Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

Support Clean Elections: Support Jill Stein for Governor

By

“Last week, it was reported that the governor of Massachusetts has enlisted a registered lobbyist as his top fundraiser. This follows months of fundraising in which the governor has been collecting big checks from lobbyists and corporate players seeking to influence legislation to their advantage. Perhaps the governor feels that a lobbyist best knows how to seek out and extract money from influence-seeking donors. But this is an insult to citizens who are increasingly dismayed by reports that their government is being bought and paid for by big money interests.

We also recently learned that, unlike in his first campaign, the governor will not be participating in the state’s system of public financing for statewide candidates, and will not be complying with the fundraising and spending limits of that system. Nor has the governor given his support to any significant campaign finance reform. It seems the governor’s commitment to campaign finance reform is growing weaker the more time he spends on Beacon Hill.

The people of Massachusetts deserve a clean money campaign system that allows candidates to run for office without selling out to big money interests. Citizen candidates who refuse to take tainted money should be able to compete on a level playing field with candidates like Deval Patrick, Charlie Baker, and Tim Cahill, each of whom has tapped vast amounts of special interest money to fuel their campaigns. The voters of Massachusetts called for fundamental changes when they voted for the Clean Elections Law over ten years ago. Unfortunately, incumbent legislators who were profiting from the existing fundraising machinery repealed this reform on an unrecorded voice vote, opening the way to ten years of continued corruption and scandal on Beacon Hill. One of my top priorities as Governor will be to reestablish a clean money law that gives a fair break to candidates of integrity who refuse to participate in the “pay-to-play” fundraising practices of Beacon Hill.

But I’m not waiting for such reforms to make my own commitment.  I’m acting now to set a higher standard for elected officials in the commonwealth. I am making my campaign the one clean money campaign for Governor – the only campaign that is not taking money from the lobbyists. Now it’s up to the voters to decide what kind of a candidate they want for their governor. They can select one of the three conventional candidates who are up to their necks in lobbyist money – and burdened with favors to repay. Or they can select the one clean money candidate that owes nothing to the usual Beacon Hill influence-peddlers, and who is free to focus the Governor’s office on truly serving the people of Massachusetts. Their choice will send a message on the type of government they want on Beacon Hill.”

Please share widely!
fb-share-icon
Tweet
0

Comments

    • the Supreme Court in a rebuttal to Emily Rooney about debate participation:

      <

      p>

      I think journalism is essential for a democracy, and it’s about creating a more open dialogue, not a more closed one. And as we know, with the more recent Supreme Court decision, there are so many strikes against open dialogue and democracy. You know, it would be really outrageous to think that corporations had a protected right to participate in elections, but candidates do not ? I don’t think any journalist would want to be in that position, of arguing that we further clamp down on our few vehicles for democratic discussion – given the really important things that we need to be talking about, given the failure, really, the failure of current policies to actually give us jobs. We really need to hear something outside of the Democrat-Republican revolving door. They all say they’re change, but they all come in … what kind of change have we actually seen? You know, not very much. We’ve seen a change of the label. We saw Governor Patrick come in and then pretty much adopt the administration and then most of the policies, you know, of his Republican predecessors. So we need to get out of this little box some would have us stay in, and not dare to challenge entrenched power. And unfortunately it’s pretty entrenched, among the insiders and political machines that are represented by the other candidates.

      <

      p>I recommend reading the whole thing.

      <

      p>I’m sure she’s worried about the Supreme Court’s consolidation of power, starting at least as far back as 2000 when they decided against all reason that Florida’s recount was a violation of the 14th Amendment. (Which is why the image described here will never get old to me).

  2. …can’t be that big.  State law imposes a $500 limit on individual contributions, a pittance for a statewide race, IMO.

    • Lobbyist climbs aboard for Patrick:

      <

      p>

      Curran, whose client list has included such blue-chip technology companies as IBM and Cisco Systems, has arranged gatherings at Patrick’s Milton home, where Democratic heavy hitters and corporate executives – for $5,000 a piece – get to shmooze with the governor. He has set up events at trendy Boston restaurants, where executives discussed public policy issues affecting their industries. And he is listed as a cosponsor of fund-raisers for Patrick in Atlanta and Washington.

      …
      In January, the governor raised just $78,815, a paltry amount for an incumbent. In April, he raised $330,578. People close to Patrick attribute much of the surge to Curran’s more pronounced role, though it is unclear to what degree.

      <

      p>$5000 (to the Democratic Party) for access to Deval.

      <

      p>And the $ figures in the second paragraph are Patrick’s campaign, not the Democratic Party.

      • …imposing (stricter? – I don’t know current law on this one) limits on individual contributions to parties might be in order.

Archives