Coakley claims “she is barred from taking campaign questions while acting as attorney general.” link But the deputy director of the Massachusetts Office of Campaign and Political Finance Brad Balzer said there is no law prohibiting elected officials from answering campaign questions from the press or the public.
“Coakley has repeatedly dodged the Herald’s questions about everything from her flip-flop on the City Hall e-mail flap to her apparent use of money raised for her state campaigns to fund her Senate run.”
Coakley should not hide behind a misreading of campaign law. Instead, she should answer the questions.
“What? This leaves me breathless. You can’t make this stuff up,” said Harvey Silverglate, a civil liberties expert who’s taught at Harvard Law School. “It’s not only an astonishing statement – it seems to me to be patently unconstitutional. It shows a disturbing ignorance of the duty of a campaigner and a disturbing ignorance of the First Amendment.”
Disturbing indeed.
“I’ve never refused to take questions regarding my campaign when they’ve been in an appropriate forum,” said Coakley
Campaign law does not define appropriate or inappropriate forums. Citing the law doesn’t make the argument. If there is no confusion about this, I find it deeply troubling.
“If a candidate wants to defend their position in their capacity as a candidate or as an elected official, they may do so,” Balzer added. “Their being in the State House wouldn’t preclude them from doing that.”
Coakley could respond by offering a place and a time more to her liking and answer the questions but to claim she is prohibited by law is outrageous.
The Coakley campaign should leave all communication with the press to a PRESS person and not an attorney, that should be first priority.
<
p>I would also like to know if anyone else on BMG has heard thoughts on AG Coakley’s appearance before the Supreme Court earlier this year. I have talked to a few Boston attorney’s who have voiced opinions about her performance. I think it is worth discussing. Many attorney’s I have spoken too will never get the chance to make an argument in front of Supreme Court Justices and in their opinions it is the high point of many attorney’s careers. Sounds fair. I really don’t know.
<
p>What I heard was not terribly nice, but I have no way of knowing or judging, but think it should be part of the discussion of our AG. If this is the high point of many attorney’s career, and she is the state’s highest attorney, lets talk about the merits of the case and her performance. How do we do that? I don’t know, but I know that this site has many people with knowledge of this nations highest court.
<
p>
This too is a good topic for discussion. Start a thread. Here’s a link to the transcript and audio” of the oral argument of Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts in front of the Supreme Court.
for the link. Didn’t mean to hijack the post. Got some reading to do.
after I do some reading.
how about giving the Herald some credit on this story. Where was the “newspaper of record” on this story? I found it humorous that the many pro-Capuano posters here either die not read today’s Herald or ignored the story altogether.
<
p>link = http://www.bostonherald.com/ne…
<
p>You don’t know me yet you claim it would gall me to give them credit. I gave them credit. You owe me a retraction.
that your knee-jerk rag, the Globe, doesn’t, my friend. Your inveterate, know-nothing, leftisms leave me in convulsions of laughter. Get over your “public option” crap and grow up.
between your convulsive laughter and the bottomless reserve of bitterness you coddle. I’m not interested in debating how good a paper the Herald is or why you think it doesn’t get its due. I’m not interested in debating your bitterness about the Globe the either. I’m mostly interested in the topic I posted.
are smarter than you.
are much wiser than you, my friend.
What variety is that, Edgar?
Unlike Neil I am not playing the ethnicity (race) card.
<
p>No?
<
p>
<
p>I retract it and apologize to you and everyone who I offended by saying so. I don’t believe it to be true and never did.
We all, myself being a prime example, get carried away from time to time. Though we rarely agree, I enjoy your posts. Best wishes, Edgar
Between BMG and the Herald this little refusal to answer one question to one reporter has become ridiculously blown out of proportion. It is more than obvious at the Herald that the hit is in on Martha- as frontrunner they have called her the “Ice Queen” and “mean girl”- Is this what you call journalism?
<
p>Please let’s talk about really important issues- like her 10 page financial regulatory reform package- How do the other candidates feel about it? What is their plan. This is what effects the future of our children-not if Martha answered a hostile question-Most politicians run for one office while in another- Obama for one. Capuano even gets to use his 1 million plus Congressional fund for this race while Coakley had to start from $0.
<
p>This kind of yellow paper journalism is foolish and hurts our state and country-
By Fox newsing everything it lowers the level of discourse to nitpicking. Let the FEC do the investigation-then report when and if it becomes news-not before.
