A piece in the Globe has me wondering if gambling interests are out to get DiMasi.
We have unabashed slot booster David L. Flynn apparently bucking for the job of Speakeer:
State Representative David L. Flynn, the most senior member of the House, said last night that five colleagues have approached him and asked him to serve as interim speaker in the event that House Speaker Salvatore F. DiMasi steps down as a result of the ethics controversies swirling around him.
Flynn’s disclosure and the open discussion of DiMasi’s future is stark evidence of declining discipline in the chamber and eroding support for DiMasi, who has been speaker since 2004 and has held an iron grip on the chamber.
If I recall, the Patrick administration tried to torpedo DiMasi just before the hearing on Patrick’s casino legislation – alleging that DiMasi used his influence to get a software contract awarded to a friend of his.
Whenever Flynn is involved in something, talk of slot machines is never far behind:
If he were to ascend to the speakership, it would have a dramatic impact on the question whether to install slot machines at the state’s four racetracks, which he has advocated for years. Flynn’s district, which is based in Bridgewater and Raynham, includes the Raynham-Taunton Greyhound Park. DiMasi has opposed any efforts to allow the tracks to install slot machines.
Given the history of efforts to bring gambling to Massachusetts and Middleboro, be very suspicious of seemingly unrelated events that lead you down the casino garden path.
Who’d have thought a little old land sale in Middleboro would bring a $1B community-altering, high-impact, tax-free business to town?
The whole thing stinks to me. What I see is gambling interests trying to take down one of the biggest gambling opponents. While odious, it would fit right in with the way gambling interests operate.
Isn’t this the way things get done in politics? Ask Dianne.
Her political enemies made her take thousands in bribes, regularly violate finance reports, indulge in racism for her benefit, and all manner of things she clearly was forced to do.
…before the Bush administration, people were innocent until proven guilty by a court of law. Not by DJ before an election.
Wilkerson was guilty of plenty other things before the election, before the cash payoffs came to light. Though I’m sure when she’s convicted of this round, you’ll come back here to apologize.
The question is, who in the leadership, has the broad respect of the membership, can be positioned to step in for DiMasi if he does go down AND is not connected to the gambling interests? Lida Harkins, perhaps? Other suggestions?
He’s a long shot, but people have approached him as another compromise pick.
<
p>My hope is that Sal stays (but cooperates with the authorities). That’s still the best option for now, as he’s a proven quantity that’s had a lot of fantastic results while in the position.
I’ve maintained all along that these charges were never brought against him until he came out so strongly against casinos before that hearing, making it clear that he’d use all his weight to block them (more than enough to kill it for the year).
<
p>Unfortunately, the cat was out of the bag for now, so we can’t be 100% sure that this Flynn pick is completely related, but it’s a fair assumption that it is. I have to think that the 5 or so reps who approached him live awfully close to Raynham, Revere and Middleboro…
<
p>People really should be taking this time to call their reps and ask that they do not support slots or anyone in the Speaker’s position who would support them.
I went to your BMG page, to check what was on your blog and the link does not work.
<
p>Interesting post. I would be far better if “those in power” who are public servants [and admittedly, not paid like the Hogosauri CEOs] could be more careful about their financial dealings, you think?
<
p>I think the fact that the president of Lehman Bros who was paid 484 MILLION to bankrupt it and us is a real criminal, not this pennie-ante stuff.
<
p>Besides, who knows whether his “friends” passed anything on to DiMasi? I sure don’t.
Updated the profile – here it is to save you the trip
http://bellicose-bumpkin.blogs…
Loved the bit about “helicopter parenting” even though that is not related to the casino rant & worry, I HAD to let you know.
I get very little feedback from my Gazette column – I’m glad you liked it.
I’ll be clear, I am against casino gambling. It leads us down a garden path with nothing at the end but devestation and crushed dreams. The impact of gambling is not a zero sum gain, it is a loss for all involved but the house.
<
p>If Sal has clean hands he should stay. If not, I have said before that a good goverment State Rep. like Ted Speliotis would make a fantastic speaker.
<
p>Lida Harkins may have the juice, and if she does, I hope she selects a good leadership team and committee chairs.
