Today’s Globe reports that Tom Reilly may have axed Chris Gabrieli as his running mate because – get this – Gabrieli wouldn’t agree to release his tax returns.
Which is fine, I guess, until you recall what happened to the person Reilly ultimately went with: Marie St. Fleur, whose candidacy imploded in the span of about 24 hours when the Globe revealed her numerous tax delinquencies and other financial problems.
One assumes that St. Fleur must have agreed that she’d release her tax returns, if that was really what killed the Gabrieli deal. And recall that, supposedly, St. Fleur told Reilly at the time that she had “some financial issues.” But Reilly didn’t want any more information about those “issues” – he just wanted an assurance that she “was dealing with them.”
So let me get this straight: it’s really, really important to Reilly that a candidate be willing to release his or her tax returns, so that every accountant and tax lawyer in the state can go through them with a fine-tooth comb looking for screw-ups. In fact, that’s so important to him that he’s willing to ditch an experienced, well-funded candidate in favor of a local legislator with no money to speak of, and with admitted financial problems, over that issue. Yet he doesn’t care enough about what’s actually in those tax returns to look at them himself, or have someone on his staff take a peek, before the candidate goes public.
Does this make any sense to anyone?
The Life of Reilly?
But I have to agree with the Gabrieli camp on this one:
<
p>
<
p>
Desperate times calling for desperate measures at Reilly HQ?
not too long ago when Democrats used to demand that millionaire Republicans release their income tax returns.
<
p>
For those interested in the kind of questions that may result from financial disclosure, please consider reading my user post.
<
p>
Of course, I was able to manage that from Patrick’s limited SFI filing, but it give you a sense of what Reilly is really getting at and why many Democrats still care about transparency.
I can’t remember which mainstream media blog noted it, but Tom Reilly said that Ted Kennedy should not be excepted. I believe it was in the Keller interview.
Don’t know if it made it into the blog, but he definitely said it.
I’ve been musing that the “tax returns” thing is a ploy devised by public-sector political lifers. Your post proves it to me.
<
p>
You are making the argument that Deval Patrick shouldn’t be making money by investing in a whole host of companies because at some point in time those companies did something bad (you can find instances where most private companies do things that are against the good of the public).
<
p>
You’re also reinforcing the Reilly frame that only public-sector lifers are qualified to hold office.
<
p>
I’m curious, why you aren’t giving Chris Gabrielli the same level of scrutiny? Surely, being far wealthier than Patrick, he has even more “hits” investing in those bad companies, right?
<
p>
Your post also misrepresents the facts. Patrick never said that he sold stock because they wouldn’t meet “liberal smell tests”. Frank Phillips made that assertion. Yet you say “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?”. When did Patrick say that those stocks were offensive to him?
<
p>
And do most people with stocks in this state actively avoid investing in those companies? My financial advisor buys and sells all the time, based on what he thinks can make me the most money. I can’t tell you what’s in my portfolio. Although some people I suspect that most people who invest are in the same boat.
<
p>
Your criticisms smack of the NeoCon criticisms of Al Gore flying in airplanes, since airplanes contribute to global warming. They assert that since Gore doesn’t live his life without producing greenhouse gases, he should not argue against reducing the production of greenhouse gases. That’s a crock.
<
p>
The Phillips article was a hatchet job to start with too, he criticized Patrick for owning stock in a company that, a long time ago, made landmines — even though, according to Phillips article, it hadn’t done so for “many years”. He’s all-too-transparent in his mission by trying to fly that kite.
<
p>
I object to the whole political frame being pushed by Tom Reilly that only public service employees are capable of public office. The underlying message of the “explain this…” tactic is that the private sector is bad, and anyone who participated in it is guilty until proven innocent. And it’s impossible to prove yourself innocent because any response is met with “yeah, but what REALLY happened” innuendo.
<
p>
The whole angle is being played by Reilly because it’s the only thing that differentiates him from every one of his competitors. He’s the only candidate who is a public-sector lifer.
