing that he’s loving the publicity and feeling of importance.
<
p>
Whether his activities technical violate campaign finance law, however, it seems to me, probably shouldn’t be a major issue. Yes, he’s basically being a jerk, and his off-the-deep-end sense of ideological purity and anti-corporate fanaticism really don’t add anything of value to otherwise legitimate political debate. But unless it turned out that he’s surreptitiously being financed by one of Patrick’s opponents (Dem or Repub), it seems to me he’s just a gadfly. People can and do produce anti-Anybody fliers and make all sorts of wild accusations about politicians all the time. Giving too much attention to anyone like this probably does more harm than they could ever achieve on their own.
<
p>
Anyway, that’s my initial thought. Great blog, and I hope to stick around alot! (Meanwhile, feel free to check out Truth and Progress, also MA-based!
it ain’t so clear how to respond (or not) to such attacks.
<
p>
Do we give publicity to a “cause” that is best ignored? Maybe. But, my predominant feeling is that crap like this should be confronted and exposed for what it is.
<
p>
Is it a distraction from more positive campaign activities? Maybe. That’s why I’m writing this at midnight — if it were light out, I’d be going after voters.
<
p>
As to whether violating the law should be a major issue — hello? What are you saying? That we should suspend the laws during election season because that’s just what people do? I don’t get it.
<
p>
More importantly, since you think he might be
I’d say it’s very important to discover the source of his funding. From what I gather, he isn’t independently wealthy and relies on consulting gigs to earn his living. So who, indeed, is funding this particular campaign of his?
I didn’t mean to imply that the laws regarding campaign finance are not important, especially during an election. I only meant that in this particular case, where the violation appears to be a minor technicality (again, unless there’s something more devious going on that hasn’t been uncovered yet), trying to silence this guy based on that factor, rather than confronting his bullshit (or possibly ignoring him), could backfire. Campaign finance laws are difficult enough to define and enforce with respect to major players; I’m less excited about bringing the hammer down on annoying small fry.
Not really. The prohibition against corporate funds being used for express advocacy is central to the whole structure of trying to keep the influence that corporations have on elections to a minimum. To be sure, Rogers’ corporation is a small one, but that doesn’t mean the law in question shouldn’t be enforced.
The problem is proving that the guy is involved in direct advocacy, right?
<
p>
His problem is CLEARLY with Coke, as evidenced by this: http://killercoke.or… – and from scouring his website, I don’t really want to drink the stuff anytime soon, either. But the website doesn’t say “Down With Deval” or anything like that. And he isn’t running TV ads (yet) about it either (although if he did and they were about Coke it would seem to be okay).
<
p>
It gives me that creepy Exxon-Mobil feeling when I think about Coke now. Offing union members is not exactly what I think of as the American entreprenurial spirit.
<
p>
You know, as out-there as this guy clearly is – the reality is Deval worked at Coke as their chief legal counsel when this was all going on – and he served on a board at Ameriquest that preyed on disadvantaged men and women to scam them of their homes.
<
p>
For someone who has a great speaking voice and the “passion” – he feels like Tom DeLay or GW – saying one thing and doing something totally different.
<
p>
And as for those unions – how can five unions backing Deval write a letter about this when their brothers are getting killed in South America?
<
p>
And finally – didn’t Deval work for Texaco, too? Wonder what happened when he was there…terrible things for working people seems to follow this guy – it’s a wonder any union endorsed him.
I believe you have this “terrible things for working people seems to follow this guy” idea completely backwards. Deval isn’t doing these “terrible” things, he has been going into these houses-on-fire and trying to fix them.
By this logic, any cop must be a shady character. I mean, they’re always around when crimes occur, right? EMTs must be terrible too, because there’s always someone sick or hurt when they show up.
<
p>
The real question is did the issues exist with these companies before Deval arrived, and did he attempt to make things better…I’d say that the limited evidence available points to the affirmative.
Oh yes it does.
Are they breaking the Campaign laws?
<
p>
If they printed the comments and passed them out would they be in violation?
<
p>
Is the distinction corporate funds versus individual?
First, yes, the corporate funds issue is HUGE – it’s at the center of all of campaign finance regulation. Liberal and conservative bloggers can say anything they want, as long as they use their own $$ to do it.
<
p>
Second, the internet remains a big question mark as far as campaign finance laws go, so if something stays on the internet it seems unlikely that regulators will go after it (though you never know). But once the paper fliers hit the pavement, different story.
Why don’t you call them and ask why? The first union to endorse Deval was SEIU Local 509. Mike Grunko is the president. 617-924-8509. I’m sure he’ll be happy to explain it.
<
p>
I’m serious about that, by the way. Don’t just say “gosh, I wonder why any union would endorse the guy.” Find out for yourself why a very progressive union like SEIU 509 is behind him.
You can read what Grunko had to say at the time.
<
p>
Mr. Internet always has an answer!
People like to latch on to guys like that. Just look at that reporter from the Boston Globe. Ray Rogers creates Killer Coke and suddenly it’s a “group” featured on a big Globe story.
<
p>
That’s unacceptable, intolerable and has to be dealt with, even if it’s to the point where authorities get involved. Democracy is a sacred thing and no one is above the law, especially when they threaten the democratic process.
David,
<
p>
You can take full credit for this!
<
p>
With a little help from Bob, of course.
<
p>
We’re not gonna take it anymore!