Moreover, when David Bernstein of the Boston Phoenix offered Rudick the opportunity to explain a single instance in the 12 years of Creem’s Senate career where she had been specifically corrupted by the ‘toxic culture on Beacon Hill’ his response was that he could not:
So here’s Rudnick, telling me that “I want to be able to get up there on Beacon Hill and look at policy issues without being beholden” to those who contribute to his campaign. But when I asked Rudnick for instances when Creem may have seemed to act beholden to those who contribute to her campaign, he had no examples. “I don’t want to get into specifics,” he said. “It pervades the culture.”
Bernstein goes on to note that
…But I just don’t understand Rudnick’s point… Because, unless I’m missing something — and I follow this stuff pretty closely — Creem’s main problem on the fundraising side is that she doesn’t go around collecting from the folks who have business in front of her.
The contradictions don’t end there. While Rudnick claims that he will crusade against special interest lobbyists of all stripes, and frequently makes reference to Senator Creem’s relative pittance in contributions from lobbyists, (the vast majority of whom work on behalf of the issues both he and Creem support) he prominently features a lobbyist on his website- the same lobbyist who gave opening remarks at his campaign kickoff.
And, from Bernstein’s questioning, it sure seems as though this lobbyist is “bundling” (a way of getting around direct contributions) donations to his campaign:
Of course, nobody really thinks that a few hundred dollars from a lobbyist creates a problem; the pressure, if there is any, comes from the bundling of large wads of contributions. So I asked Rudnick whether Bachrach…(is) raising money for the campaign; he did not answer directly, but noted that Bachrach is a “good friend,” whose family is supportive of his campaign.
The Rudnick campaign motto: “Lobbyists are bad, except for my lobbyists.”
I really encourage you to read the whole piece, which can be found here: http://thephoenix.com/BLOGS/ta…
Mr. Rudnick and I agree on one point: There are lots of elected officials on Beacon Hill whose voting patterns and clear allegiance to moneyed special interests demonstrate that they deserve to be replaced by their constituents.
Sadly for him, he has been unable to make the case that Cindy Creem is one of those legislators.
would be helpful for your cause, too. Otherwise, this sounds like a hit piece… which doesn’t work so well on people who haven’t heard of either of the candidates (which is certainly a majority, maybe even in that district).
I have not followed Senator Creem’s record as closely as I had been while I was in Newton. That said, I can rattle some of the biggies off the top of my head:
<
p>- Was warning about the Probation Dept mess before it was cool. She repeatedly urged Gov Swift and Sen. Montigny not to implement the structural reforms to Probation that have resulted in its current state. Her Probation Dept reform bill, which she introduced last year, failed, and it was on track to fail again this year before the Globe Spotlight story shamed the rest of the Senate into supporting it.
<
p>- Chief author of the bill to provide employment and hate crime protection to transgender individuals, and a leader in keeping universal marriage rights protected.
<
p>- Main sponsor of the bottle bill, a really noteworthy piece of environmental legislation responsible for tons of litter picked up every year
<
p>- Refuses to kowtow to leadership, even when they really put the screws to her: see her refusal to bend on gambling.
<
p>- Has been endorsed by practically every progressive group and official under the sun, from NARAL to Sierra Club to Barney Frank.
<
p>I hope this gives you an idea why I am such a supporter of hers, and why it drives me bonkers that, with so many sleazy characters on Beacon Hill, one of the few good eggs gets singled out for attack.
She has opposed sensible family law reforms for years – all while she and her husband are practicing divorce attorneys.
<
p>So for example she has blocked Alimony Reform (H1785) for many years at the behest of the various Bar associations.
<
p>Massachusetts is the only state that has lifetime alimony. Our alimony is badly out of date – and out of line with the alimony statute in most states. Part of the problem is that current law is extremely vague. And Massachusetts is the only state where alimony payors must continue to pay alimony even after retirement (as was recently confirmed by the SJC)
<
p>It causes people to have to file expensive alimony for the rest of their lives – and it accounts for about 50% of the trials in family court. It’s a boon for divorce lawyers – which Creem is one.
<
p>The reform bill is extremely popular among legislators – with 70 co-sponsors and with voters.
<
p>Despite having a vested financial interest the outcome of this bill, as chair of judiciary she has been in a position to block the law all by herself. One has to question if this doesn’t have something to do with the fact that it would negatively impact her business.
<
p>The other issue is that she has blocked a shared parenting bill (H1400) which would bring some fairness to custody proceedings. Right now in Massachusetts in 80% of cases fathers are unable to get more than the every other weekend custody schedule. H1400 would correct that sexist bias.
<
p>Shared Parenting won a ballot initiative by 85%. Its popular with legislators and voters. But Creem has essentially been able to block it. And again her being a practicing divorce attorney has brought some ethics questions.
<
p>For example she has represented fathers in family court who were seeking 50/50 joint custody, and some question if she disclosed to them that she opposed shared parenting as a legislator. This is a potential conflict of interest that litigant would want to know about before retaining a lawyers. So there are questions there.