<
p>As a side note, if the gambling interests are going to slime you, one should be above reproach. Like the loan sharks they are, gambling interests break opponents knee caps.
<
p>Note to File: I like my knee caps jus the way they are.
<
p>
I love conspiracy theories as much as the next far-left-winger, and it is true that the Boston Globe endorsed the idea of casinos awhile back, and DiMasi has always opposed them. I’ve often wanted to ask Andrea Estes or Frank Phillips about the nature of their DiMasi investigations- whether they got them from on high, or who their sources were, in order to either repudiate or substantiate this idea of a New York-engineered anti-DiMasi/pro-casino crusade.
<
p>However, I myself was the first person I know of to file an ethics complaint against DiMasi (which of course is natural, since they’re supposed to be confidential, so I wouldn’t really know if I was the first), when I found that 50 or so of his 2006 donors worked for lobbying firm Mintz Levin and had failed to disclose their affiliation on the OCPF reports.
<
p>The ethics complaint may have been improper on my part, as I guess it is technically not the politician’s job to research the occupations of donors- the only responsibility the politician has is to send a letter to donors “requesting additional information.” In any event, I was able to find out who these folks worked for by a simple Google search, and I did go to OCPF with the information first, but when they told me that there was essentially nothing they could do, I filed a formal ethics complaint against the Speaker.
<
p>I thought that since Mintz Levin was listed as a client of the American Telecom Association (or some such similarly titled organization) and since the removal of certain telecom tax exemptions was an aspect of Deval Patrick’s municipal partnership act that DiMasi openly opposed (at the time), the nature of his donors’ affiliations was relevant information that should not only have been disclosed but which might have represented a conflict of interest punishable under ethics regulations.
<
p>I got a letter about a month later saying that no action would be taken, “after careful consideration of the allegations”. I asked for more information, but was denied (rightly, I think) due to the confidential nature of ethics complaints and deliberations.
<
p>All of which is to say, if there’a a conspiracy against DiMasi, I guess I’m a part of it, although I’m not working with or for anyone else in the endeavor.
Frankoff, I would agree that it would be nice to know where the original Cognos story came from. As I said in another post, seems strange that a contract administered by the dept. of education would be something that DiMasi gets in trouble for. There’s never anything in Estes’ stories about the role of the administration in issuing the contract…I think an interesting new wrinkle to the story would be a breakdown of the competitive bid process (who bid, amount of bids, etc.) for that particular contract. I’m sure if there’s a way to find out what the ethics commission is doing, there’s a way to find out about a past competitive bid process. Ryan, I agree with you. DiMasi’s had pretty good, progressive results. I agree with everyone else on here, whoever the next one ends up being and whenever that is, I really hope it’s someone who is against gambling, I think the House has been right in keeping that from happening so far.
Not really. He had death threats made against him related to the casino issue, including one with knowledge of where and when he walked his dog (go run through the bmg search engine). You don’t think someone leaked the cognos and vitale stories, at the very crux of the casino debate when Sal went firmly against it, out of political retribution? I admit there’s no firm proof, but it’s actually less likely that it was purely coincidental.
<
p>I don’t see how any of your personal story fits into this… it’s neither here nor there.
As a political junkie, I’m interested in whether or not casino interests are intent on doing Sal in. As a citizen, I could care less.If DiMasi’s dirty, and I personally think he is, he deserves to go down.
<
p>He’s created a huge pile of unethical and/or illegal trash around himself. If some ill-intentioned interest with a match starts a legal fire, what does it matter? That’s hard ball politics, and DiMasi knows how to play it as well as anyone.
<
p>Mark
That “ill-intentioned interest” games the system and gets what it wants, against the best interests of the people of Massachusetts. I’d rather not be played by people who are willing to tear down and conquer. If Sal’s done anything wrong – and I’m sorry, but your gut feeling isn’t enough – then we’ll have to work to resolve the situation, but it must not be done in a way that benefits the people who poisoned the well. That would make us a bunch of angry puppets.
There is a preponderance of circumstantial evidence. More than enough for prima facie. An investigation is certainly warranted.
