Well, Liberty Mutual was awarded $22.5 million in state tax credits last year (not to mention the $24 million property tax break from Boston… OK, I HAD to mention that too). I wonder if their $25k on the inauguration might be seen as a good investment, or the over $26k that Liberty Mutual executives donated to Patrick’s campaign for reelection. I’m sure CEO Edmund Kelly’s $40 million/year compensation package thinks so.
Boston Mayor Thomas M. Menino (left) attends a groundbreaking for a Liberty Mutual project that received $22.5 million in state tax incentives. Others are Liberty Mutual CEO Edmund F. Kelly (center) and Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick. Photo by Pat Greenhouse of the Globe.And Fidelity, well, who even knows how much we’re giving them? According to the mayor of Northampton, Clare Higgins:
In 1996, Massachusetts passed a tax break estimated by legislative sponsors to be worth $70 million annually for the mutual fund industry (in 2010 dollars) on the promise that companies increase employment 5 percent a year in Massachusetts for five years. While company-specific data are not available to the public, industry-level data show that robust job growth allowed mutual funds to collect tens of millions in tax relief over that period. But the employment requirement has lapsed. Fidelity now is shedding its Massachusetts workers even more rapidly than its workers worldwide. Nevertheless, it continues to benefit from the ongoing tax break.
We should take these profiteers to court. Instead, they’re completely cozy with the people who are giving away the store (while consistently telling us to suck it up and brace ourselves for deep program cuts).
I’d love to get to the bottom of just how much money the Commonwealth of Massachusetts is giving away to these various companies. How can company-specific data not be available? Considering the budget cuts that are going to be shoved down our throats, how is every cent going to billion dollar cash hoarding corporations not on the table for cuts?
Hey, I worked (volunteered) for Patrick in 06 and 10, and my company (that I own, and is very small) got funded to do a project via stimulus money that was distributed by the state government. There must be causality right??
<
p>Except there’s no way Patrick or anyone related to his administration even knew that we were awarded the project (except after the fact, since I happily bragged about how stimulus funding did actually give me the opportunity to create a job)
<
p>Businesses are constantly getting subsidized, tax breaked, or otherwise helped by government. Sometimes to the bad, but often to the good. But I don’t see a direct money line actually traced between a few corporate donations for a party to celebrate a reelection and FAVORitism with regards to how the state government treats these businesses compared to the rest of them in MA.
<
p>Sorry dude, you gotta do more digging than that. I’m as anti-corporate-suckling as the rest of progressive Massachusettianville but I am also reality based.
When you look at how much money corporations pour into lobbyists and campaign contributions, compared to the amount of tax benefits and giveaways they get, one column is always much greater than the other. And I see that, purely and simply, as a wise business investment. It doesn’t PROVE causality, or a quid pro quo, but it sure points that way.
<
p>My point is that the companies that we choose to bail out or stimulate to the tune of millions (or billions) tend to spend lots of money influencing the political process, or spend lots of money on executive bonuses, or spend lots of money on inaugurations, or simply flex their muscle by holding fruitful fundraisers. If MA gives $22.5 million to Liberty Mutual, and Liberty Mutual spends $25 thousand on an inauguration celebration, who in fact is funding the inaugural ball?! WE ARE!!!
<
p>Sometimes the big spending comes before the giveaway, sometimes afterwards. The indisputable fact is that money has corrupted our political process. I am not criticizing small businesses who do whatever they can to get the government’s attention for support in an environment where large corporations have government’s undivided attention. I am not criticizing random overlaps between political support for a candidate and policy support for legitimate public interest spending. So long as the stimulus that benefited your company was truly in the public interest, and a wise use of taxpayer money, that’s all well and good. Of course, without the facts in front of me, I have NO WAY to know whether that’s the case. The simple fact of job creation alone isn’t enough to sway me. How many jobs were created per dollar? In what industry with what effect on the environment, on the community where your business is located? Etc.
<
p>I agree that businesses are “constantly getting subsidized, tax breaked, or otherwise helped by government.” In fact, I think that has become the overwhelming purpose of government. Government has been hijacked to serve connected interests, to the point that even when government is engaged in providing social services (e.g. healthcare) we subsidize private companies to do the job even when it’s NOT in the public interest.
<
p>What is government if it is not serving the public interest? I think part of the appeal of the Tea Party is that the public interest is largely not served by government policy. Tragically, a good chunk of government policy HURTS the public interest. And progressives are WAY TOO QUICK to defend government on an ideological/idealized basis. It’s one thing to defend the idea, but another thing altogether to defend escalating murder overseas that just so happens to cost us trillions of dollars.
