And I mean this question to be an honest one. I think it’s important to view the media with a critical eye and this is an extremely close call. If the fundraising isn’t news, then the only thing news-worthy about the fundraising becomes the question of whether the governor is a hypocrite. And that seems to me to be a matter of perspective and opinion.
To spend a brief moment substantively defending the Governor, did anyone really think that money would be entirely removed from politics? Did any one of Patrick’s supporters really wish and hope he wouldn’t raise any money from perfectly ethical, albeit corporate, sources?
If Philips thinks that corporate fundraising puts Patrick in an ethical bind, he ought to speak to the editor of the opinion section.
is the Professor Berry quote. It’s insulting in its tone to the Governor.
Massachusetts Liberal nails it, I think, in saying the Globe is a sucker for the “perfect quote.”
<
p>
Frank Phillips did not dig up the numbers on how much money those corporations, Liberty Mutual Group and NSTAR, would pay if the tax loopholes are closed. Nor did he find any evidence of Patrick giving up on closing the loopholes. All he got was a zinger quote from a Tufts professor.
<
p>
Remember how Deval’s phone call got Frank Phillips’ a frontpager? Turned out to be nothing. Frank Phillips is printing up a lot of nothing this year. It’ll be news when Frank Phillips actually has something.
is always good for an unintentionally hilarious quote. He seems still to be quite annoyed that Patrick managed to pulverize his Democratic and Republican opponents while running a style of campaign that the good Professor didn’t think could work. So now, having been thoroughly embarrassed, he gets to spew crap like this:
<
p>
<
p>
Um, no. His supporters, “Professor,” understand that, under the current rules, raising money is a necessity. His supporters also believe, however, that the Governor will continue to push for closing corporate tax loopholes, even though probably everyone at the fundraiser opposes that bill. If Patrick backs off, that’s when we’ll be disappointed. But so far, there’s no evidence whatsoever of that.
<
p>
Maybe our “Professor” should actually talk to a Patrick supporter before spouting off on what they think. Oh, but that would involve the real world — doesn’t always mix with the academic lifestyle.
Globe reporters consistently rely on the same sources for every political story. Jeff Berry on politics. Michael Widmer on anything economically oriented. Freeper Barbara Anderson on anything affecting taxes.
<
p>
The Commonwealth has more brain-power per square mile than any state in the country, and the Globe gives us the same people every time.
<
p>
Incidentally, Big Tent Democrat has a post on Jeff Berry at Talk Left. Commenters are trying to figure out who the hell he is. http://www.talkleft….
<
p>
On the positive side, maybe we could start a list of sources the Globe could consider and send it to them.
<
p>
Here’s a start:
<
p>
Tax Policy: John Fox http://www.mtholyoke…
<
p>
Constitutional Law: Christopher Pyle
http://www.mtholyoke…
<
p>
Mark
<
p>
P.S. Ed, I excerpted and linked to your post on my blog.
Globe reporters consistently rely on the same sources for every political story.
<
p>
Most stenographers–er, reporters–have a Rolodex that they go to for pithy quotations on beats that they cover. It beats having to actually go out and uncover anything, and it’s probable that, after they get sources of pithy quotations, they don’t go to look for more.
<
p>
It’s the same with the TV and newspaper punditocracy. Why is David Broder still in the WaPo and Washington Week, why is George Will still in the WaPo and ABC Sunday morning, and why is Mark Shields (or idiot David Brooks, for that matter) still on Friday’s PBS’s News Hour?
<
p>
A few mentionables:
<
p>
NSTAR pays tax on its poles already, so the pole tax doesn’t affect them.
<
p>
Check-the-box loophole affect neither. Both Liberty and NSTAR are corps for federal and state tax purposes.
<
p>
Combined reporting has no effect on NSTAR. It’s a purely Mass, not multi-state revenue base.
<
p>
Combined reporting is peanuts for Liberty Mutual. Liberty’s an insurance company and accordingly enjoys a reduced State income tax rate. Some might call that reduced rate a loophole, but no one’s in a hurry to try to close it.