<
p>And guilt? Officially, that’s for the state ethics board or attorney general or whatever authority has jurisdiction. And conversationally? It don’t take a weather man to know which way the wind blows.
<
p>Mark
If DiMasi’s conscience is clear he should fight on. If he is guilty then it doesn’t really matter who pushed it. Of course, this is the problem with our speakership model. It shouldn’t matter (except to his own constituents of course) whether he favors or opposes casinos. What should matter is what the House collectively feels about the issue as expressed by a vote of the chamber.
Casinos are bad policy. In government, we want good policy. Sometimes that means helping people come to power who will protect good policy, instead of allowing special interests to dictate that policy for us. A strong speaker isn’t necessary a bad thing, if that speaker is doing right by the people of this state. It’s not undemocratic, either. The key is to make sure speakers who promote good policy are getting in power – that’s the democratic part, too.
I fully agree with the post……As I have said for a long time I think casino interests and the Boston Globe publishers and editors (who switched their position this year and went whole hog for casinos) want DiMasi out!
<
p>For obvious reasons race track owners and casinos builders want DiMasi gone. He is theri strongets and most powerful opponent.
<
p>We all know that the newspaper industry across the country is in big trouble financially – I believe the Globe and their New York bosses see DiMasi as an obstacle to the millions of dollars of casino advertising that would come to fruition – (also the fact that DiMasi stepped up big time for most of 2007 to slow down the Patrick administrations agenda and the Globe didi not liek that)
<
p>The Globe has made it a point to not write a favorable story on the speaker since his active role in defeating the casino legislation. They have had attack dog Andrea Estes investigating and writing very pointed stories on DiMasi EVERY WEEK for months and basically on the same subject (this Cognos contract)
<
p>QUESTION: If DiMasi did not award the contract that are under investigation (as reported by the Globe – usually in the 15th paragraph of every story) and the Patrick Administration did award the contracts – should they not be investigated also? Where is the fairness?
<
p>The Globe stories are interesting, however after reading them all over again – they are as I said before full of inuendo and anonymous sources and what if senarios – that could be written about anyone in power on Beacon Hill including the Governor and Senate President or any high ranking legislator – these lobbysist give to everyone and support everyone and know everyone. If they were pusging for the contracts in a irregular way – why would the administration award them in teh frist place!
<
p>After talking about this with a group of friends – one of the showed me a very interesting item the other day – it was some literature and itmes from the Governor’s innaugural ceremonies – guess who was a corporate sponsor? COGNOS!!!
<
p>I know a hundred more businesses were listed also, but isn’t it funny that the Globe never mentioned that in 8 months of reporting on this contract!!!
<
p>There is definatly some biased reporting going on and DiMasi deserves his fair shake in these investigations – but some are seeing to it that he does not get one. (shabby reporting, confidential memos and impounded court documents being leeked are big problems!)
and I doubt the Globe cares about casinos that much anyway. What’s their stake in them?
is even more bogus.
ACE Ticket, the free golf trips, his relationship with Jay Cashman, or his refusal to cooperate with the ethics commission investigation?
What happened to your championing of local revenue options, Ryan? This idea was torpedoed by DiMasi for no good reason- but while he was killing ideas his campaign fund was awash in money from undisclosed lobbyists, and his friends were being paid extravagant sums to influence him.
I don’t agree with everything that the Speaker has done. I would love for the Speaker to allow towns more local options for raising revenue, so they aren’t so heavily burdened by the property tax – and limitations of Proposition 2 1/2. The Governor’s going to reintroduce many of his measures of the Municipal Partnership Act that weren’t enacted last legislative season; I will lobby the Speaker and others to pass them. In the meantime, though, he is by far the most progressive and best Speaker in a long time (ever?).
<
p>As for the insinuations you’re eager to repeat…
<
p>ACE is purely guilt by association. The Speaker has a “friend” (according to the Globe/whatever that means) who was given lobbyist cash when he wasn’t properly registered. If I were Speaker, I’m sure I’d have “friends” (classmates from kindergarten?) taking advantage of my position, as well. That does not mean, for a second, that I would have done anything wrong. To say so is spurious.
