State finance laws prohibit individuals from lending candidates more than $500 a year for use in their campaigns. Candidates are allowed to give their own campaign committees unlimited amounts of funds, although there are restrictions on how much can be repaid to the candidates, depending on the office sought.
Glodis’s finance reports in the sheriff’s race show that he made two deposits to his campaign account within days of getting the no-interest loan from Mathur on Sept. 4, 2004. One was for $10,000, dated Sept. 7. The other was for $12,000, made two days later. Both were listed as loans to his committee from Glodis.
Does this even remotely pass the smell test?
I know that state election laws require any donation over $200 to list the name of the donor’s employee.
Thanks.
I wander around quite a bit checking on the status of signs in the mid-Cape area. Enforcement is a big issue.
<
p>In my travels, I have seen DOZENS of Glodis signs. For Bump and Lake – none. Couldn’t even tell you what their colors are. And since we have two other hot primaries (Congress and State Senate for both Dems AND GOP) we look to have heavy turnout. But Bump/Lake are absent from public view.
<
p>Disclosure: I believe Guy Glodis’ mom lives in Yarmouth Port, but even so…
Does anyone know where I can get a Mike Lake sign? My Democratic Town committee is looking for Bump and Lake signs too. They have Glodis signs but would like other Democratic candidates as well.
Go to the Contact page on Bump’s web site. There are phone numbers, an email address, and a form. I received a quick response when asking for signs.
campaign to see if I’d work, but I’m heavily (for me, at least) involved in another primary campaign.
<
p>My guess is that each campaign sign represents a certain number of votes, maybe 1 or 2 or 1.5. Signs, though, don’t reflect the total number of voters that will vote.
<
p>The auditor primary will be decided by campaigns identifying voters and getting out the vote. The party establishment is behind Bump. If it’s party faithful that decides the election, she’s in.
<
p>I can’t believe Glodis won’t be hurt by recent revelations.
…and the only candidate to be fined by State Ethics ($600)
<
p>Docket No. 485
<
p>In the Matter of Suzanne M. Bump
<
p>May 12, 1994
<
p>Disposition Agreement
<
p> This Disposition Agreement (“Agreement”) is entered into
between the State Ethics Commission (“Commission”) and Suzanne M.
Bump (“Rep. Bump”) pursuant to s.5 of the Commission’s Enforcement
Procedures. This Agreement constitutes a consented to final order
enforceable in the Superior Court pursuant to G.L. c. 268B, s.4(j).
<
p> On June 22, 1993, the Commission initiated, pursuant to G.L.
c. 268B, s.4(a), a preliminary inquiry into allegations that Rep.
Bump had violated the conflict of interest law, G.L. c. 268A. The
Commission has concluded its inquiry, and on January 27, 1994,
voted to find reasonable cause to believe that Rep. Bump violated
G.L. c. 268A, s.3.
<
p> The Commission and Rep. Bump now agree to the following facts
and conclusions of law:
<
p> 1. Rep. Bump served in the legislature for four terms from
January 1985 to January 1993.
<
p> 2. During her eight years in the House of Representatives,
Rep. Bump served on the Joint Committee on Commerce and Labor where
she served as that committee’s chairperson during the 1991-92
legislative session. Each year, a number of bills affecting
insurance companies (as they are Massachusetts employers) are
assigned to the Commerce and Labor Committee. Rep. Bump has
presided over hearings on these bills and participated in votes on
whether the bills should be reported out of committee. In
addition, Rep. Bump has voted on bills of interest to the insurance
industry when they reach the House floor.
<
p> 3. While chairperson of the Commerce & Labor Committee, Rep.
Bump also sponsored or co-sponsored four bills of interest to the
insurance industry.
<
p> 4. In 1992, F. William Sawyer (“Sawyer”) was the senior John
Hancock Mutual Life Insurance Company, Inc. (“Hancock”) lobbyist
responsible for
<
p> Page 656
<
p>Massachusetts legislation. At all relevant times, Sawyer was a
registered legislative agent (for Hancock) in Massachusetts.