<
p>I know many of you are looking for anything to hang your anti-Martha hat on-but 23 years of service to the people of the state-in low paying- often not glamorous jobs should not be boiled down to one unanswered question from a proven hostile newspaper. For goodness sake- Obama doesn’t talk to an entire network- don’t hear any problem with that? The Herald has had one hit piece after another- repeating the old bromide “flip-flop” (I hear many here repeating as well)- That may have worked against John Kerry- the millions of dollars of swift boating worked in 2004 but to repeat such hackneyed expressions now is simply inappropriate and pathetic.
<
p>(Did the Herald do any homework to see who Silverglate is supporting?- There is no doubt a reason this man lashed out- it will eventually come out-but no balance was even given- “let’s get her” is the tone of the many stories put out by Boston’s yellow paper)
<
p>AG Coakley has lead an exemplary life- This kind of reporting was used against HIllary Clinton- Cherry picking stupid issues so that her entire body of experience becomes minimized- She became a one dimensional greedy opportunist without regard for her many years of service. There is a reason we have had no woman in 221 years= and many here are working towards extending that embarrassing record. Any one care to talk about real issues?
Neil is writing a legitimate post about a legitimate story in the Herald. You can say the Herald is being overly negative, and I would back you up on that, but as bad as it is, the Herald is a far cry from Fox. Lumping BMG in (and by implication, everyone here) is a kitchen sink strategy often employed by the types of organizations you decry in your post.
<
p>Further, your candidate invited this by commenting on the Amirault case. So one might reasonably conclude she picks and chooses which issues to discuss. That puts her in distinguished political company (Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama at times) – but they are all wrong about this.
<
p>Here’s my pipe dream: A politician who will answer any question, from anybody (regardless of their motive), any time. If the politician thinks the question is inappropriate, they can say that, and if they’re honest, we’ll believe them.
<
p>Too much to ask?
<
p>
for responding on topic, mostly. I do not condone the part of the Herald’s coverage that calls Coakley names (and it was not done in the article I linked) but I do want people to discuss the issue of her interpretation of campaign finance law and the reason she gave her answer about campaign speech.
<
p>If Coakley is going to cite law as a reason compelling a decision to not answer questions, she needs to be right on the issue and she isn’t. It seems crazy to me that she’d ding her own credibility and reputation as an extraordinary legal expert to avoid answering questions about these issues.
<
p>Furthermore, I feel a candidate should answer questions about campaign finance issues and other questions about the conduct of the campaign.
<
p>Accountability in campaigns and in office may be the single biggest issue government faces today. You have to look no farther than the comments at BMG about Barnie Frank’s work on Finance reform and Governor Deval’s post on “The hard choices in front of us” to recognize the demand for accountability to, which means providing answers – not stonewalling.
<
p>That said, I think JimC gets to more substantive issues about this question.
I have to question the level of a U.S Senate’s candidate’s commitment to securing passage to aggressive and serious financial reform in Congress when the same candidate has essentially deferred to the U.S. Attorney in Mass. most, if not all, of the responsibility for investigating and prosecuting the heaps of destructive political corruption that has infected Massachusetts during and, to be fair, before Coakley’s term as Mass. AG began in 2007.
<
p>The fact that the Coakley campaign Web site does NOT even bother to mention in her online biography or issues sections any successful efforts by the candidate to investigate and prosecute political corruption in Mass. unintentionally illustrates Coakley’s woeful professional record in this critical public policy area.
<
p>Attorney General Coakley has had a unique opportunity over the last nearly three years to team up with other reformers in the Legislature, organizations such as Common Cause, netroots activists, and Governor Patrick to break the big business/downtown law firm/bond finance companies/Legislative leaders nexus that has resulted in hundreds of millions of financially excessive, bloated, and under-preforming state and local government contracts that are literally bleeding the Commonwealth dry. The public policy and service areas these state and local government contracts cover range from highway and public transportation construction, to public buildings construction, to state-assisted economic development initiatives,to environmental management programs. The recent superseding federal indictment of former House speaker Sal DiMasi is only the latest appalling and depressing example of our how the insidious political culture that exists in this state has undercut the ability of the citizens to believe that state and local government can actually play a constructive force in improving the lives of Massachusetts residents.
