In the Globe, the double first graph is the $10,000 fine and admission of campaign-finance laws. In the Herald, they lead with the quoted euphemism “irregularities” and not both the fine and that she forfeits rights to $30,000 reimbursements she can't seem to justify.The former article also notes the “heated” campaign, names Sonia Chang-Diaz as challenger, and specifies the violations by type, dates and bucks, but doesn't stress that ethics could be big yet again as it was two years ago.
AG Martha Coakley is apparently eager to be done with this sticky mess. She noted that Wilkerson and her campaign will actually have to obey financial laws and use good practices for accounting and reporting. Last year, the Globe reported on the new controls that are necessary only in this case. If some other pol were to be as dumb and clumsy, the controls might also kick in for that campaign.
Examples of what triggered the initial investigations include “failure to report $26,935 in political donations and failure to explain $18,277 paid to her by her political committee,” notes the Globe. The Herald quotes its own articles from 2006 as “Wilkerson had paid herself more than $28,000 from her campaign finance account in a dozen separate reimbursements that year, all in round number amounts ranging from $1,000 to $5,000. ”
For her part, Wilkerson sounded like a pol after the announcement. She said, “I consider the matter now closed. My committee has worked to install several new practices and policies to ensure that these types of accounting errors will not be repeated.”
The first part is surely wishful thinking. Chang-Diaz has more substantial ammo after the admissions of guilt. Yet, so far many supporters, particularly among GLBT and black voters, seem willing or even eager to overlook multiple ethics lapses and breaches so long as she is on the right side of issues and brings home bacon to the communities.
The second part is that odd deniabilty. Wilkerson has that Ulysses Grant/Dick Nixon attitude of “mistakes were made.” To us ordinary mortals, we can remain astonished that she has not already been indicted and tried on these offenses. To her, it seems someone somewhere somehow associated with her performed some poor accounting.
Who are you going to believe?
More politicians breaking the law (Sen Stevens of Alaska, Sal, Congressman Jefferson…).
<
p>When will it stop? Probably never if all they get is a little shame, a slap on the wrist, miniscule fines and they keep their jobs. In this case, she didn’t even have to admit her crimes (“Mistakes were made”).
properly launder money. You have to make these things harder to discover- Diane needs to talk to DiMasi about some more creative ways to supplement her income without getting indicted. For one, set up a “partnership” with a third party who will get paid for apparently legitimate but vague “legal services”. The income and expenses of this partnership will be shared equally, so you’ll get your cut of the money eventually. A company in need will pay your partner (and, by extension, you), and you’ll do a couple of favors for the company- a word here, a signature there, no big whup. Neither the attorney general’s office nor the state ethics commission have the kind of patience or dedication it would take to follow that whole complicated money trail (although a newspaper reporter might). So you can enjoy the lifestyle that you deserve without all these legal woes, and you’ll enjoy the unyielding loyalty of most of the electorate that you’ve worked so tirelessly to serve. You’ll get full credit for doing the right things, and voters in your district will ignore any nasty rumors and innuendo expounded upon by grumpy columnists.
Hopefully.
there is a substantial element of sloppiness and devil-may-care to it. Though it may be malicious sloppiness or crude unwillingness to pay, to some extent.
<
p>Long story short, she’s found out that most of her voters don’t really care much until and unless indicted for it.
Look, Wilkerson clearly showed no oversight on how her campaign finances were handled, organized, and reported. Regardless of whether the problems that resulted were due to sloppiness or something shady, she needs to take far more responsibility than she has thus far.
<
p>The (donated) buck has to stop somewhere. Her constituents deserve to know that it stops with her.
Unless my memory is fooling me, hasn’t Wilkerson already been fined for some similar campaign finance violations, several years before these occurred? Because if so, the claim that “oops we made some mistakes but now we know better” would be pretty weak. After all, this isn’t just a fine, this also seems to come with new enforcement mechanisms, which suggests OCPF doesn’t trust that “we’ll do better now” thing, either.
She also had condo problems. The week after she barely beat back Chang-Diaz, she heard a Roxbury District Court judge order her to pay over $13,000 to her condo association for late monthly fees. She had also bounced over $5,000 in checks to them. Check the Globe at the time.
and she was talking about the GLBT organizations supporting Wilkerson, she’d have a point.
<
p>That’s why I think it’s time for Senator Wilkerson to go. (See, Joan, I don’t look the other way when there’s proveable ethical and legal violations going on…)
Wilkerson is a mess. I long ago gave up hope that she’d do the right thing and resign. Another indication that all politics is local.
The voters will love ya. perhaps Dianne will parlay this into a judgeship. Why not? Look at what we have wearing black robes now.
The below is a cross-post being done in the interest of time since my 3 yo is turning into a prune in the bathtub but I feel this topic is really important to weigh in on:
<
p>from http://vps28478.inmotionhosting.com/~bluema24/showC…
…as a voter in the second suffolk district, I am happy to have it known that I enthusiastically support Sonia Chang-Diaz for state senate. There have been many gravely disappointing instances of Sen Wilkerson siding with moneyed interests over the interests or ordinary people in this district. Her position against the clean election law that passed with 68% of the vote is a glaring example, and, more recently, her flip-flop to vote against the public health measure to have DPH establish safe minimum nurse staffing levels in hospitals (akin to the sensible minimum staffing levels that have long existed existed in day care centers) is appalling. Sen Wilkerson supported the safe staffing law last session but repeatedly refused to publicly state her position on it this term.
<
p>Sonia Chang-Diaz is running a very positive campaign. I’m excited about her knowledge and her positions on public education, community development including affordable housing, and good [responsive to the electorate] government.
<
p>I’ve got one child in a Boston public school and another heading there in a couple years and I’m a nurse who’s worked with Boston Health Care for the Homeless for 3 years so the affordable housing issue is one of many public policy issues near and dear to me, as is the gay rights issue as well. As a long-time constituent in Dianne Wilkerson’s district I know there is plenty to be negative about but that’s NOT the campaign Chang-Diaz is running. Facts are facts. We need a Senator who we can count on to vote our interests, have confidence in their basic competence, and who we can trust.
<
p>I just came across this nice missive about why another concerned voter will be casting his vote for Sonia Chang-Diaz, and will be urging others’ to do so as well: http://rosslevanto.blogspot.co…
<
p>
Can we rest assured that Chang-Diaz would indeed vote in favor of the minimum staffing levels? What are some of her other specific proposals? Would Chang-Diaz have favored the Pharmaceutical/Medical Device company gift bans? What is her current take on the BU Biolab?
All things considered, isn’t the main thrust of your argument that voters should indeed choose Chang-Diaz pretty much because of Wilkerson’s legal and ethical problems (not that this is invalid reasoning)? I ask mainly because, after signifying that there are many “positive” arguments to supporting Chang-Diaz, your evidentiary block quote starts on a decidedly negative note.