Hancock, a Massachusetts corporation, is the nation’s sixth largest
life insurer doing business in all 50 states. It offers an array
of life, health and investment products. As a Massachusetts
domiciled life insurer, Hancock is more subject to Massachusetts
laws and regulations than to those of any other state.
<
p> 5. In 1992, Rep. Bump knew that Sawyer was a Massachusetts
registered lobbyist for Hancock.
<
p> 6. Lobbyists are employed to promote, oppose, or influence
legiation.
<
p> 7. One way in which some lobbyists further their legislative
goals is to develop or maintain goodwill and personal relationships
with legislators to ensure effective access to them. Some
lobbyists entertain legislators through dinners, drinks and event
tickets as a means to develop the desired goodwill and personal
relationships.
<
p> 8. On March 8, 1992, Sawyer hosted Rep. Bump and her spouse
at a dinner at the Four Seasons Hotel in Boston. The Bumps’ share
of the dinner expense was $136.32. Prior to the dinner, Sawyer
provided Bump and her spouse with tickets to the David Copperfield
Magic Show at the Wang Center. The value of these tickets was
$59.50. Thus, the total value of the entertainment Rep. Bump and
her spouse received was $195.82.
<
p> 9. Section 3(b) of G.L. c. 268A prohibits a state employee
from accepting anything of substantial value for or because of any
official acts or acts within her official responsibility performed
or to be performed by her.
<
p> 10. Massachusetts legislators are state employees.
<
p> 11. Anything worth $50 or more is of substantial value.[1]
<
p> 12. By accepting a total of $195.82 in food and theater
ticket entertainment from Sawyer, while she was in a position to
take official action which could benefit that lobbyist, Rep. Bump
accepted items of substantial value for or because of official acts
or acts within her official responsibility performed or to be
performed by her. In doing so, Rep. Bump violated s.3.[2]
<
p> 13. The Commission is aware of no evidence that the above
referenced gratuities were provided to Rep. Bump with the intent to
influence any specific official act by her as a legislator or any
particular act within her official responsibility. The Commission
is also aware of no evidence that Rep. Bump took any official
action concerning any proposed legislation which would affect
Hancock in return for the gratuities. However, even though the
gratuities were only intended to foster official goodwill and
access, they were still impermissible.[3]
<
p> 14. Rep. Bump has fully cooperated with the Commission
throughout this investigation.
<
p> In view of the foregoing violations of G.L. c. 268A by Rep.
Bump, the Commission has determined that the public interest would
be served by the disposition of this matter without further
enforcement proceedings, on the basis of the following terms and
conditions agreed to by Rep. Bump:
<
p> (1) that Rep. Bump pay to the Commission the sum of six
hundred dollars ($600.00)[4] for violating G.L. c. 268A,
s.3(b); and
<
p> (2) that Rep. Bump waive all rights to contest the findings of fact, conclusions
of law and terms and conditions contained in this agreement and in any
related administrative or judicial proceedings to which the
Commission is or may be a party.
<
p>—————
<
p>[1] See Commonwealth v. Famigletti, 4 Mass. App. Ct. 584, 587
(1976); EC-COI-93-14.
<
p>[2] For s.3 purposes, it is unnecessary to prove that the
gratuities given were generated by some specific identifiable act
performed or to be performed. In prohibiting private parties from
giving free tickets worth $50 or more to public employees who
regulate them, the Commission explained in Advisory No. 8 (issued
May 14, 1985) that:
<
p> Even in the absence of any specifically identifiable
matter that was, is or soon will be pending before the
official, s.3 may apply. Thus, where there is no prior
social or business relationship between the giver and the
recipient, and the recipient is a public official who is
in a position to use [her] authority in a manner which
could affect the giver, an inference can be drawn that
the giver was seeking the goodwill of the official
because of a perception by the giver that the public
official’s influence could benefit the giver. In such a
case, the gratuity is given for her yet unidentifiable
“acts to be performed.”