<
p>Finally, I have grown weary of hearing from Coakley defenders that she would have been more aggressive in the area of public corruption, but she has hamstrung by a Legislature intent on limiting the AG’s budgetary resources and statutory authority to investigate public corruption in the Commonwealth. If the Legislature’s dilatory self-interest is actually responsible for AG Coakley’s passive record on political corruption, then it is the responsibility of the AG to shame the Legislative leadership into providing her with the budgetary resources and/or the enhanced statutory she needs to do her job adequately in this area. She has been in a position to help build a populist anti-corruption movement in Massachusetts by holding press conferences that would have highlighted the costs of public corruption in Mass., by potentially teaming up with anti-corruption political allies on and off Beacon Hill, and by zealously and responsibly investigating and prosecuting those politicians, businessmen, financial managers, who are engaged in “play-to-pay” schemes every day in Massachusetts.
<
p>Instead, AG Martha Coakley has chosen, over the last three years, to be the consummate insider, going along to get along with “the boys on Beacon Hill” and their friends and colleagues in white-collar downtown law firms, the corporate offices of businessmen with state and local government contracts, key state legislative leaders looking to make a quick score during and/or following their term of government service, and financial managers reaping millions in state bond commissions for their finance companies. Meanwhile, the taxpayers of Massachusetts continue to pay the exorbitant “state corruption tax” that residents of other states such as Wisconsin, Iowa, or Minnesota are spared and would find to be wholly unacceptable.
but I have to say, it’s not really on topic here about Coakley’s command of campaign law. If you can corroborate the charges you make with substantiating published evidence (links) you have a fine post. I”d suggest you do it and put it to the test of knowledgeable critique offered by commenters on BMG.
Neil-
You do realize that the Justice Department asked Coakley to head up the Boston Organized Crime Task force? I guess you think they looked for someone weak who didn’t take on the tough guys
how would you explain that? Ohand she did the heavy lifting on child abuse and sexual predators- sounds like a wimp to me. 23 years of this.<
p>Am sure many of us would feel better if there was some balance both here and at the Herald- Unfortunately facts can be twisted successfully-
How could you possibly have “grown weary” of those supporting Coakley when there are very, very few of us on BMG-kind of like the Herald-gets frustrating when only one sided arguments are made- and I must assume you have been paying attention? – Weariness with the one or two of us is just hard to believe-
Are you implying that AG Coakley has done nothing in her 3 years-or that she hasn’t taken on, to your liking, an issue that you specifically care about? I suppose everything was to your liking under Harshbarger and Riley? Which AG has been just right for you on corruption? Obviously this cronyism has been around for as long as any of us can remember- Harshbarger got destroyed for taking on McCormack- you may recall he lost the governorship to Celluci- and he got heat from both the right and the left on that. There are standards for AGs and it’s one of the reasons they have a nearly impossible chance of ever going to the next level. Are you just fine with what’s happening in DC under Obama? He campaigned on changing the system as far as I can tell-it’s more of the same. Because Martha is a woman she is expected to be super human-most women who make it to top of their fields come pretty close since the uphill climb is so difficult but alas, she is a mere mortal.
<
p>Because Martha Coakley has done basically what other AG’s have done (in my opinion a very good job in a difficult position) – Please do tell which AG has been up to your standards? You don’t seem to give her any credit for any of the difficult things she has managed to accomplish- Grandstanding is the way you see them I imagine?
Instead of my listing her accomplishments you can go to a well researched article: http://www.womenforcoakley.com…
<
p>I have a novel idea-let’s put a few of the other candidates in this race under the same negative microscope- You have your issue that you care about- fine- but Martha Coakley has had many, many important issues on her plate and by all accounts, other then by the Herald and some posters here (and Republicans of course) she is just a corrupt, icy, greedy opportunist. Sounds familiar to me- exactly the way Hillary Clinton was characterized- and unfortunately it worked- she lost. That’s the way it works-especially in this state.
<
p>Since you’ve been a big supporter of Jim McGovern- as have I-I bet your money is on Capuano-Of course I could be wrong- Have you ranted against the money he’s spent on his international travel junkets? Boy would I love to have the people of this state pay for some exotic trips- and be able to bring my husband along- that would be swell. Please refer me to your outrage comment on that one- would love to see it.
