To read Joan Vennochi’s column in today’s Globe, you’d think that the folks objecting to the Ethics Commission’s conclusion that Dan Wolf cannot both own 23% of Cape Air and hold public office are all progressive Democrats just like Dan Wolf.
[I]n an unusual development, some powerful progressive voices are speaking up for [Wolf] and against the Ethics Commission.
Governor Deval Patrick and Senate President Therese Murray, as well as other Beacon Hill Democrats, bemoaned the commission’s opinion, while worrying that decisions like that keep entrepreneurs like Wolf from running for office.
The head of Common Cause of Massachusetts — supposedly the state’s ethics watchdog — called upon the commission to find a way to let Wolf off the hook….
It’s hard to imagine the state’s leading liberals, with help from political soul mates like Common Cause, going to bat for a Republican facing a similar scenario. But let’s give the state’s liberal establishment the benefit of the doubt. If Democrats believe the law, as written, is too onerous and keeps too many good people from public office, they should change it.
What Vennochi doesn’t mention is that the public objections to the Ethics Commission’s ruling have been bipartisan; indeed, some of the most prominent voices objecting to it have been Republican. The Globe earlier quoted Rep. Dan Winslow (R-Norfolk) as saying that he hopes Wolf challenges the ruling in court, adding that “‘[t]here’s no opportunity for favoritism; there’s no opportunity for corruption, it seems.'” And Senator Bob Hedlund (R-Weymouth) declared on Twitter that “this ruling isn’t right” (while also noting the obvious fact that he wasn’t planning on voting for Wolf). Non-elected Republicans have also chimed in: after I wrote that I thought the Commission’s ruling was wrong and Wolf should challenge it, our friend Rob Eno at Red Mass Group noted that “[i]t is not often that I agree with my good friends over at Blue Mass Group. On the issue of the Ethics Committee ruling on Dan Wolf’s eligibility to run for public office I certainly do agree. It is preposterous to me that someone that owns a business that pays the state money for a service can’t run or hold office.”
Vennochi has previously made clear her view that the Commission was right to do what it did, and that’s fine; reasonable people can disagree. But she shouldn’t omit the fact that those criticizing the ruling come from both sides of the aisle. In fact, not only has objection to the ruling been bipartisan, but I’m hard-pressed to think of anyone who has publicly declared the ruling to be a good thing. It’s not just the folks who think Dan Wolf might make a good Governor that don’t like the ruling. It’s just about everyone.
The ethics commission is correct. Dan Wolf should not be a State Senator and definitely should not run for Governor.
Wolf is in a position to influence landing fees and other rules at Logan, and he can personally benefit.
To me, it’s open and shut. The law is the law. And, Wolf is violating the law.
If he really wants to serve the people, he should sell his ownership in Cape Air.
As long as he abstains from any vote in the Legislature having to do with airports and transportation issues that might affect Cape Air, I am OK with his serving in the Senate. But the governor has much more power to affect, as bluewatch says, landing fees and other rules at Logan.
It would be difficult for Massachusetts’ citizens to have a lower opinion of our legislature. It is outrageous that so many of our elected officials have been indicted. It’s time that we demand the highest ethical standards from our public officials.
A state senator should not be doing business with the state or with MassPort. The law is the law. I don’t care what his politics are. Wolf should resign.
I think simply recusal on votes in which he has a stake in the outcome is sufficient, and if that leads to a possible depriving of representation let the voters decide if that’s an issue of concern. Not sure why you come across as so angry about this.
I am angry because I am tired of seeing our state legislators arrested for various acts of corruption. A cornerstone of any democracy is the expectation of a high level of ethics on the part of our representatives. They should be acting in the public interest.
At a minimum, there is the appearance of a serious conflict of interest with Dan Wolf. He should either sell his stake in Cape Air, or he should resign as a state senator.
It is ridiculous to consider him a candidate for governor under these circumstances.
I think the fact that he asked for an opinion shows how ethical he is. There is no special benefit for Cape Air and Massport is an independent agency anyway. There is really nothing to see here and to the extent that “the law is the law” as you insist in your footstomping manner I think some are advocating that the law in question be changed.
Owning small businesses is corruption?
That’s just silly.
Blue, where are you on all the other business owners, small or otherwise, on Beacon Hill? Why haven’t you written incessant comments on them? Or is this all really about you having an ax to grind on Wolf? Feel free to enlighten us on that question, because it seems likely.