In the rather tortuous logic of your comment, you start with Liberty Mutual paying $25K for the inaugural celebration and land on “escalating murder overseas that just so happens to cost us trillions of dollars.”
<
p>Many of us agree, enthusiastically, that our behavior overseas has been criminal and that the perpetrators must be held accountable. Having said that, and being no fan of corporations, insurance companies, or Liberty Mutual, I think your umbrage about Liberty Mutual’s involvement in the inauguration is overwrought.
<
p>You wrote (emphasis mine):
<
p>Indeed. You don’t know. You don’t have the facts. Yet you offer caustic innuendo ascribing essentially criminal intent. Such fear-based innuendo is more often the tool of the rabid right. I find it as revolting coming from a fellow progressive as from a Limbaugh-quoting immigrant basher.
<
p>Since you agree that many programs that transfer public funds to private companies are “well and good”, and since you agree that you don’t have the facts and there is “NO WAY” to make such an accusation, I would hope that we could then agree to let the matter drop.
<
p>Instead, can you please describe how you think the inaugural celebration should have been funded, if not by contributions from entities like Liberty Mutual?
Is that corporations wouldn’t decide to pour thousands and millions of dollars without some sort of benefit. Considering that certain corporate sectors happen to exercise huge control over the American government, letting them lavish money on parties for government officials carries at the very least an appearance of impropriety.
<
p>It is an absurd standard to turn a blind eye to campaign contributions until we find a smoking gun, to “let the matter drop” until there is absolute proof. That is the whole point of campaign finance reform efforts: allowing corporations to pour money into the coffers of politicians cannot possibly be a good thing.
<
p>
<
p>Well, I don’t really see why we need massive inauguration parties. These politicians aren’t kings, and I tend to feel that any gesture venerating individual politicians is both unnecessary and counterproductive.
We are celebrating our democracy, peaceful transfer or reaffirmation of power, etc. Though I do believe that our leaders should be put on at least something of a pedestal of respect.
Sure, we celebrate “democracy”, but the guy who one is a great big guest of honor who benefits from an influx of positive feeling.
<
p>As for a “pedestal of respect”–really? Look at the men who’ve occupied the presidency. Clinton, the Bushes, Nixon, Reagan, LBJ. A litany of men who, for whatever positive aspects they had, lied and cheated and started wars based off false pretenses. Looking at governors and other people of power, we see smaller scale corruption across the board.
<
p>I tend to feel that public servants are on the whole pretty clean (and the Patrick administration in particular), but things tend to get messy at the top, and viewing these people as anything other than fallible men doesn’t seem to make much sense.
…yes, I have enormous respect for all of the men who have attained the highest office in our land, flaws and even scandals notwithstanding. I think these are great rituals and celebrations for our country and state, but of course no one is forcing you to attend. Just one day of every four years, he SHOULD be the beneficiary of an influx of positive feeling.
I understand the argument.
<
p>What threshold do you propose? You mentioned “thousands” and “millions” — which is it?
<
p>In this case, we are talking about $25K contributed by Liberty Mutual for an event whose cost was about $500K — about five percent.
<
p>I think most of the participants on this thread support campaign finance reform (I know I do). This spending by Liberty Mutual did not “pour money into the coffers” of any politicians. Presumably it did enrich a variety of caterers, security forces, limo drivers, and that sort of thing. I fear you paint with far too broad a brush.
<
p>You wrote:
<
p>I ask again, what is your counter-proposal? What amount do you feel is appropriate for an inauguration celebration? How do you propose to fund it? Would you approve of a $2,500 contribution from Liberty Mutual towards a $50,000 event? Would you feel better if a smaller-scale event were funded with taxpayer money — in the face of a multi-billion dollar state deficit?
<
p>I, frankly, would rather see us discussing how we can best fend off the GOP assault on health care, jobs, the environment, science, and just about every other aspect of our current political scene. I think this particular focus is a distraction.
I don’t really care. A small celebration. Costs for more than a basic swearing-in should be minimal. I’m fine with contributions coming from campaign accounts (preferably ones subject to much better finance laws than we have today).
<
p>As for comparing this to healthcare–I mean, obviously, on anything short of nuclear war, you can point to something more important. But as both a symbol and a reality of the influence of money over politics, it’s important.
<
p>Recall the 2000 Democratic convention. It drew attention as a dramatic instance of corporate control over the Democratic Party (just one piece of coverage from the time. It’s all about the same thing: the lavish world of power politics, sponsored by corporations who are probably not plunking down the thousands because they have a soft spot for limo drivers.
