(I posted this as a comment previously on Tuesday night / early Wednesday morning, but have decided to post it again as a diary, in response to the news: http://www.thephoeni… that came out 6 hours later… demanding an investigation FROM AN SEIU leader, who may know the inside scoop on his fellow SEIU leaders in different factions) The implication here (…”caused others to do so”…) is that even the SEIU might think that a candidate or his supporters are involved. Does anyone have any information on how Reilly’s SEIU endorsers came to know about KillerCoke, and whether their overwhelming support of Roger’s campaign last month and this month’s Fee-Hugger flyer are connected?
Ray Rogers – What are his incentives?
Ray Rogers was a Bostonian, still has a heavy Boston accent, and his father worked as a lathe operator at GE in Lynn. He certainly cares about union workers, and has ties to Massachusetts. However, a simple Google search shows you that he earns his living by charging unions to be an agitator – not doing speaking gigs. He receives money from a number of unions, not always just one or two at a time, who finance his “campaigns”.
He tries his best to keep as many of the unions in good favor as possible, and in turn they support his campaigns. The more effective he is at his campaigns and the more he supports his unions by getting several other unions to collaborate for his boycotts and other campaign tactics, the more money he can charge (and the more his activist reputation grows). His current campaign being “Killer Coke”, he certainly would be active in politicking to find as many other union supporters as possible. Ray has spoken at conferences and at union meetings, and has dealings with many of the major unions, and many of the key people including at unions like SEIU.
Looking at KillerCoke’s newsletters, On June 8, 2006, Ray Rogers wrote a reaction to Deval Patrick’s disclosures about his finances involving Coke. In July, 2006, SEIU 1199, which is a huge & influential 275,000 member union around here, removed Coke machines from their facilities and passed a resolution to boycott Coke. This was in response to, and in cooperation with, Killer Coke aka Ray Rogers (he seems to have had dealings with them as early as 2004). The SEIU 1199 resolution was entitled – exactly as follows: “In Solidarity with Colombian Workers and Against ‘Killer Coke'”.
SEIU 1199 is the one of the first unions to endorse Reilly, it also appears to be the largest (NAGE is only 22,000). Reilly had very few union endorsements compared to the other candidates, and still does, relatively. Reilly clearly has connections to SEIU 1199, as they are such a large union to come out early for him. There are also obvious ties between SEIU 1199 and Rogers; I would not be surprised if a few of them volunteered to hand out flyers for him – in fact, if you see Ray, take pictures of him & his crew and post on BMG.
The next month, as the SEIU is ratifying this major achievement for Killer Coke (and really, looking at his newsletters, this was one of the biggest direct wins for him in recent times), we see Ray Rogers finally decide to come down and campaign against Deval.
Ray Rogers certainly seems to be on the side of unions, and really does not like Coke. However, looking at his past on Google, he does not seem to be that nice of a guy. He is described as militant and as he is not independently wealthy, he does what he does to make a living. Do we really believe he printed 30,000 flyers, rented a car, and came all the way to Boston by himself to heckle Patrick on his own? Is it simply to raise awareness for his cause – or does it kill another bird with the same stone and scratch the back of SEIU 1199? Or was it prompted, by the largely Reilly-supporting SEIU 1199 as a response to Rogers’ attempt to influence the campaign when he wrote on June 8: “We are seeking individuals and organizations that would like to help expose Deval Patricks and Cokes deplorable record to Massachusetts voters. Please contact us at stopkillercoke@aol.com or (718) 852-2808”? Could it have been a non-monetary exchange of favors, or perhaps orchestrated by Reilly campaign insiders?
Rogers has a history of printing and handing out 100,000 or more flyers for campaigns, distributed sometimes by teams of 80 or more volunteers – however, in this case, 30,000 flyers well before the primary, and he currently plans to disrupt one week of Patrick’s campaign events – which may have a several week aftershock. Will CCI be paying for this printing, all this gas and Ray’s salary during this time? Why did it take Ray from June 8 until now to do this – as Reilly’s numbers have been creeping lower and lower? Gabrielli has a little to gain, but not much (he is also a corporate guy who has taken a lot of money from various corporate dealings); Reilly clearly has the most to gain, since his background as a public servant makes him the only one completely immune from the corporate money-hugging message, he would pick up most of the lost Deval votes following this campaign.
I think this should be studied further.
I’d like to see some links to Rogers and SEIU’s connection though, but you could be on to something here. This does deserve further investigation.
the money on this one. This entire thing has a distinct Swift Boat feel to it with a slightly piquant brimstone flavor, a sort of Fred Phelps meets John O’Neill.