<
p>
Except, of course, for the years he was in private practice. Why won’t Reilly produce a list of defendants that he represented? Would the public be turned off if they knew he defended some murderers or rapists? Why stop at tax returns?
Al Gore is bad because he flew airplanes. That’s my argument. You got me.
<
p>
Actually, no.
<
p>
My argument is that financial disclosure is important. Period. My post is just an example, based on very limited filings, of some of the conflicts that may appear between a candidate’s stated positions and financial investments.
<
p>
If you want to push for Tom Reilly to disclose his client list, please go ahead. Nothing is stopping you. I have no idea if he was even a criminal defense attorney, but maybe he was.
You haven’t proven your assertion that financial investments that differ from a candidate’s stated positions are bad. You’re using innuendo to “prove” that one.
<
p>
Are people who own stock in Coca-Cola in favor of murder? Should people who hold stock in Coca-Cola not sit on a jury for murder trials because of this conflict?
<
p>
Are people who own stock in General Electric in favor of pollution? Should people who own GE stock not advocate for cleaner air regulations?
<
p>
Are people who own US Treasury Notes in favor of the war in Iraq? Should people who own US bonds just shut up about the war?
<
p>
You’re plainly pushing for financial disclosure because Tom Reilly is the only one who doesn’t seem to have much to disclose. And you’re using innuendo to “prove” that lack of disclosure must mean that there’s something really, really bad out there.
Why should a candidate’s spouse have to release information about her tax return? That is really what is at issue with this whole tax return issue; the privacy of the spouse of the candidate. (I used the pronoun “her” because in Massachusetts the spouse of a candidate is usually a woman.) I believe in transperancy too, but I also believe in the right to privacy. Besides, all the information you claim to need to make up your mind is included in the financial disclosure forms that the candidates have to fill out. If you do not think enough information is included in those forms, then change the forms. Invading the privacy of a candidate’s spouse is not appropriate. Why doesn’t Tom Reilly understand that? As a woman, it offends me that he does not understand it.
It’s just a red-herring. Ms. Patrick works for Ropes & Grey. She makes over $500K and under a million–end of privacy.
<
p>
The reason that Mr. Patrick would be foolish to release his tax returns is that tax geeks statewide would pick it apart. It would be the center of the campaign for weeks–everything to lose and nothing to gain. Same’s true of Healey, Gabrieli, Romney, Kennedy, etc….
<
p>
And heaven help them should someone find an error in the return. With income and assets of that size, an error is inevitable.
Red-herring is defined in Webster’s as “something that distracts attention from the real issue.” Arguing that the candidates should release tax returns is a red-herring. The candidates already have to file financial disclosure statements which contain the information that Tom Reilly claims people need to know. Tom Reilly should be discussing the issues that really affect people in Massachusetts. Apparently he is not able to do that so he has decided to raise a red-herring. By doing so, he has indirectly trivialized the very important right to privacy that a candidate’s spouse should be able to claim. (When are we going to stop treating candidate spouse’s like appendages to the candidate? I think probably when more spouses are men.)
<
p>
Let’s dispense with the gender notion right away. It’s as rediculous for Mr. Patrick to cite spousal privacy as it is for Ms. Healey, when the real reason for refusal is that the monied candidates have nothing to gain from the release.
<
p>
<
p>
Maybe because Chris Gabrieli isn’t holding himself out to be a Saint?
What’s up with that? Seriously.
Can you cite an instance where Deval Patrick is claiming to be a saint?
In answer to David’s original question, no, it doesn’t make any sense that Reilly would opt out of Gabrielli for not releasing his taxes and then choose St. Fleur without looking at them.
<
p>
The article appeared in both the Glob and the Herald (http://news.bostonhe…), begging the question: Why would Reilly make a media pitch to show himself as either illogical or unprepared?
<
p>
The answer, seems to me, is this: Reilly is willing to go down with the ship, but he wants to bring everybody else down with him.