Any time whatsoever that our government awards a contract to a private entity, I believe that the details behind that contract should be part of the public record. Any promises that were made, connected to the awarding of said contract, should both be part of that record, and regularly assessed or audited. And any expenditures towards lobbying on a piece of legislation or other business before the government should be included too. All of this should be easily searchable online, cross-linked so that I can tie campaign contributions to a specific bill or project being advocated.
<
p>If NSTAR has a stated interest in 3 pieces of legislation, I’d like to be able to link that their lobbying efforts, including perhaps their sponsoring of inaugural galas. If Bob Kraft is going after economic development money (as though the state doesn’t have better uses for it) I’d like to be able to tie together the flow of money between the Patriots and the Governor and legislative leaders. Every meeting between the Massachusetts Competitive Partnership and state lawmakers should be subject to Open Meeting and Public Records laws.
<
p>I don’t need caustic innuendo when it’s plain as day that high-level meetings of the people who control the decision-making in our state take place, and the public is shut out. That’s simply not acceptable, yet my major critique of Patrick supporters is that they accept it. His background with Ameriquest alone should be reason enough to be skeptical of his devotion to the public good.
<
p>In the case of Liberty Mutual, they’re getting $50 million in public benefits from the state and city combined, even though they’re a Fortune 100 company. Boston, meanwhile, is closing libraries and schools, while the state threatens massive budget cuts. I’m not claiming that Liberty Mutual got their public benefits by donating money to Patrick’s campaign, holding fundraisers for him, or paying for his inauguration. I’m claiming that the $25k they’re spending on his inauguration is actually, kind of, well, taxpayer money. And that other stuff just STINKS to high heaven, and is emblematic of all the things we hate: “politics as usual”, “pay-to-play politics”, “Big Dig Culture”, “Beacon Hill insiders”, etc. You can’t bash that stuff, as Patrick does, and bathe in its excesses at the same time.
<
p>I don’t believe that programs that transfer public funds to private companies are “well and good”… but I do believe that government could play a role in public interest economic development, and part of that would inherently include transparency (and even going further, by providing tools to taxpayers to be their own auditors).
<
p>I’d also be curious to see how the $700k raised for the inauguration is being spent.
Lynn, your example does not provide any insight into this situation. Comparing an individual volunteer to a corporation with direct regulatory and economic interests in state policy makes no sense. Such equivalencies in fact mystify the real workings of political economy in our society.
<
p>Political influence is rarely a matter of direct cause and effect. Passing legislation or favorable regulations involve a wide array of tools and approaches that work in tandem with one another. Corporations, as preeminent institutions in our society have no lack of levers and means.
<
p>The question here is, are these donations part of a system of influence where the larger or better connected corporations in Massachusetts can extract more from the body public than less organized or less powerful constituencies?
<
p>It could very well be that Deval Patrick does not make any decisions based entirely or in part on past or possible financial contributions. So he is clean and impervious.
<
p>So if he doesn’t get corporate contributions because they want to sway his administration’s actions perhaps Liberty Mutual and State Street just like his policies. They just give money because its an insurance policy to ensure he really is someone who just takes them seriously, contributions or not.
<
p>Still assuming Patrick is impervious to influence, by supporting or being silent on these giveaways (which are not a part of the normal budget process, have historically had weak guidelines and enforcements, and contain few requirements for public exposure and comparison) he either really supports this stuff or he’s making compromises with them to bring them on board for much farther ranging and equitable economic reforms.
<
p>But I really think its more likely that Patrick does take financial contributions into account in certain decisions and has a default stance that corporate friendly policies are good in themselves. All the while companies like State Street, Liberty Mutual, and Raytheon benefit enormously from a wide range of direct and indirect government supports, subsidies, tax credits, grants, and loans, while the actual public sector of direct services, supports, and investments in actual people are getting cut and weakened.
I think the only way out of this trap is to start demanding that any candidate or political party that we support refuse any and all political contributions from corporations, lobbyists, and corporate executives who hire lobbyists. And before David exposes me as a Jill Stein fan, I’ll say yes, I’m a proud member of the Green-Rainbow Party, and part of the reason why is because I know the GRP is not influenced by corporate interests.
<
p>During the campaign, Patrick had the gall to say that he has satisfied himself that the contributions he was raking in from the utility companies that would benefit from his administration’s decisions don’t influence his decisions. Public service is not about satisfying yourself, but rather demonstrating that you are serving the public interest. Check out the 7:10 mark here:
<
p>
<
p>His answer really shows the problem with our government, and Stein throwing back at him the “record cynicism and distrust” makes the case. And instead of blaming the politicians that satisfy themselves that they are not supporting a corrupt system, I think it is incumbent on voters to become more savvy about their political support. The current failure of our system of government is OUR responsibility.