<
p> Page 657
<
p> Specifically, s.3 applies to generalized goodwill-engendering
ent
ertainment of legislators by private parties, even where no
specific legislation is discussed. In re Flaherty, 1991 SEC 498
(issued December 10, 1990) (majority leader violates s.3 by
accepting six Celtic tickets from billboard company’s lobbyists);
In re Massachusetts Candy and Tobacco Distributors, Inc., 1992 SEC
609 (company representing distributors violates s.3 by providing a
free day’s outing [a barbecue lunch, golf or tennis, a cocktail
hour and a clam bake dinner] worth over $100 per person to over 50
legislators, their staffers and family members, with the intent of
enhancing the distributors’ image with the legislature and where
the legislators were in a position to benefit the distributors).
Section 3 also applies to meals, including those occasions
motivated by business reasons, for example, the so-called “business
lunch”. In re U.S. Trust, 1988 SEC 356. On the present facts, s.3
applies to the entertainment of Rep. Bump where the intent was
generally to create goodwill and the opportunity for access, even
though specific legislation was not discussed.
<
p>Rep. Bump has argued that s.3 does not apply to meals given to
legislators. There is nothing in the legislative history regarding
s.3 or the language of s.3 to support that argument. In the
Commission’s view, s.3 applies to any form of entertainment,
including meals, given to any public official.
<
p>[3] As discussed above in footnote 2, s.3 of G.L. c. 268A is
violated even where there is no evidence of an understanding that
the gratuity is being given in exchange for a specific act
performed or to be performed. Indeed, any such quid pro quo
understanding would raise extremely seriously concerns under the
bribery section of the conflict of interest law, G.L. c. 268A, s.2.
<
p>Section 2 is not applicable in this case, as there was no such quid
pro quo agreement between Sawyer and Rep. Bump.
<
p>[4] This amount is approximately three times the value of the $195
in prohibited gratuities received by Rep. Bump in violation of c.
268A, s.3. It represents a disgorgement of the improperly received
gratuity plus a civil sanction.
Sorry, but I can’t get worked up over a violation worth a $600 fine when she even stipulated to making a mistake. We try to be so holier-than-thou with our ethics laws, that even the most instinctively honest person has to keep double-checking to make sure he or she is not violating some obscure provision.
<
p>When I interned for my Rep. at the State House several years ago we had the opportunity to attend lectures by Beacon Hill players almost everyday. One time the lecturer was a lobbyist and she made it sound like if a lobbyist and legislator were meeting and the legislator sneezed, the lobbyist couldn’t offer the legislator a tissue without violating ethics laws. IMO, this all gets very ridiculous, very quickly.
…though I get the sense the Glodis’ issue is more egregious.
…which is bigger?
On tonights’s Jim Braude show Suzanne Bump was exposed as a hypocrit when it comes to ethics and personal conduct. Check out the candidates forum on NECN.
If you had watched with an open mind, you would have heard her admit a mistake and then go on to explain that she has been up front about that mistake. She published info about it on her web site. She is not hiding anything.
<
p>Guy was still not able to be clear about where the money he got came from.
One crook calling the other crook a crook. Good luck with that one guys. I really don’t want another democratic fox guarding the henhouse.
Suzanne Bump has more years on Beacon Hill than Guy Glodis and Mike Lake COMBINED!!
<
p>Time to move on with some fresh ideas. www.mikelake.com
I love when you slam Bump, say nothing negative about Glodis, and then shill for Mike Lake. Don’t you remember how you told us back in May to vote for Guy Glodis because he had the most money? Then the day before the convention, you wanted us to vote for Mike Lake?
<
p>You joined BMG to talk about the auditors race, all you comment on is the auditors race, and you’re silent about Glodis, but very, very anti-Bump. What gives?
<
p>
Check it out he is kicking Glodis’ ASS!!!! How’s that chrismatth!! Is that better!! Lake is kicking GLODIS’ ASS!!!!! Is that f-ing lound enough!!
<
p>Now go back and work a litlle friggin harder for your candidate and stop your pussy-ass whining!
99.9% of this blog is already kicking the u-know-what out of Glodis. I don’t need to do that. I am just posting here on behalf of my candidate and exposing Bump for what she is: a law-breaking, state ethics-fined hypocrit…she is no better or no worse than Glodis.
But “hypocrite” has an “e” and the end of it….
You are a piece of work.
<
p>What is the point of posting rants like that? Do you really want to convince us that Lake supporters are trash-talking, self-absorbed jerks?
