The Department of Education needed software. To buy the software it needed the legislature and the governor to allocate the $6 million plus to buy it.
One vendor that wanted the contract was Cognos. It hired a lobbyist, Dickie McDonough, to help guide the legislation through.
To do so the lobbyist arranged meetings between key legislators and Cognos officials and advised the Cognos officials on how best to argue to and influence the legislature. – Sal and most likely Ways and Means Chairman DeLeo. There probably were meetings on the Senate side too.
Nothing wrong with that. On its face I mean. C’mon. We’re still talking about Sal here.
But anyway…
David argues that the Speech and Debate clause does not apply because Sal’s actions were political. He quotes at length from a U.S. Supreme Court decision that states
It is well known, of course, that Members of the Congress engage in many activities other than the purely legislative activities protected by the Speech or Debate Clause.
But it has never been seriously contended that these political matters, however appropriate, have the protection afforded by the Speech or Debate Clause.
Sorry David. These meetings were very much based on legislation. And any communications with Dept Ed based on what they were spending the $6 million plus on and how it would best be spent were also legislative based.
GO SAL! He is right in my humble opinion. He should fight it. Because I think he is right and will win.
So, What does that mean? It means that this thing and Coakley’s investigation ain’t anywhere near done come January. So Sal gets re-elected and Team Rogers and Team DeLeo continue to crumble. It’s been a tough week for DeLeo also. (Rogers more apparent of course, but there are grumblings on the Deleo front too.)
on this thread.
Legislation is legislation regardless of the legislation’s purpose. You know as well as I do David that legislation for appropriations regardless of who gets the money cannot be different under the Speech and Debate Clause without a constitutional amendment.
I never thought I’d say this… but Ernie Boch’s making a compelling argument. And I’m trying not to let my personal bias get in the way LOL.
Frankly, I think Ernie also makes good points. The case law and the clause are by no means cut and dry in my opinion.
<
p>Clarity and guidance and some gumption are needed. Can clarity, guidance, and gumption be provided via a Declaratory Judgment action to the SJC? Who has the best [or at least sufficient] standing? The Ethics Commission, it seems to me, should go this route with an expedited Petition for Declaratory Judgment, or a Writ of Mandamus [which would lead to an elucidation as to “what does the Article 21 version of a speech & debate clause mean”].
This is already pending in the Superior Court between the EthComm and DiMasi. When it’s decided, I’d assume that the SJC will grant direct review.
…impoundment is serious stuff. That I am familiar with as nearly all court and other activity pursuant to G.L.c.119 and G.L.c.210 is impounded.
<
p>I hope to be kept posted and briefed, and am somehow certain that you are right and this one will wind up “at least” in the SJC.
There’s no federal issue on the MA speech or debate clause. Whatever the SJC says, goes.
if they find probable cause vis a vis corruption/bribery, and are not bound by the state constitution.
Do I have that right (per your response above)?
If the feds are interested, defenses based on state law or the state constitution will not work.
This stinks to high heaven, even stinkier than John Rogers’ transgressions. If he corruptly steered a no-bid contract to someone that privilege should not apply. It is so reminiscent of Richard Nixon’s shameless resort to executive privilege. Sal is Michael Spinks and this contract thing is Mike Tyson. Sal is shaking in fear and hopes he can last at least one minute of round one.