<
p>Also she hasn’t take a ton of lobbyist money. But some of the money she’s taken has come from some fairly shady lobbyists – like William Coyne – lobbyist for tobacco companies.
in the Senate. If they’re bribing her, they’re doing a piss-poor job.
Most of the most powerful and successful senators are full-time. Senator Creem is quite busy outside the state senate in her law practice. I think she is well-liked, and her positions on the issues are almost always excellent. She is a progressive, but she is not a heavy hitter, and part of that is probably due to the lack of time she actually spends in the building, where the full-time senators nurture the relationships, figure out the strategies, and strike the deals that make things happen.
<
p>I’m not necessarily advocating for a full-time legislature vs a part-time one. I’m just saying a part-time senator is at a disadvantage when most of her colleagues are full time.
Sen. Creem has filed the most sensible bill ever filed in this state to promote shared parenting. And she has sensibly opposed the so called “shared parenting” bill that “Mass. Election 2010” supports because it would force children to split their time approximately 50/50 in the homes of their two parents no matter how impractical or destructive that arrangement might be for the child. As the Globe put it in a June 13 Editorial, the so called “shared parenting bill” “is too broad an approach to a challenging issue that demands nuanced, case-by-case decisions based on the best interests of the child.” Sen. Creem understands that custody cases can not be decided with a one-size-fits all formula, and knows that judges need to be able to craft the arrangement that best meets the needs of each individual child. Most separating parents work out a custody arrangement that works best for their child and family without needing court orders. But this bill would impose 50/50 living situations on the children of those families least likely to be able to make it work – those where the parents can’t even come to an agreement on their own. These families are often families torn by domestic violence or other serious conflict. Forcing children to live half the time with each of these parents is like forcing them into a war zone. And just to be clear, the “shared parenting bill” Mass Election promotes never won a ballot initiative, the concept of shared parenting did, and who would oppose shared parenting as an ideal?
<
p>Sen. Creem understands that these bills are insensitive to the needs of children and, to her great credit, has proposed a much better and more realistic bill which would eliminate the divisive and stigmatizing terms of “custody” and “visitation.” It would instead use terms such as parenting time that more appropriately reflect the real parenting roles that both parents play in most families. If you think that the use of words is a small matter, spend a day in Probate and Family Court with parents trying to hash out the language of their separation agreements. While Sen. Creem’s bill won’t solve all the problems, it is, as the Globe wrote a way of helping parents “find common ground.” I as a constituent consider myself lucky to have a Senator who takes such a sensible, well informed and constructive approach to issues in our family courts. This along with her leadership on alimony reform, again an issue that requires experience and nuance, and on reforming the Probation system, are some of the reasons I will vote for Senator Creem’s re-election.
First it would not impose 50/50 custody on anyone. It would create a “rebuttable presumption”. That is the starting point for custody negotiations would be shared parenting, and if one of the parents asks for it, and a judge thinks it won’t work the judge simply has to issue written findings. So basically all the law does is require that the state give a reason before it cuts a father out of a child’s life.
<
p>Second, in Massachusetts today only 20% of fathers get mofr than 14% time with their children. All scientific studes show that this is bad for children. I guess either you think fathers are important or you don’t.
<
p>Science says they are very important. Children from fatherless homes are more likely to get involved with drugs, do less well in school, have more depression and are much more likely to commit suicide. Girls from fatherless homes are more than 2x as likely to get pregnant as teens.
<
p>The point you make about domestic violence is incredibly offensive. Are you saying that the 80% of fathers who don’t have regular access to their children are guilty of domestic violence?
<
p>Anyway you’re in a small minority of 15% of voters in Brookline. You should definitely vote for Creem because she is the only one standing in the way of what the majority of voters want: equal shared parenting.
<
p>I know this for a fact – shared parenting and alimony reform are going to be big issues in Creem’s district. Advocates for those bills are watching the legislature carefully. If those bills don’t come out of committee she is going to be their top target in September.
<
p>No matter which side of this issue you are on – if you care about this issue the Creem/Rudnick race will be critical for you.
<
p>What a crap statement.
<
p>
<
p>And now we get into all kinds of ugly correlation != causality issues, not to mention the awkwardness when it comes to “Yeah?! What about two moms?!”
<
p>
<
p>He wrote nothing of the sort. You’re not very good at this.
<
p>
<
p>What are you trying to communicate here? That 85% of people in Brookline support some particular version of Shared Parenting? If that’s your claim, I call hogwash. 85% of Brookliners don’t agree on anything in particular, and certainly not something as technical as this. Either (a) you’re making it up, (b) you’re applying a poll from a larger region to Brookline, (c) it’s a push poll and a bad one at that, or (d) some organization got hoodwinked by a pollster. I’m betting both (b) and (c).
<
p>
<
p>Know for a fact? Funny, it hasn’t come up in any conversations I’ve had with the Brookline or Newton Town Committee folks, ever. Not once. Big issue? Nawp. Important to you? Clearly.