So, Martha Coakley indicted Tim Cahill today based on ads he ran touting the lottery while he was running for Governor.
A Suffolk County grand jury has handed up indictments against former state Treasurer Timothy P. Cahill on corruption charges that his campaign allegedly used $1.65 million in taxpayer-funded state lottery advertising to boost his floundering 2010 gubernatorial bid, Attorney General Martha Coakley said today. Cahill … was charged with directing the Massachusetts Lottery to launch the media blitz intended to run from mid-September though the November election….
[Coakley] said Cahill faces charges of violating state ethics laws, violating state procurement laws, and conspiracy charges in connection with both those alleged crimes. The procurement and ethics law violations each carry possible sentences of up to five years in prison and a $10,000 fine.
Also indicted were Scott Campbell, Cahill’s former campaign manager, and Al Grazioso, the lottery chief of staff, Coakley said.
Cahill’s attorney, E. Peter Parker, said in a statement that “the truth is that nobody did anything wrong.”
Ernie opines that this indictment isn’t much better than the probation one. And the case does post an interesting question. Let’s say, just hypothetically, that you’re an elected official charged with overseeing a multi-million dollar state-run operation; you’re running for another office; and some outside group that wants to kill your candidacy runs a couple million bucks in TV ads saying how badly you’ve mismanaged that operation, thus calling into question not only you but also the operation you oversee. Is it illegal to run ads defending the management of the operation? And if it is, should it be?
I’m fascinated by the reaction across the aisle. I wasn’t sure whether they’d be delighted (because they still believe, incorrectly, that Tim Cahill cost Charlie Baker the election), or whether they’d see Cahill as yet another victim of the alleged Massachusetts Democratic “machine” (the message being if you cross the machine, in Cahill’s case by leaving the party and becoming an independent, the machine will bite you on the behind). So far, reaction mostly seems to be of the former variety.
Oh, and speaking of machines, Paul Ferro’s clever scheme to use the Marlborough Republican City Committee to funnel walking-around money all over the state was upheld by OCPF today. Email (no link):
In a brief, three-paragraph, letter dated March 29th to Marlborough Republican City Committee Chairman Paul R. Ferro, OCPF General Counsel Gregory Birne wrote:
“There is no reason to believe that (the) committee violated the campaign finance law” further stating “In addition, a local party committee may make contributions to candidates outside of the municipality in which the committee is organized.”
Of course, OCPF’s job is to determine what the law says, not what it should say. And when the news of what Ferro had been up to became public, I said that it seemed quite possible that what he was doing was legal, and the real question was whether it should be. Today, we found out the answer to part one. Should we talk about part two?
paulrferro says
…and part of the 1994 campaign Finance reform act that caused Massachusetts to have some of the strictest campaign finance laws in the country.
You also realize that John Walsh’s vaunted voter-turnout machine to help Deval from 2010 was financed in large part by $5,000 checks to the Democratic State Committee (where did that $5,.6 Million come from? Elves?) They even have a name for it “The 71st Fund” so named because Deval is the 71st Governor of Massachusetts.
You’re complaining about a very strict law that has been around since you and I where listening to Nirvana because they were the “hot, new band.”
David says
with individuals being able to give $5K to the Democratic or Republican State Committee – which by definition is about helping the party throughout the state – and with that committee then using the money to help turnout all over the state. That, in fact, seems to me the very definition of what a state party should do. You guys oughta try it. 😉
What I think is weird is that large donations to a city committee can be used to help candidates that don’t represent anyone in that city.
What would I do? Glad you asked.
– keep the contribution limits from individuals to state parties where they are;
– increase the contribution limits from individuals to candidates, say to $1,000, or maybe even higher;
– lower the contribution limits from individuals to local party committees, say to $1,000; and
– require that the local party committees must make expenditures on candidates who, if they win, will represent at least one person in the locality, which would of course include statewide candidates as well as legislative and local candidates running to represent that city or town.
And yes, Paul, I agree with you that it is weird that unions, apparently alone among all non-profit organizations, are allowed to donate $15,000 from their treasuries directly to individual candidates. So I’d close that loophole too.
Are ya with me?
Ryan says
$500 is fine. Let’s not give wealthy people even more sway.
paulrferro says
if for no other reason than to catch up with inflation since 1994. $500 in 1994 isn’t equal to $500 in 2012.
But let’s be honest here. It’s a matter of time before the courts throw out limitations on political activity. The State SJC threw out the disclosure requirement like 8 years ago, Citizens United of course opened up a lot more.
So I think the opposite of what you suggest is more likely to happen.
howlandlewnatick says
When was the last time a state AG went after a homeboy? I only remember state AsG standing on the stage with the US Attorney while the fed reads the indictment. And I was out of high school before Kurt Cobain was born.
Why now? A bold new beginning? I doubt it.
“It certainly would be prudent for prosecutors and state legislators to look at their laws to see if this sort of analysis applies.” —Paul Bradshaw
centralmassdad says
To think she would ever go after anyone on her “team” no matter what they do.