<
p>The last point I’ll make is that the focus on any one individual — whether it’s Deval Patrick or Barack Obama or Charlie Baker or Grace Ross or Jill Stein — is misplaced. There is a system in place that must be altered (or abolished), so candidates that we support should be asked how they plan to advance systemic changes, and voters need to be engaged in developing systemic solutions.
It is facile and disingenuous to attack the obvious shortcomings of the system in place without proposing a specific alternative. After you’ve “altered” or “abolished” the current approach, what do you propose to do differently? Until you and your party present specific alternatives, I suggest you will collectively remain a marginalized and ineffective player.
<
p>I am a reasonably savvy and well-informed voter. I take my responsibility as a voter and citizen seriously. In order to gain my attention — never mind support — you must present a substantive and positive alternative for me to consider.
How many winning pols end up with huge war chests of cash, sometimes holding on to them even if the don’t run again. Make them pay for their own parties!
There are plenty of things I propose to do differently — some of these could be accomplished by the current power structure (but won’t be) and others probably can’t be.
<
p>I think the responsibility is on all of us to go beyond accepting current “political reality” as a given, and to explore ways of changing “political reality” so that it meets the needs of a 21st century society which are radically different from anything we’ve seen to date.
<
p>So instead of getting stuck on the idea that the “debate” on climate change has two sides (the Democrats, who think we need cap and trade, carbon offsets, clean coal, expanded nuclear, etc. to solve climate change; and the Republicans, who don’t think we need to solve to climate change), we need to CHANGE the political reality so that it’s more relevant to physical reality (as well as to economic and social realities). For what it’s worth, I think that kind of change is only possible through a completely different political beast, not through the Democratic or the Republican parties. One incredibly important distinction is the idea of ecological or steady state economics, as well as the focus on community-based economics. The Democratic Party is fully committed to the ideas behind our money system, which demand a perpetually growing economy. On a finite planet, this is fundamentally unsustainable, and the growth economy has started to hit up against many of these limits. Bipartisan support for bailouts and stimulus that props up this unsustainable economic system simply kicks the can down the road.
<
p>The Greens, on the other hand, would like to stop kicking the can and take on some crucial challenges head-on. We could start by removing government subsidies of everything and anything that is bolstering the failing fossil-fueled economy. The Big Dig, for example, geared towards the expansion of car transit, has taken precedence over public transit, and has crippled the MBTA with an unconscionable debt burden. Clearly we’ll need to continue investing public money in maintaining the car infrastructure we have, but we should be prioritizing an infrastructure transition towards more resilient and sustainable modes of transportation. And those will only make sense in the context of transitioning our economy, our places of work, our energy systems, our food systems, our health systems, etc.
<
p>You might have noticed some of the specific alternatives mentioned during the Stein campaign, including single-payer healthcare, green jobs programs in energy conservation, renewables, recycling, agriculture, transportation, and more, as an alternative to the specific economic development outlays that are going towards the fossil-fueled economy.
<
p>In terms of good government specifics that don’t get into broader platform differences, let me point out four policies that I put forward in testimony to the Governor’s task force on public integrity that I think are a) critical to truly having government of, by and for the people and b) possible to enact without the existence of a Green Party:
<
p>
<
p>I think these would be game-changers in terms of corporate influence over the political process in Massachusetts. I think it would also make sense for people to support Ranked Choice Voting so that we can start to vote for our favorite candidates without fear of spoiling a horse race.
Private donations, which you attack as influence buying.
<
p>Taxpayer dollars, which could be attacked as frivolous spending especially in times like this.
<
p>Unsubsidized admission tickets, which will put the festivities out of reach for a lot of people.
<
p>Not have the party at all, which screams bah humbug IMO.
or a couple of $15.00 chicken BBQs might work with folks of all stripes on the economic spectrum being able to consider attending.
<
p>Even $50-$100 tickets are out of range for many citizens.
<
p>The disconnect is real and the influence of money in politics is toxic.
<
p>Our elected officials appear more often than not to be the “haves” and the taxpayers the “have nots”
<
p>….just sayin’
certainly a corrupting influence. It’s a pay-to-play society and it sucks. The influence of money, particularly the influence of corporate money is metastatic; it’s a cancer that’s enmeshed in the tissue of body politic.
<
p>I don’t think there’s much that can be done about money. Yes, if and when the electorate can focus for more than the nano-second needed to understand that the country is enthralled to money and corporations, we might get some changes. Voters, however, can’t be dope-slapped into realizing the effects of money on our politics; neither can the governor.