<
p>
It is interesting to note that Liberty Mutual is supporting Senate Bill 875 that would eliminate ‘installment payment fees’ from gross insurance premium tax. The Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights opposes this bill, claiming it’s a loophole. Interesting to see how this Bill progresses.
<
p>
Liberty, after the election, now is compelled to make good with Patrick. Afterall, Liberty sought to continue auto insurance de-regulation in the State and supported Kerry Healey in the election. Commerce Insurance, the Commonwealth auto insurance monopoly and its key employees gave $27K to the Patrick campaign. No surprise that in the course of the campaign, Patrick decided it best to support the current
monopolyregulated system.<
p>
I agree with Ed. No story here. Biz as usual. Romney had corporate fundraisers. Patrick has corporate fundraisers. No diff.
It is certainly a case of deeds not matching rhetoric, in that Patrick criticized his predecessor for fundraising among firms doing busines with the Big Dig. His ?purity in fundraising? rhetoric proves to be buncomb, as his political opponents said.
<
p>
No harm done by this meeting, however, except to the illusions of anyone who thought Patrick could govern in some realm ?above? politics.
<
p>
And since their CEOs were acting as lead sponsors of this meeting, do you just suppose that might have “encouraged” the execs to attend?
<
p>
Look, I don’t think this is wrong, but I do think the outrage meters would be reading much higher here at BMG if Mitt did the same thing.
But my point was more about whether, strictly speaking, this is “news.” If there was no reasonable doubt that Patrick was acting hypocritically, it would be news. But Frank Phillips’s opinions are not, in and of themselves, newsworthy.
<
p>
David S. Bernstein agrees with you over on his blog, but also misses my point.
<
p>
I guess I’m sensitive to this topic, because a pet peeve of mine is when people tell me what to think. And that’s what Phillips and the Globe are doing here. They dont just tell me Patrick met with corporate fundaraisers. They take the next step and tell me it’s wrong. (I picked the same fight recently with the Newton TAB.)
<
p>
The second we allow the media to start thinking FOR us is the second I know it’s all over, and we, as society, just need to pack it in
If only inarguable facts were in the paper, we’d have a lot more trees in the world.
<
p>
You’re right; this isn’t hard/breaking news. But it’s not an editorial, either. It is probably more accurately labeled an analysis piece. And those can be anywhere in the paper.
<
p>
You obviously don’t agree with the basic premise for the analysis. But that doesn’t mean it isn’t worth discussion.
I honestly haven’t given the premise much thought. I’m more interested in keeping straight news straight and labeling anything else otherwise.
Welcome to my world. They do that on pretty much a daily basis.
<
p>
Just imagine how it would feel to read the Globe if your politics were conservative. đŸ™‚
in Phillips’ piece is this:
<
p>
<
p>
It’s easy to make fun of the Berry quote, but you can’t deny that Patrick is now doing precisely the sorts of things for which he criticized others. Not a big story, but a story — and exactly the kind of story that gets written about politicians who hold themselves out to be different and better than their brethren.
<
p>
I have a friend who, in order to lose weight, recently started a diet (as well as an excercise regimen). Should I accuse him of hypocrisy at mealtimes? Should he embrace anorexia in the name of purity?
<
p>
We sometimes forget that obedience is better than sacrifice. It is harder, too… Me, I think Deval Patrick has much much more character and spine than any here give him credit (understandable why, tho’). And after all, if that’s why we voted for him (I did) shouldn’t we trust that? I do.
<
p>
I’m not going to comment on the breathless prose (much), but I think that political fund-raising is news and should be reported, though soberly.
<
p>
The weird juxtapositions in the story–fund raising versus idealism, I guess–remind me of Killer Coke and of some of Reilly’s anti-Patrick stuff in the primaries that was supposed to make his progressive base run screaming back to our tofu. Apparently we Patrick supporters are supposed to be terribly disillusioned about something.
<
p>
THANK you, that’s exactly perfect.