<
p>I’m not willing to vote on “just words” this time- I want some truth in reporting- with balance. No good v. evil- no candidate is above scrutiny- We have some remarkable people running. Why would anyone want to give their life to public service when they get this kind of vitriol. When Martha Coakley left her cushy high end law practice-at two of Boston’s most prestigious firms- to go into public work 23 years ago for little money and little glory- she made a choice that many would not make. Martha Coakley has lead an exemplary life and does not deserve to be tarred and feathered unfairly. Balance is all we ask-is that too much?
but I don’t see where you address the questions I raise regarding her compliance with campaign finance law and her accountability to answer questions in general and about her campaign’s use of state funds for a federal election, and about her excuse that according to campaign law she cannot answer the questions, and about accountability.
<
p>Twice you’ve said “Martha Coakley has lead an exemplary life.” First, I don’t know how you could possibly know that and second she could allow us to decide for ourselves rather than to take your word for it by answering the questions being put to her.
You are making a big deal over one question- that’s it. The FEC is investigating the compliance issue- let’s wait until we have something to report- not just speculation to cast aspersions- that’s what’s happening- find dirt and spread it-before we get the facts-
<
p>I don’t know the whole story but am looking into it regarding the question and whether or not she should or shouldn’t have answered it- I promise if I hear something to get back to you. But I’m not willing to jump on one silly issue-
There needs to be perspective here and it’s just not happening- As far as I can see from your other posts you are a fairly liberal guy- you know that the Herald is not- they have more in common with Fox then the Globe- that was my point.
<
p>As far as my comment about ‘exemplary life” I’ve been following Martha Coakley’s career for many years- In addition- since I’ve been a supporter during this campaign
I’ve gotten to meet her lifetime friends (and there are many) either working on the campaign or showing up at eventsThese folks don’t just praise her-they love her. From her kindergarten best friend to coworkers throughout her career-It’s not so crazy to judge folks by the company they keep- and I’m proud to say that I’m supporting a candidate with plenty of fans who know a lot about her. As I sent around information to friends of mine throughout the state I have been surprised to hear so many comments like this “OMG =my brother went to high school with her brother- he loved Martha-Tell me what I can do” This is a real person- not the icy b** that some have painted. I got an email from someone who ran a cleaning business on Martha’s Vineyard that hired Martha – He told me how the other recent college grads he’d hired for the summer would come off the ferry with their parent’s cars- Martha showed up to work with an old bicycle. She would balance her brooms/mops across the handlebars and pedal the uphills in Chilmark to work cleaning houses.Turning Coakley into a one dimensional figure- the cold calculating broad- is a story we have become to familiar with in politics- There is a reason that women have a harder struggle to gain seats at the table- women can’t be too soft or too hard- it’s a juggle that men don’t have. We see it here with Martha- she was unfeeling,diabolical and calculating when she jumped into the race only 1 week after Kennedy died- yet she’s a milquetoast fighting crime? Even with all of the accolades that go unmentioned- her many honors throughout the years- Go to Wiki- get an independent source.
This is what bothers me- When a group chooses to make a hit they do it without regard to the overall picture- Has she always done everything exactly as you would have liked-no but has anyone? Is Obama now?
I think we have some pretty good people running for the Senate- they all have strengths.
If the only way your candidate can win is by the politics of personal destruction and not on their own personal attributes- shame on us -we’ve all lost.
<
p>
the questions I raise regarding her compliance with campaign finance law and her accountability to answer questions in general and about her campaign’s use of state funds for a federal election, and about her excuse that according to campaign law she cannot answer the questions, and about accountability.
In a state beset by rampant political corruption, government waste, fraud, and abuse totaling, at least, hundreds of millions of dollars over the last decade, I am afraid AG Martha Coakley, as the state’s chief law enforcement officer, should assume her fair share of the responsibility for not being able to change the disgraceful political culture in this state.
<
p>Many of the illegal acts allegedly engaged in by former Speaker of the House DiMasi, including extortion, conspiracy, and honest services fraud in the awarding of state contracts for computer software and building management services, occurred while AG Coakley was serving in her chief law enforcement capacity. The summary in the Boston Globe article of the superseding indictment of DiMasi reads like a blueprint for the accepted “unholy alliance of private money and public power,” the state Inspector General Gregory Sullivan has been trying to break since 2001, despite a lack of resources, statutory enforcement authority, and very little political support from either the Legislature, successive Republican and Democratic governors, or state AGs Reilly and Coakley.