<
p>Attack the Governor all you want. His behavior is conventional. Normal. And calling him our here or elsewhere or supporting fruitless campaigns waged by irrelevant Green Party candidates is not going to change anything.
and as you hint, the spreading cancer of money’s influence is only going to make things worse. But to accept that we are powerless to fight back is the most dangerous delusion of them all. Any attempt to fight this cancer must be cognizant of our own power to change things.
<
p>As the famous Alice Walker quote goes, “The most common way people give up their power is by thinking they don’t have any.”
<
p>You say “I don’t think there’s much that can be done about money.” In fact, we, the voters of Massachusetts, did do something about it, something quite powerful and effective, and then we got duped into letting it slip away over time. The Clean Elections law was one of the most promising political reforms this state has seen in recent times, but we got lazy and comfortable and allowed a demagogue in the House to get rid of it, along with the support of the Democratic AND Republican parties.
<
p>You think voters don’t UNDERSTAND that the country is enthralled to money and corporations? Are you serious?! They understand it through and through. So does the other half of the population that don’t bother voting. Getting down to solutions is quite another story. Believing in the democratic means to do something about it is quite another.
<
p>I understand that the Governor’s behavior is conventional, and I’d go further and say that he actively embraces and even strengthens the status quo. He passes an ethics reform bill that barely even touches the problem, and then goes around celebrating his achievement instead of directing people to real solutions. His non-solutions across the issue spectrum are largely distractions from the real problems. And so it goes. But he couldn’t have won without the out-and-out support of many thousands of critical thinkers who see the need for systemic changes that he would likely never embrace. And those people thereby hold the power in their hands to influence him to embrace them. Not so much anymore, now that they’ve re-elected him (not the best time to try to wield your influence). But they’ve still got power to shape his second term. We all do.
<
p>I’m not calling him out for the sake of calling him out. I’m calling him out for the sake of re-envisioning our collective power, and even responsibility, to stop acting as if this cancer has us beat. Like my signature says, I think it’s killing us, but I refuse to go out without a fight and I know I’m not alone.
I respect your desire to fight. Nothing wrong with fighting the good fight, whether it’s a losing one or not.
<
p>I took the liberty of doing a post on how the Green Party might become more relevant to Massachusetts. It would come under building “alternative institutions.” It’s probably not that original, but you got me thinking.
I wouldn’t chalk it up to ignorance. People recognize the influence of money on politics. But when you have two parties, neither of whom take serious action against the corporate forces that helped cause a massive recession, what do you expect people to do?
<
p>Well, they’ll probably do what Jim Webb said:
<
p>
<
p>Until this fundamental dynamic changes, Democrats don’t have any right to expect political success like they had in the New Deal and post-New Deal era.
My tone was light-handed mockery perhaps but not a bit of an “attack” message.
I remain more optimistic about being a citizen with power than your statements portray. As long as I am able (God willing) I will continue to speak out….there is a difference between speaking out and calling out.
The above statements were not even close to a calling out.
<
p>
The Governor was not named directly in my jesting comments.
<
p>I think pot-luck would be a refreshing populist statement by executive and constitutional officer inaugurals.
After I knocked the price tag down an order of magnitude, I’d probably consider funding it by some combination of means, mostly out of my campaign committee (with the same inherent protections — like no direct money from corporations, $500 caps, etc.) as well as some from the state party. I’d also be fine with the idea that state set up a limited fund that can be used for inaugural events. Not sure if such a thing exists, but it might be worth the investment — like Clean Elections — to insure against influence-peddling.
“Not have the party at all, which screams bah humbug IMO.”
<
p>Why? In the worst economy is 60-70 years, we need a party otherwise we’re as depressing as Andrew Cuomo, er, Ebenezer Scrooge? If Deval wants to throw a party to celebrate his most recent achievement, he can do what the rest of us do — pay for it himself. Heaven knows he can afford it.
I hear he has written a book for which he received a nice advance. Seems that should cover the cost of the party.
700 grand is pocket change or Deval. He could just pay for it himself.
Do yourself a favor and save the link for this diary. In the future there will be a new diary linking a Republican to a contribution and claims of quid pro quo. Somehow Haliburton will be implicated and the incestutous Republican/Corporatare-America connections…
<
p>
<
p>Try to change your viewpoint that Arbella Insurance Group, Fidelity, State Street Corporation, MassMutual Financial Group, Comcast, and the Laborers International Union, NSTAR, AT&T, and Verizon are just being nice. We talk on BMG all the time how corporations are evil, greedy and do “nothing” without some ulterior motive… except in this case.