<
p>
At any rate, I suspect there’s more to this than meets they eye. Whether or not we ever get real answers, though, is yet to be determined. I do think, however, that the unions’ complaint to OCPF is a fine start; they are on the right track.
that the Patrick crowd, who go ballistic at any inquiry into their own candidate’s record, find this piece of pure speculation “very interesting. . .”
Admit it, this is fishy. People don’t just print 8,000 fliers, drive hundreds of miles, who aren’t trustfund babies… without something in it for them. SOMEONE is paying him and that someone doesn’t want Deval Patrick to be governer.
doubt there’s any connection between Reilly and Killer Coke. I think Ray Rogers’s connectoin with SEIU 1199 may have influenced their decision to back Reilly, and may be coordinating with Killer Coke on this, but I doubt Reilly’s campaign would have become intentionally involved with this. Not saying his campaign aren’t going to run with it, but if they’d been coordinating I think they would have tried to make sure it looked more legal at least….
However, Reilly has been known to make the world’s stupidest campaign gaffes I’ve EVER seen. He’s pumped at least a million of his warchest into ads already, yet he’s barely gained anything in the polls. He’s at least 10 points down and, more importantly, last in a three way race.
<
p>
Would he look at that kind of situation and tell himself he needed to do something – and fast? I’m SURE he’s done that, whether or not he’s behind Killer Coke (and, despite any connections, I always say INNOCENT till proven guilty – I just think research would be intelligent in this case).
<
p>
Patrick is the toughest opponent Reilly has. He’s still in first despite the fact that Gabrieli has pumped about 4 million (probably more) into the race thus far. If it was Reilly vs. Gabrieli, Gool ‘ol Tom would have a much better chance.
<
p>
Again, I’m NOT saying Reilly is behind it or even knows about it. It’s just a motive.
…there can be multiple theories about motivations. I think Patrick just really pissed off Ray Rogers and it’s payback time.
<
p>
How much do 30,000 flyers cost–a couple hundred bucks? He’ll drive up and back ($100) and stay with some friends or family. He use his network of labor friends (no doubt a few folks from SEIU 1199) and he’ll stage a media event of two that will throw a couple more punches at Patrick. The Frank Phillips piece/punch certainly was felt around here.
<
p>
So Rogers has small money into this and has lots of savvy, developed from 20 years of guerrilla media warfare. My guess is he and Patrick did not have a good relationship back in the day and Ray’s doing what he can to hurt Patrick.
I’m guessing his client is [National Union of Students http://www.nusonline… ], a purchasing co-op that’s quite interested in the Coke/Columbia skirmish.
<
p>
Mr. Rogers has appears to have a significant following at colleges and universities, and probably some speaking engagements at schools from time-to-time.
<
p>
A low overhead. You’re right. It’s a cheap trip from NYC to Boston. The whole day was probably a thousand bucks, and thanks to the Globe and the BLOGS look at the publicity! Bully for him.
<
p>
The Campaign finance/Corporate Funding angle is lame. There’s no demonstratable evidence that a Corporation is involved except that Mr. Rogers happens to own one.
That’d pretty much disqualify every small business owner in the state from donating money to or against a campaign.
Ray’s literature clearly demonstrates a link to Killer Coke, which is clearly affiliated with CCI. This “Fee Hugger” campaign is therefore a corporate, and not a personal venture.
<
p>
Thank you to those of you who have confirmed that in order for this campaign to happen, Rogers had to spend $100 or more to 1. print the flyers, 2. rent a car, 3. pay for gas, 4. take time out of his day (if he is on a salary for his company, his company is paying him for this time as an in-kind contribution), and coordinate with volunteers or with media planners by phone/fax/email (as evidenced today). Many of you agree it was likely more than $500 in total expenditure (30,000 full color print flyers themselves should be that much). Some of you clearly think it may have been $1,000. Now, we all know that $1,000 is really nothing in a gubernatorial race – however, it is something if it breaks campaign laws.
<
p>
The moment he spent that money ($100), the clock was ticking for him to file with OCPF (if it was last week that someone drew & printed the flyers, this time has expired). The fact that this was express campaigning, by a small business (the Killer Coke campaign is an extension of a for-profit business) is illegal. And YES, OF COURSE – SMALL BUSINESS OWNERS SHOULD BE OPENLY DISCOURAGED FROM USING THEIR CORPORATE RESOURCES ON BEHALF OF A CAMPAIGN, whether in-kind, direct or even anything questionable at all. You must realize by now, MA laws do not permit any business from helping/donating money to a campaign (of course, businesses may be paid for services relating to a campaign, but the business must be paid, and anything that business donates is an in-kind contribution – that includes mailings, printed material and even employee hours) for a very good reason – special interests should not influence campaigns unless they are registered, and obey campaign contribution limits and other laws. The moment Rogers spent more than $500, he broke the law. It is the duty of the individual (not the campaign), not to exceed the state’s allowable contribution limits. MA has a max on any type of contribution of $500. He must also file/register his name/address/occupation/employer with the state if this had anything to do with someone else’s campaign; if it is his own private campaign, he must be a PAC or a 501c4, or form his own candidate committee.
