This was in my inbox this morning.
http://us7.campaign-archive2.com/?u=cd7fcc44b6a66d3c30299ddd7&id=7bf741d318&e=5350762ddf
Mitt Romney got to be governor with all his business deals, and Dan Wolf can’t even run? The big question is, does the Ethics committee only rule on things once someone asks? Seems like for three years they allowed him to serve in the Senate, and that seems to be tacit approval. And now, they decide he’s in violation? And Juliette Kayyem said she doesn’t believe in luck in her video?
Please share widely!
Had I seen yours first I wouldn’t have written mine. But I feel the exact same way and just as strongly! Job killing vulture capitalist Mitt Romney can lie about his residence and bash this state in two presidential runs while Dan Wolf who was born and raised here and made a ton of jobs here can’t run. Bullshit, no other word can summits this ruling more effectively.
The only conflict was in actually holding office. He could have resigned his Senate seat and soldiered on. Or even stayed in and paid whatever wimpy fine the EC wanted to charge him, then challenged it in court .
He’s just decided to take his ball and go home instead.
He never could, but skated by.
Mitt never OWNED a business with a state contract. Charley Baker was an EMPLOYEE of a business with a state contract.
Court is stupid because the STATUTE – not opinion, law – is explicit. You may not have more than a 10 percent OWNERSHIP stake.
It has nothing to do with being a businessman, it is a law passed by Democrats that came back to bite them.
Luckily, none of your other candidates have ever owned anything.
Nobody is disputing that he has a 20% (or whatever the exact number is) ownership stake. The dispute is (or, at least, should be) whether the fee schedule charged by Massport qualifies as a “contract” within the meaning of the ethics law. That’s why he should go to court, as I’ve explained at length elsewhere. And if this were so blindingly obvious, it’s political malpractice that the MA GOP didn’t call him out on it many months ago. Whose fault is that?
n/t
Is there some reason to suppose that “contract” is a special term of art with a specific, specialized meaning in this statute?
Or would it simply to make an argument for the courts to rescue us from the statute in certain circumstances, based on windy arguments about legislative intent and public policy?
Here’s the definition of “contract” from Black’s Law Dictionary:
“An agreement between two or more persons which creates an obligation to do or not to do a particular thing.”
Seems to me that (soon-to-be-former) Senator Wolf has a very good argument that the agreement between Massport and CapeAir is not what creates the obligation in this case and therefore the agreement is not a contract. The obligation was created by federal law, which requires Massport to offer its services to all qualified airlines, as David said upthread.
Like many other BMG’ers, I don’t see why pursuing this argument in court would be “anathema” to the Senator. More like his duty.
Someone is still butthurt over their husband losing to Wolf for State Senator.
Not a husband, not a relation.
I’m not even a Crocker.
but I really, really don’t like that term, either as a gay person or as a suggestion that child abuse is somehow a minor thing one ought to just get over as if it didn’t happen.
I realize the term was first derived out of a metaphor for that latter description, but all it takes is a quick look at internet memes to realize how incredibly homophobic that word has become today, too. Either way, it sucks and does not contribute to any argument in anyway whatsoever.
I’d always heard of it in the context of a little kid who’s humiliated after slipping and falling on his/her butt
I got mixed up because porcupine lost to a Crocker for State Committee (not far right enough for them)? I’d never heard any of these origins for the expression, but it was certainly in poor taste.
Wolf wasn’t born and raised here. He’s from Philadelphia. Summered on the Cape as a kid and moved here after college. Not that it matters. He’s been here over 30 years and built his business. I, too, think the ruling is bullshit and I think it stinks to high heaven that Grossman’s consultant had an inkling before it was released.
They are writing the Commission has backtracked a bit.
.
http://www.commonwealthmagazine.org/News-and-Features/Online-exclusives/2013/Summer/020-Ethics-Commission-backtracks.aspx
“The prospect of a politician running for a job he could technically not hold unless state ethics laws are changed would be unprecedented”
That’s not a “backtrack,” it’s a turning of the knife.
I’m sure other people w/ state contracts have run at some point.
As long as their legal position is a backtrack, I can’t really blame them for going a little overboard verbally after he misrepresented the previous discussion he’d had with them. Either someone gave him seriously bad advice on how to handle this, or he’s too stubborn to know when to listen to good advice.
However it didn’t take for some reason. So actually it did happen.
I like Senator Wolfe. I think he would have made a great governor. His business experience combined with the progressive manner in which he has run his company and treats his employees are reasons I was leaning towards campaigning for him. Unfortunately however, I must agree with the Ethics Committee’s ruling. These laws were designed to promote honesty and transparency in government. In an era when neo-conservatives have attempted to attack the very core of our democracy (voting, transparent campaign financing, etc) we as Democrats must be bigger than this and show that Bay Staters allow for clean and open elections. Senator Wolfe’s business contrActa prevent him from being our Governor, and to choose to ignore this fact simply because he is a Democrat would be hypocritical on several levels. But hey I am proud of him…he is honorable an at least pays his taxes!