It is a privilege to broadcast, just as it is a privilege to serve as an elected member of the legislature. As our campaign has started to throttle up I have taken to occasionally listening to my opponent, State Senator Bob Hedlund’s radio show. Most of us know what to expect when we tune in to right-wing talk radio. I expected salty, irreverent talk. What I got was much, much more. Hedlund has a posse of callers; one in-particular named “Scott from Cape Cod” has a habit of launching into anti-Semitic rants. Scott in an on-air rant on Hedlund’s November 7, 2011 show, spewed venom: calling Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, and Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein amongst others “freaks”. Each response egged-on by Hedlund. The episode was so outrageous it led to a scathing rebuke from The New England regional office the Anti-Defamation League. Instead of acting as a statesman, Hedlund doubled down in favor or hatemongering and agreed to lend his several thousand watt megaphone to this “Scott from Cape Cod” the following week (November 14, 2011) because he according to Hedlund had been “tweaked”.
Hedlund buys time to air his radio show on WATD-FM in Marshfield. On his campaign finance disclosure Hedlund only disclosed three ad buys totaling $750 across the course of the show’s five year broadcast life. Meanwhile, news reports state that Hedlund buys airtime on WATD Radio 95.9 FM and then sells advertisements on the show as noted in the November 9, 2011 article written by Noah Bierman of the Boston Globe for its Political Intelligence blog. (ADL questions Senator Robert Hedlund’s judgment for letting bigoted caller on radio show –http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2011/11/08/adl-questions-senator-robert-hedlund-judgment-for-letting-bigoted-caller-radio-show/zpN5iP2V2BjRooay1O2z1M/story.html). Certainly, Hedlund has spent more than the $750 to air his show over the last five years. His choice to not include it on his campaign finance and ethics disclosures cannot possibly be an oversight.
If a lawmaker were of the mind that they wanted to skirt the Campaign finance law, the sale of advertising, underwriting, or sponsorships would be an excellent way to evade the law. The sale of advertising, underwriting, or sponsorships is tantamount to a corporate campaign contribution. The public deserves to know how the show is funded, the names of the vendors connected with its production and distribution, and whether any advertiser or vendors has ever received preferential treatment because of their association with Hedlund through his radio show.
No one begrudges anyone the right to engage in work activities outside their policy-making role. State Ethics law addresses places where one’s professional role and legislative conduct might impact one another. In which cases, those legislators might reasonably be expected to abstain from legislative activities which could potentially be viewed as influencing their personal or professional standing. Members of the bar are expected to disclose any associations which could seem to benefit themselves, their work, or a current or former client. Similar expectations apply to members who work in the building trades if their firms or companies are involved with a building project where they might potentially benefit, either personally or professionally. The burden in such cases falls on the individual lawmaker to not just meet, but exceed the basic legal standard. The public has a reasonable expectation that lawmakers are exercising their best judgment free of any external influences. Professional rules of conduct in addition to ethics law seem to largely police other fields of endeavor, precluding policymakers from ever creating the kind of mish-mash Hedlund is currently benefitting from.
The public deserves the maximum amount of clarity and transparency possible. A reasonable person can only conclude that his show is for all intensive purposes an advertisement. As long as it has been on the air, its intent has always been to conflate his public role with his private interests while affirming “all things Hedlund.” The vast majority of the show’s content is political in nature, and focuses on state politics in particular- often disintegrating into overt electioneering. The fact that Hedlund in five years has never disclosed details surrounding the on-going fiduciary relationships with vendors and advertisers raises serious questions about Hedlund’s judgment. One can only assume that he chooses not to disclose. As such, this omission is deliberate. Hedlund should disclose to the public a full accounting of all fiduciary relationship associated with the creation, distribution and production of his show including (but not limited to) his advertisers and vendors.
Why don’t you call in to his show and ask hinm those questions?