<
p>
Most of us Patrick supporters always knew who he was – he took corporate jobs, he took goverment Justice Dpt jobs, he worked for nonprofits for the disenfranchised. We have always had realistic expectations and understand that this election wasn’t just about the issues, it was about character, and spine (as someone mentioned upthread).
<
p>
What we saw – still see – in Patrick is an idealistic yet pragmatic upstanding and honest guy, even though the system sucks, even though the game is rigged.
<
p>
I get ragged on all the time for being some sort of Patrick “apologist” or something. But first, he’s gotta do something to be apologized for before that’s really the truth. I feel he’s living up to the expectations I had in the campaign, and that his tenure was about the long haul. No matter what opinion the Globe is trying to shove down our throats this week.
Sal DiMasi has also received a boatload of money from Mintz Levin-affiliated attorneys. Unlike Patrick, however, DiMasi seems to generally do what these folks want him to do. Patrick should not be taking money from these guys, but it does not seem like they have the kind of pull with him that they have with entrenched career pols like DiMasi, Scaccia, and so on. The Globe has dedicated very little ink to DiMasi’s fundraising, and has never registered any skepticism with regard to DiMasi’s motivations for stonewalling Patrick’s proposals for corporate tax reform. The Globe has been unbalanced in its coverage of the Municipal Partnership Act, and the Herald has been predictably loud and idiotic about it. It seems like the mainsteam media is still smarting from the lecture Patrick gave them in one of his early press events. “Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation” flak Michael Widmer, the Associated Industries, big-business crony Samuel R. Tyler- these glorified lobbyists are quoted more often than the governor himself in the pages of the Globe. Something seems to be going rotten on Morrissey Boulevard.
So well put. This thread is great, because it’s saying all the things I’ve been feeling but hadn’t figured out how to explain. Thanks!
The Globe has used the same lousy fundrasing coverage on the legislature as they have on the Governor’s (ie., Rogers)
<
p>
How easy it is for you to paint Dimasi, Scaccia, et al. with a corrupt brush but not the Governor who is accepting the same money!!
<
p>
I am a fan of the Governor but not of the hypocrisy of his supporters on this page!
You’re right that Patrick should not take money from corporations, lawyers, or lobbyists. However, what I was saying was that Patrick’s policies, proposals, and stances do not appear to reflect the same degree of untoward influence as the stances of other politicians. When Sal DiMasi says “Not a chance” of eliminating corporate tax loopholes or giving towns the ability to initiate a meals tax in order to ease the burden on redidential property taxpayers, I wonder whose interests he is representing. When Patick seems to go above and beyond in his efforts to get these measures through, it appears that he is going against the desires of such political powerhouses as Verizon, the Associated Industries of Massachusetts, NStar, and the various clientele of Mintz Levin.
Maybe it is only I, but all I see is the hatchet in Phillips’ sweaty trembling hands… Somebody oughta take that thing away before he hurt hisself.
<
p>
It seems to me that Patrick never promised to stop taking donations so I don’t see where this small sample space (25K…?) that would occur under either change or no change, tells us anything about anything.
<
p>
The Berry quote… well, it reads to me like something Berry’s been rehearsing since the day after the elections and now has a chance to spring it on the public.
<
p>
In many many ways Patrick has already started to change the culture (I never saw/heard Romney nor Weld give so much as ten minutes to radio…yet I hear the Guv on NPR and talk radio all the time being interviewed and questioned by real people) by being accessible and available rather than shutting himself up with just the big money. The way to change isn’t to exclude anyone, but to include all…
<
p>
But than again, maybe it’s just I…
I fail to appreciate the distinction made supporters of Governor Patrick that the critical distinction between Romney’s/Cellucci’s/Weld’s coziness with Big Dig contractors and law firms and Deval’s tapping of wads of $$$ from his pals at NSTAR and Liberty Mutual Insurance Company.