<
p>
Campaigns in MA, including PACs, are donation-by-individuals only. You must register. You must obey campaign contribution limits. You must declare your campaign affiliation on your literature. If you break trademark/copyright law on your campaign literature, your campaign and all officers are legally responsible (for instance the use of the exact Coke/Ameriquest/Texaco TM in a flyer without permission) – in this case CCI. Ethically, any campaign should not seek to influence others to commit any illegal act on behalf of their campaign.
<
p>
These are the issues. The fact that Reilly & his people collaborated with unions, and with media connections to “assist” Killer Coke, simply makes Reilly’s campaign at least a party to this illegal activity. Investigation should be done based on those timelines I indicated earlier to see if Reilly is more than a party to this activity, and perhaps even a cause of this activity.
<
p>
Reilly, in particular because he is the AG, must answer these charges.
That way we’ll know what we’re dealing with before the primary and can vote accordingly.
See David’s post about Vennochi, two days ago:
<
p>
“Vennochi then briefly describes the Killer Coke allegations, and then does everyone a great service by reprinting what Patrick actually said about this exact issue just a few months ago:
<
p>
I happened to be at a Patrick event in Stoneham on May 15, when he was asked about the matter by someone in the audience. Patrick told his questioner, “We did investigate.” But, he said, “We could not establish a link between the company I worked for and the paramilitary.” (Coca-Cola lawyers argued at the time that it did not own and, therefore, did not control the bottling plants.) The case against Coca-Cola was dismissed and that “was the right legal outcome,” Patrick said in Stoneham. However, he said he was not satisfied with the legal outcome and told Coke’s CEO that “people want confidence in the brand.” He said that he subsequently “proposed and publicly pledged to send an independent arbiter to Colombia.” The company declined to launch an independent investigation and “that’s why I resigned,” Patrick said.”
<
p>
It is no wonder that Coke still pays him a fee… What’s wrong with taking a fee to compensate for future lost income, because your job environment forced you to leave? That’s justice, not fee-hugging.
<
p>
What else do you want Patrick to say?
or “We really Didn’t want to find a link”.
<
p>
Really how much interest did the main Coca Cola Attorney Deval Patrick for really have in finding that link? Do you think his corporate bosses really wanted this investigated and vetted out???
<
p>
Really who’s interest was served by the murders of heads of local unions at that local bottling plant?
<
p>
I’ll give you One guess.
<
p>
2 + 2= 4?
<
p>
or is it now
<
p>
2 + 2= 3?
And here’s the answer: NOT DEVAL PATRICK!
<
p>
As the head attorney at Coke, he would be accountable if Coke did in any way contribute to any form of a crime – and he had knowledge of it. He would be on the hot seat. As such, he had every incentive in the world to seek the truth (no matter what the outcome of the investigation). He wanted to investigate the situation, Coke’s management did not. Remember, Deval was not the CEO. So, therefore, he did his job as the top attorney at Coke. Deval proved himself to have high ethical standards by wanting to pay an outside, unbiased investigator to look into the situation.
<
p>
You need to be realistic. No multinational corporation desires any sort of crime to be affiliated with their name. This bottling company was not under their control, and if there were any crime going on, Coke would NOT benefit from the news & boycott backlashes. Coke was not happy about the situation at all and neither was Deval Patrick. Is this what you call “interest being served”? Just the opposite – stock prices and public image matter more to Coke than saving a few bucks at a bottling plant (whether or not any crime was in fact committed). Your statement is at best a blatant misunderstanding of the situation, and more likely, blatant misrepresentation.
<
p>
Deval Patrick did the right thing to stand behind the company he worked for – that was his job; it was his legal duty to do so as an attorney. He did the right ethical thing to request an outside investigation. He did the right thing to leave the company immediately when his request was denied. He did the right thing to make Coke pay him for potentially tarnishing his name, and essentially prevent him from getting another job in that position at another major company anytime in the near future.
<
p>
I can not speak to Coke’s actions, however I personally do not see any problem whatsoever with Deval’s actions – and I guarantee you a huge portion of the primary voters will agree with me.