I’ve been too busy with my work on the transition team (as a member of the Economic Development working group) to do much blogging of late, but I did manage to get up a post about a couple of meetings held in Pittsfield yesterday.
I note a couple of editorials in the Glob and the Beagle wagging their fingers at Deval. They just don’t get it. This will be the largest, most inclusive, and exciting inaugural celebration ever held, and of course that costs money. As to being beholden to the “special interests” (whoever that is), the press holds Patrick guilty until proven innocent. They can’t even wait till he does something wrong to start berating him. It’s astounding to me that they apparently learned nothing by watching the success of our high-minded campaign. Do they really think negativity and cynicism sells newspapers? The internet may not be the only reason readership is down.
I don’t like all the money that’s been solicited, Michael. Sorry. I’m not going to be positive about it just because I like Patrick.
<
p>
Many, if not most of the people paying $50k+ are buying more than a big party for their neighbors: they think they’re putting their chits in, so that they’ll be thanked later, in policy decisions. To think otherwise is naive.
Raise the ticket price and make it an exclusive event? (Excluding the very people who made this event possible, in other words.)
<
p>
A lot of the potential corporate sponsors in this neck of the woods are companies that contribute generously to local charities, non-profits, and community events. This, to me, is another opportunity for them to be good corporate citizens, a role most of them gladly embrace.
<
p>
And, naive or no, I don’t believe they will be standing in line with their hands out just because they kicked in a few bucks. If they have a case to plead with the administration, they should do so and receive consideration based on the merits of the issue.
<
p>
Let me know if you hear differently, but meanwhile, can we please assume that Deval means what he says when he talks about changing the way politics is done on Beacon Hill?
Thanks, Michael, you hit the nail on the head. It’s not corruption at the point when the money is donated; it’s corruption if and when some business gets steered to a donor that wouldn’t otherwise, and there’s absolutely no evidence of that. The Jack Abramoff/Tom DeLay machine was very up front about it; they asked what the donor wanted, and they would pull out a catalog of things that could be traded for those favors. This is so different from that, and it’s a little disappointing that folks are conflating them.