Look at what she was willing to do to cover for Reilly.
Cahill left the fold, so she can look can seem like she is tough on corruption wiithout paying any personal political price.
SomervilleTom says
I have precisely the same opinion of our Attorney General.
centralmassdad says
Not a bad rule of thumb anyway
SomervilleTom says
.
Christopher says
…but ultimately the Treasurer is responsible for promoting the lottery. Bill Galvin has been known to run ads touting his services conveniently close to elections.
And Paul Ferro, are you suggesting John Walsh did something illegal? If not, cut the “look what a Democrat did” act!
Ryan says
However, there isn’t really a “Democratic Machine.”
Case in point: Elizabeth Warren. She basically has the full support of rank and file Democrats across the state, as well as progressive independents, but there are plenty of “blue dogs” who are registered democratic and quietly (or not so much) playing nice, if not endorsing, Scott Brown.
Unfortunately, being the dominant party in Massachusetts means we have all too many people who are on board because that’s the only way they could have a shot at meaningfulness, or winning election, rather than because they believe in the ideals of the Democratic Party.
Not all of them are necessarily even conservadems. They’re just DINOs in the sense that they care more about their friends and power than they do policy. Just witness the ideological contrasts of our current and former Speaker, and the (same) people in leadership who put them both in power.
And then witness the fact that the Speaker before them got in power, unpunished, through Republican house votes.
So, yeah, there are “machines” in Massachusetts, but they’re neither based on party nor even ideology. They’re based on power and old-school allegiances that have little to do with the modern Massachusetts Democratic voter.
And guess what? Tim Cahill used to be one of them. Were he not damaged goods from these ethics abuses, he’d probably still be.
Ryan says
I’m not surprised that the huge dollar numbers are legal — that much was actually clear, when you did the math.
What surprises me is they didn’t come down hard on the aspects of this that seemed like money laundering.
Can someone say, “hey, town committee, I’ll donate $10k to you, if you spend $9.5k on my son?”
It’s pretty clear that this is more or less what went on. How does that not meet the very definition of money laundering?
Any legal types want to look up our money laundering and campaign finance laws and give a second opinion?
Finally, it’s pretty clear we need to update our campaign finance laws and bring city, town and ward committees in line with the contribution limits we place on candidates. There’s no reason on earth why someone should be able to hand a town committee a $10k check, and I say that as someone who’s on a town committee.
paulrferro says
And they’re limited to $5k TOTAL to all Party Committee’s, state or local. It also comes out of their $12,500 yearly aggregate individual limits, i.e. they could give $5,000 to the Worcester Democratic City Committee, and then have ‘only’ $7,500 left.
The State law cracks down on INDIVIDUAL donations. And with the Union Rule David referenced above, today an individual can give less total in a year than any Union can give in one check directly to a candidate.
Ryan says
I realized my goof after I posted, but couldn’t edit. Alas.
That said, thanks for the extra info. I didn’t realize the $5k total was to all party committees combined. That makes a lot more sense, at least in theory. That said, in practice, it still leaves things ripe for abuse for local committees.
Re: unions, Paul… a union has hundreds or thousands of members. I think that’s different than an individual. I’m not saying I agree with how this aspect of the law works or not, but I think there’s a clear distinction. Don’t you?
David says
My understanding is that the donor cannot make the donation conditional. But, you know, wink wink…
Mr. Lynne says
You’d think it’d be perfectly ok to quiz a potential recipient organization on their immediate plans before making a donation, yes? If so the work around makes this a distinction without a difference. “Here is $X if you do Y.” vs. “I’m thinking of donating $X. What is your position/strategy on Y?” Is the second example still legal? If not, how is it justified that the ‘spender’ can’t know what he’s spending on?
paulrferro says
See the Democratic State Committee’s “71st Fund” which, under written agreement between the MDSC and the Patrick Committee had $5,000 checks raised for the ’71st Fund’ designated for use to cover Patrick Campaign expenses, such as hotels, meals, etc.
Deval Patrick is of course the 71st Governor of Massachusetts.
To answer your next question, no, I’ve never had a donor ask me to spend $$$ on specific candidates.
johnk says
When your election campaign staff is involved, then you have crossed the line. Seems pretty cut and dry to me.
Plus, I want to add a third option. If you get involved is sleazy at best, criminal at worst campaign practices, if you’re a Democrat, don’t hire Republican staffers and get them involved in the dirty work. That’s what did him in.
David says
that having campaign staff involved seems like a red flag in some respects. But, hypothetically, imagine the exact same facts except that the elected official uses only state employees to produce the exact same ads. Same amount of taxpayer money goes to fund the same ads. Yet it’s criminal in one case, but maybe not in the other? Even though the second case actually involved more taxpayer money, since the state employees did more work than they did in the first scenario?
merrimackguy says
He is under investigation by the AG for what appears to be very serious campaign law violations.
Yet the ticking and tying OCPF, which dings candidates for math errors, didn’t notice anything amiss until the Boston Globe did all the resaerch and put it in the paper.