Corruption is taking bribes. Side gigs and small businesses are a means to ensure some legislator used to earning six figures or more — and suddenly making dramatically less (even if their mortgage stays the same) — doesn’t feel pressured into any acts of real corruption to make up that difference. We can all make informed decisions when someone is a small business owner — or any kind of a business owner who’s assets are public knowledge. We can’t make informed decisions when legislators take bribes.
I never said that owning a small business is corruption. Here is what I meant when I said that I am tired of seeing our state legislators arrested:
House Speaker DiMasi was convicted of federal corruption charges involving multi-million dollar contracts to a software firm.
House Speaker Finneran pleaded guilty to obstruction of justice.
House Speaker Flaherty pleaded guilty to a felony tax charge.
State Senator Wilkerson pleaded guilty to public corruption charges.
That’s a terrible record for our state legislature. It’s why we need to hold our representatives to the highest ethical standards.
but Dan Wolf is not DiMasi, Finneran, Flaherty or Wilkerson.
His business is out in the open, for the public to decide. They all did things from the shadows.
Apples and oranges wouldn’t even begin to describe the differences.
The Mass legislature certainly has a bad record on corruption. That’s why this state’s ethics laws are important, and we need to follow those laws. We can’t subjectively decide when we enforce those laws. And, we can’t subjectively decide that one individual is clean and, as a result, the law doesn’t apply to him. The law should apply to everybody.
So your on record for Coakley to go after any chef who uses tomatoes in their clam chowder?
If he is ineligible to run, any business owner who uses the T or crosses the Tobin bridge or accepts Medicare is ineligible, too. And so on and so forth.
It’s “open and shut” to the point where dozens of legislators would be “violating the law.” Basically, almost anyone who owns a business.
That’s not a pro-democracy position. That’s an anti-democracy position, one that removes choices from the public for the most asinine and unfair reasons before they even have the chance to give their due diligence. The United States has a long history of allowing small business owners to run for public. George Washington probably wouldn’t have been eligible to run for President under these conditions.
It’s not the same thing as using the T. Wolf is not just a consumer of state services like other citizens.
Basically, Cape Air has a signficant relationship with the state government through its activities at Logan Airport, and other airports. And Wolf owns 23%.
There is a law that governs this situation, and there is an ethics commission. The ethics commission says Wolf is in violation. The law is the law, and it has nothing to do with somebody who uses the T.
I listed several others. Other people have listed more.
Medicare is a deeply connected thing to government and very complicated. At least a couple people on Beacon Hill own practices or other companies that “contract” with Medicare.
Any business that must get town permits or approvals any time they make renovations or open up a new location is also “not just a consumer of state services” and has “a significant relationship” with government.
What about them? That’s basically all businesses.
Baloney. Do you know how many bad laws exist that, like this law, haven’t been consistently applied?
Among the laws still on the books in Massachusetts:
-All men must carry guns to Church on Sunday.
-At a wake, people may not eat more than 3 sandwiches.
-Tomatoes may not be used in the production of clam chowder.
-You must pay a special license fee to have a goatee in public.
Last time I went to a church on Sunday, not a single guy carried a gun. Where’s your outrage? The law is the law! Where are your diaries on other business-owning legislators?
Medicare is a federal program, and the state legislature has no impact on it.
Yes, many businesses need town permits, but those permits are with the individual town, and not with the state government.
your arguments are shaped like pretzels and seem to be designed to deny one candidate alone.
I think this is a job for the Caped Crusader!
It is not the interaction, it is the OWNERSHIP stake.
All the buzz is abut the type of contract, the duration, etc. It is all spin.
There is a specific chapter of MGL that prohibits ownership greater than ten percent. Wolf doesn’t even have to divest himself of total interest, just half of it.
I’m curious – why has nobody filed a bill to repeal or alter this law if it is so universally opposed? Sen. Wolf, for example?
Didn’t think so.
There are red states that have contracted out a good portion of the functions of state government because they believe that magic private sector fairy dust will make everything more efficient.
The result? A hospitable home for regulatory capture. Those quasi-governmental private agencies suddenly acquire a keen interest in government and end up becoming major contributors to election campaigns.
We do want to avoid that situation, but it’s much more than just preventing some people from becoming governor. For example you do not want the president of your town’s trash removal company to become your mayor, but you also don’t want your mayor beholden to the trash removal company.
I’m inclined to agree with ryepower12 above, but I’m unsure how one draws the line clearly and correctly.
When I saw that title, I started wondering just how long this comment was going to have to be:)