<
p>
Does my participation at the Deval Patrick Committee’s Strengthening our Communities event at the State House this afternoon actually buy me the same level of access and influence to the Patrick administration as the business and corporate legal participants munching down on their scrambled eggs, bacon, french toast, and cereal at the power breakfast sponsored by the NSTAR and Liberty Mutual Insurance head honchos? Somehow, I
<
p>
NSTAR, Liberty Mutual Insurance, and their ilk have plenty of opportunties to promote their corporatist, anti-consumer political and economic agenda through a compliant free media or paid political advertisements. Moreover, they have an nearly unlimited ability to purchase or lease any powerful state legislator sponsoring campaign fundraisers on his or her behalf or offering the promise of a cushy lobbyist job after the legislator leave office.
<
p>
After sixteen years of Massachusetts Governors dutifully serving the corporate interests of big business to the long-term detriment of Bay State taxpayers and consumers (e.g. The Big Dig), would it be too much to request that Governor Patrick decline the invite to the next influence-peddling corporate breakfast at Mintz Levin or the Sheraton Boston. Alternatively, Gov. Patrick, I suggest dining at 8:00 am with the hoi polloi at the Park Street Dunkin Donuts. How about it, Gov. Patrick? I’ll even buy the box of Joe and dozen donuts for the Cabinet to join us.
This is nothing new.
<
p>
He took plenty of money from corporate donors or special interests over the course of the campaign.
<
p>
What kind of administration have we seen? One where the people – not the corporations – have been held first and foremost. Which isn’t to say corporations haven’t had some great treatments – one’s in my opinion they deserve, like a quicker and smoother regulatory process to build.
<
p>
Maybe these corporations aren’t all that concerned about loopholes being removed and think the guy’s doing a good job, over all? That should shock no one.
<
p>
But, yes, this was opinionating on the front-page. If it wasn’t news in the Romney administration, it shouldn’t be news in Patrick’s.
It was the rally for municipality initiatives. In a way I thought it was the best speech I have heard from him. If he can pull this off he will have kept two of the big promises of his campaign in a short time: supporting marriage equality and property tax relief.
<
p>
That to me is conceding that there’s little or no difference between Patrick and Romney. And, in fact, I’m starting to suspect that when it comes to corporate interests and the continuing impulse to privatize governmental services, there really may not be a difference. Patrick is continuing the Romney effort to shut remaining state facilities for people with mental retardation. He’s keeping the same legal team that snubbed U.S. District Court Judge Joseph Tauro in the case. He won’t meet with anyone who doesn’t share the views of the private human service vendors, who are salivating at the prospect of the money they’re going to make on this deal.
it’s a narrative problem. Phillips is stuck on the same narrative: politician criticizes big money interests and then takes money from them. He’s a progressive Democrat, so he must be a hypocrite. If the story were about Romney, he wouldn’t be played off as a hypocrite but as someone who was in bed with big business.
It’s the system that is corrupt, not the individual players. Phillips mindlessly follows the narrative of “we can’t trust our public officials,” which distracts from the actual problem of financing public campaigns.
<
p>
Mark
I would be “conceding that there’s little or no difference between Patrick and Romney,” if the policies coming out of Patrick’s administration were similar in any way, shape or form as Romney’s. However, they aren’t. You obviously have a few gripes with Patrick’s administration and maybe I should look into them more. Obviously, he’s not perfect. If you included links, I would have followed them.
<
p>
That said, you didn’t. So, what I’ve seen from this administration is a balanced budget that was almost universally liked, except by the forces that be on Beacon Hill. I’ve seen a Governor who said he’d stand up on civil rights – and delivered. I’ve seen a governor who’s great on Green issues and renewable energy. I’ve seen a governor trying to transform the state-municipality dynamic, creating a revamped system for the 21st Century. I’ve seen a Governor that also knows it’s important to have businesses feel welcomed in Massachusetts, even if in some ways they’ve had it too easy. So, he’s for a streamlined regulatory process, while against excessive Corporate Tax Loopholes. I’d call it an enigma, but it sure makes sense to me.
I agree with you that in many ways, Patrick truly is making a fresh start on Beacon Hill regarding tax loopholes and developing a new relationship with municipalities. I’m disappointed in his apparent embrace of the privatization expansion, particularly of human services, that began under Weld. I should have provided a link regarding the Fernald situation. Here’s a good one to start with: http://www.boston.co…