<
p>The golf trip? The Suffolk Down folks, who he claims as acquaintances or friends (I don’t want to speak for him), brought him golfing. He didn’t try to hide it. He also didn’t support the measure that the Suffolk folks wanted him to – slots. If the Suffolk folks thought they could sway the Speaker with a golf trip, it wasn’t very successful. He shouldn’t have accepted a golf trip, but it was neither illegal nor repeated. Need I really go on?
<
p>What’s missing in all of these newspaper hit pieces? A single, solitary on-the-record source. No thanks.
<
p>You should have stopped while you were ahead not too far behind.
You’re obviously quite a fan.
and will believe in innocence until guilt is proven – or admitted.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Dollars don’t greese the gears on Beacon Hill. No way!
<
p>The Globe article on $1 million lobbyists was nonsense. Sonny’s kid and the others work hard for their Benjamins.
<
p>DiMasi is pure as new fallen snow. Not snow that someone has written their name in.
<
p>The cash in Wilkerson’s bra doesn’t demonstrate the level of greed at the State House. It is covered by the lofty constitutional protections of the Speach and Debate Clause.
<
p>Oh, and I was born yesterday!
<
p>Captain Renault, round up the usual suspects. There is gambling in Casablanca!
<
p>
Have ya read the Globe over the past 12-15 months? They’re gung-ho.
<
p>Others will speculate as to why the change, but there’s no denying there was a sudden and decisive difference in the way the paper treated and editorialized on the casino issue from years earlier, without a change in editor. And I would speculate that Renee’s not liking the change, either.
<
p>Capital D hit on the obvious answer to your question, though. I would only add this for emphasis. Imagine it times infinity – and all the dollars it takes to spread the word.
Draw your own conclusions about Sal and the gang at the State House. But the Globe’s motives in this one deserve more than a cursory inspection.
<
p>The boyz on Morrisey Boulevard used to call their own shots. Now the bow ties are taking their orders from NYC.
The casino guys must have some good pictures from Atlantic City.
<
p>
that initiated the investigation. I’ve got no information, but my guess is that the Patrick Administration got bumrushed into the contract during its incompetent first year.
<
p>
<
p>http://www.boston.com/news/loc…
<
p>Mark
<
p>
that DiMasi is being hauled over the coals for as yet unsubstantiated allegations about relatively minor ethical breaches and in other states public officials have been jailed for taking bribes from casino interests? So, either the casino interests in the efforts to expand gambling in Masssachusetts have behaved in squeaky clean ways or Speaker DiMasi decided not to engage in such practices. Don’t get me wrong, if DiMasi has violated the ethics law, he should be held accountable. But the timing of all this and the churning that is taking place does look suspicious.
Isn’t it ironic (0.00 / 0)
that DiMasi is being hauled over the coals for as yet unsubstantiated allegations about relatively minor ethical breaches and in other states public officials have been jailed for taking bribes from casino interests? So, either the casino interests in the efforts to expand gambling in Massachusetts have behaved in squeaky clean ways or Speaker DiMasi decided not to engage in such practices. Don’t get me wrong, if DiMasi has violated the ethics law, he should be held accountable. But the timing of all this and the churning that is taking place does look suspicious.
<
p>You kidding me right??
<
p>”relatively minor ethical breaches”
<
p>DiMasi putting pressure on David Driscoll the Commissioner of the Department of Education with a Quid pro quo for more money in a supplemental budget. Under DiMasi’s direction the Education department chose the inferior product made by Cognos for the pilot, though it ranked only fifth out of 10 in raw scoring by a team of bid evaluators. WHY WOULD THEY CHOOSE THE PRODUCT RANKED 5TH OF OUT 10, INSTEAD OF THE PRODUCT RANKED #1 OR #2?????
<
p>And I’m sure it was a coincidence that friends and or close associates of DiMasi received 2.8 million dollars of tax payer moneies for their lobbying efforts. So paying 13 million for a inferior product so his associates could get 2.8 million is a relatively minor ethical breach. As long as they are democrats it’s minor, if it were a republican it would be major in this state.
<
p>P.S nice justification about it’s ok that DiMasi did this minor ethical breach, Since he didn’t take money from the casino interest and get arrested like some others in other states have. BRAVO DiMasi !