<
p>I think it if fair to ask AG Coakley why her office did not uncover, investigate, and prosecute the growing corruption scandal surrounding former Speaker DiMasi. And, yes, by virtue of the fact she did not assume the AG office until 2007, I believe Coakley should get a pass on the mediocre performance by state law enforcement officers responsible for investigating and correcting the horrific Big Dig management issues.
<
p>Nevertheless, I am afraid the passive approach AG Coakley has taken to investigating, highlighting, and prosecuting political corruption cases since assuming office in 2007 demonstrates she has failed to make any headway in upending the dominant corrosive political culture. This destructive political culture in the state has invariably led to another former speaker of the Massachusetts House charged with political corruption. If the sitting Attorney General of the Commonwealth can’t or won’t make a serious effort to undertaking a thorough cleansing of the Augean Stables up on Beacon Hill, then who should Massachusetts residents expect will assume responsibility for this critical task?
Any person who was corrupt, or may have been, or may be corrupt, should have been indicted by Martha Coakley. Nothing is as good for democracy as the attorney general going after high-profile elected officials on hearsay and rumors. Nothing is as good for democracy as the attorney general bigfooting the actual legal system that assigns different responsibilities to different offices.
<
p>I saw a guy jaywalk last week, so Coakley shouldn’t become Senator.
<
p>When it came to DiMasi (an elected State Official) the state law enforcement system led by AG Coakley did not investigate. Why not?
<
p>I’ll leave it to others to identify other similar cases where Coakley and state law enforcement officials such as District Attorneys did not investigate but others outside of state law enforcement did, such as the US Attorney.
<
p>What is the line of responsibility between state law enforcement responsibilities headed by AG Coakley and the Federal Governments law enforcement, headed by the US Attorney?
Has Coakley been consistent, timely and accountable in her decisions to prosecute without fear or favor as the Attorney General of the Commonwealth?
My judgment is that AG Martha Coakley has permitted her overarching political ambition to interfere with her constitutional responsibility to see to it that the political corruption laws are vigorously and fairly enforced in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. AG Coakley has yet to serve one full-term as the state’s chief law enforcement officer and make an impact “draining the swamp of political corruption” killing this state. Nevertheless, some of her supporters would have voters believe that “she has been an outsider” fighting “insiders” in state government and well-connected businessmen who have ripping of the Commonwealth over the last three years.
<
p>The recently returned superseding indictment against former Speaker DiMasi and his business cronies and political supporters, go beyond mere hearsay and rumors of criminal activity, to allege specific acts of criminal wrongdoing by the former speaker and his business associates, occurring partly during Coakley’s term as AG.
In addition, I would strongly suggest sabutai take a little time to read the thirty-eight page indictment of former speaker DiMasi before suggesting that AG Coakley lacked that the proper statutory tools and authority and/or compelling and readily discoverable evidence of a state crime to investigate and prosecute former speaker DiMasi and his business associates.
<
p>While I will defer to the attorneys on BMG, such as our editor, David, regarding Neil’s second question in the post above, my understanding is that similar state extortion, bribery, conspiracy, and honest services fraud statutes exist and that AG Coakley could have utilized existing state statutory anti-corruption law enforcement tools to investigate and indict former speaker DiMasi and his business associates.
<
p>As I have stated before, if AG Coakley believes she lacks the proper state statutory tools and enforcement powers to combat political corruption in the Commonwealth, it is her constitutional responsibility to advocate publicly on behalf of state legislation that would provide the Attorney General with such legal instruments. I assert that AG Coakley has not made a vigorous case for obtaining enhanced law enforcement authority, in the area of public corruption, for her office or for the office of state Inspector General during her term as AG. Moreover, in several well-publicized and not-so-well publicized cases of state and local government cases of political corruption, AG Coakley has deferred to the feds to investigate and prosecute official malfeasance.
<
p>The overpowering culture of corruption that has infected Massachusetts, over the last decade, requires vigorous and responsible efforts by both state and federal law enforcement authorities to chill the contemplation and execution of serious white-collar crimes by state political leaders, state agency officials, and businessmen who engage in illegal “pay-to-play” activities to gain state government contracts and services. My judgment remains that the consuming political ambition of Attorney General Martha Coakley has caused her to shirk her fair share of legal and professional responsibility to address the costly political and economic damage done to our state by rampant state and local government political corruption. I eagerly await the supporters of AG Coakley publicizing any significant achievements she has made in combating state political corruption that would cause me to reassess my present negative judgment of her professional record as Attorney General in this policy area.