..easy does it
Sarcasm or not. And I think that very few people would read that post as being sarcastic whatever your claim.
<
p>It’s too late, you have already made a giant fool of yourself and should start thinking about dropping your “South Shore Dem” identity and starting over with a new one.
You are breaking the first rule of sock puppetry: don’t shill for your candidate using the same account as the one you use to throw mud at his opponents.
coming on, spewing negative trash that you like to call “rubbish.” Yep, all Lake supporters are wonderful, bloggy participants… it’s only those ebil, Bump supporters who are mean and ebil and something or other…
conducting frivolous investigations of the guards of the hen house.
<
p>Guess that makes us even.
Glodis appears to be trying to chalk the apparent timing of events as two unrelated events that just happened to overlap as a coincidence of circumstance. On the surface, this is hard to believe when you consider:
<
p>1) Why would he borrow $20,000 from a hedge fund manager friend through another associate if he already had the money as evidenced by his loan to his campaign (he claims he already had the money for the loan to the campaign)?
<
p>2) The first series of loan from a friend and the loan to hid campaign may be coincidence if we suspend disbelief for a moment, but the timing of the first repayments (first from his campaign to him and then from him to his friend) creates a series of coincidences that is mathematically hard to fathom.
<
p>That his hedge fund friend was later convicted of fraud is ancillary to this issue. He has lots of issues to cover before the primary and the voters deserve answers. Answers that should determine whether they vote for him or one of the other challengers.
<
p>The series of coincidences also raises serious questions about the investigatory capabilities of the OCPF. How could they overlook the coincidental timing of the loan, its repayment, etc.? Had they done their job better at the time then there would be no issue now, either Glodis would have been cleared or he would be out of the race.
<
p>Three weeks and counting and now the Dem auditor primary has gotten really interesting.
<
p>p.s. as a former auditor, I support Mary C. but want to see a great general and Glodis would do a disservice to MA as either the Democratic candidate or, shudder to think it, the MA Auditor.
– not a Beacon Hill insider like former legislator/lobbyist/labor secretary Suzanne Bump, or former state senator and current Worcester County Sheriff Guy Glodis. He is completely independent of the Beacon Hill “way of life,” as he demonstrated recently by being the only Democratic candidate to call on retiring auditor Joe DeNucci to rescind the unjustified and poorly-timed 5 percent salary increase (retroactive to July 1) he handed to his staff on his way out of the office. Mike’s opponents have both refused to call for the raises to be rescinded. They have put Beacon Hill insiders’ interests beforethe interests of the taxpayers, and have criticized Mike for doing what a true auditor should do – speaking up for taxpayers
And while you’re at it, explain how you went from preaching unity within the party to diatribes against Bump? In the event that she is the candidate, trashing her doesn’t help the party and you’ve made it very clear in past posts that you’ll support the democratic candidate no matter what.
<
p>I ask, because you’re looking more and more like a Glodis sock puppet – the kind that Bump should thank, because every time you post, I pledge to get another voter to go for Bump.
I experienced the same “enthusiasm” for Obama on BMG during the 2008 primaries. Those of us who supported Clinton in the primary were criticized for failing to see the coming of the Lord.
<
p>I like Mike Lake, but I’m voting for Bump.
the Lake supporters are all wonderful sun-shiny wonderments of virtuous blog participation and its the Bump supporters who are mean and ugly and uncouth.
<
p>/sigh.
If any of you know about how campaign accounts/finance works, and I would speculate that 99.9% of you do, what GuyGuy did was strictly taboo. And punishable by fines and whacks to the knees. And could cost him the primary. Or maybe not.
<
p>But the question is whether or not Bump can overcome her own run in with the ethics folks by cutting GuyGuy’s bb’s off before the primary. Lake is, in my opinion, too weak in the knees to go after Glotis for fear of retribution from those forces for any future office Lake may try for.
<
p>And that leaves our good friend Mary “the dismantler” Connaughton waiting in the wings. So let’s see:
<
p>Glotis implodes(with the help of BMG and the Boston Globe)
<
p>Bump can’t overcome the ethics crap beign thrown at her
<
p>Lake is too weak and new to decapitate either of them.
<
p>Congrats Mary Connaughton.