Reviewing Independent Expenditures for Marty Walsh and John Connolly over the past month sadly you might notice a trend.
Marty Walsh September listing of Independent Expenditures:
9/30/2013 Boston Firefighters Local 718 Walsh, Martin J.(others) Supported $11,240.00
9/30/2013 Boston Firefighters Local 718 Walsh, Martin J. Supported $184.38
9/27/2013 Working America Walsh, Martin J. Supported $95,992.86
9/26/2013 Working America Walsh, Martin J. Supported $42,163.93
9/24/2013 Working America Walsh, Martin J. Supported $9,193.53
9/23/2013 Working America Walsh, Martin J. Supported $5,120.79
9/23/2013 UNITE HERE TIP State and Local Fund Walsh, Martin J. Supported $1,252.36
9/21/2013 Working America Walsh, Martin J. Supported $2,949.67
9/20/2013 Working America Walsh, Martin J. Supported $7,239.96
9/20/2013 Working America Walsh, Martin J. Supported $5,712.43
9/19/2013 Working America Walsh, Martin J. Supported $33,768.66
9/18/2013 UNITE HERE TIP State and Local Fund Walsh, Martin J. Supported $857.85
9/18/2013 Working America Walsh, Martin J. Supported $6,810.48
9/17/2013 Working America Walsh, Martin J. Supported $13,744.74
9/13/2013 Working America Walsh, Martin J. Supported $6,751.73
9/13/2013 Working America Walsh, Martin J. Supported $8,120.48
9/13/2013 Professional Fire Fighters of Massachusetts Walsh, Martin J. Supported $590.00
9/13/2013 Massachusetts Nurses Association Walsh, Martin J. Supported $7,632.81
9/12/2013 Working America Walsh, Martin J. Supported $36,273.33
9/12/2013 Working America Walsh, Martin J. Supported $6,623.38
9/12/2013 SEIU Local 509 Walsh, Martin J. Supported $5,000.00
9/11/2013 Working America Walsh, Martin J. Supported $6,095.90
9/11/2013 Working America Walsh, Martin J. Supported $5,329.60
9/11/2013 Working America Walsh, Martin J. Supported $3,744.83
9/10/2013 Working America Walsh, Martin J. Supported $4,157.11
9/6/2013 Working America Walsh, Martin J. Supported $3,359.62
9/5/2013 Working America Walsh, Martin J. Supported $3,487.45
9/5/2013 Working America Walsh, Martin J. Supported $1,552.62
9/4/2013 Working America Walsh, Martin J. Supported $3,233.65
John Connolly September listing of Independent Expenditures:
No records found.
You have to ask yourself how long can a candidate hold out, it’s not like Connolly should just give away his opportunity to run for office because of special interest groups? This is quite pathetic, and should have never happened. Connolly’s quote when talking about the People’s Pledge:
“We can have a race about my vision and Marty’s vision for Boston,” Connolly said from a podium set up at his Mattapan field office. “But to make sure we have this kind of campaign, one that’s not warped by special interests or private agendas, we need to follow the example set by past campaigns here in Massachusetts and put a stop to spending by outside groups.”.
Seems Marty’s answer is loud and clear.
I was glad for the restrictions in the Senate race because we know it would get nasty. I wished it had included mailings. I don’t live in Boston so I haven’t received mailings, but I haven’t seen independent TV ads as far as I can recall. I don’t think independent expenditures per se are inherently evil.
No shocker that Marty’s had the support of regular, hardworking families all across Boston. If you’ve taken a look at how increasingly unaffordable the city is, it’s no wonder. He is clearly the candidate of the non-millionaires.
Connolly doesn’t have this kind of support because, quite simply, he hasn’t earned it. He doesn’t have the record Walsh does from his years of legislative service or the working class background.
Whining about the fact that Marty’s earned so much support among regular people just seems uncouth.
it just so happens that you support the guy who is getting the cash from these organizations, so it’s fine with you. Hypocritical.
Yvonne Abraham has a good column today talking about the influence of organizations.
has been writing puff pieces about Connolly for months.
enough already.
Is that really your argument? We should ignore anyone who appears to be biased on either side? Then obviously we should totally ignore everything you have to say, right?
is that one columnist’s take does not prove anything, particularly when that columnist, a week before the preliminary, printed what was essentially a Connolly press release on the Trotter and his plans to save our children by antagonizing the evil BTU.
You want to ignore me, go ahead. I’m not going to apologize because I happen to have a strong view on this election. There are some issues on which I don’t agree with Marty Walsh, but John Connolly was my least favorite of the major contenders by far. I would have cringed to see a Connolly-Conley runoff, but probably would have gone with Conley. I don’t agree with John Connolly’s agenda for Boston. You two (whatever johnk wants to assert) appear to prefer him. That’s your choice.
Just don’t let the way you express it drive people in the other direction. Whatever you think of Abraham, dismissing her opinion based on your perception of her bias is just an ad hominem attack. Sure you don’t want people to dismiss what you have to say out of hand because of your past posts and comments, do you?
In any case, I am far from a Connolly supporter. I really don’t like either candidate all that much, but like the vast majority of the voters in Boston who did not vote for either guy in the prelim, I have to choose one of them. I am definitely going to vote for one of them. I really would much rather make my decision based on a positive discussion of vision, and agenda, rather than character attacks and guilt by association.
I would rather supporters of either candidate actually discussed their candidates vision in a positive fashion instead of launching cheap attacks at the other side. Maybe Conolly’s agenda is bad for Boston, so tell me about that rather than trying to convince me he is a bad person. Tell me why Walsh’s vision is a better one.
If I end up disliking both candidates, then I will probably just choose the one I think most likely to lose to a better candidate next time around.
including numerous why-I’m-voting-for-him diaries. I’d even say the vast majority of Walsh posts have been positive..ly glowing about him. I would hope you’ve read them — many were far better than I could have ever hoped to be able to do, even if my sentiments would be much the same.
There’s room for the Fenways and I’s of the world, too. I’m an enthusiastic supporter of Walsh and am happy to talk about why, but I also want to make it very, very clear — as in crystal — that I think Connolly would be a terrible, no good Mayor of Boston.
No one would have a problem with Fenway or me writing mean-sounding things about Boehner or GWB, if they had the virtue of being true and were important for people to know, so why should there be a double standard here? In fact, I’ve written many of those before.
So, are our arguments true? If so, they should be valid. Let’s see.
Is it true that John Connolly has made whopping lies of omission about his career? Yes. Undeniably.
Is it true that his “Education Mayor” schtick doesn’t hold up to serious scrutiny for those who care about a strong public education system? Yes, his seeking the Stand endorsement is proof enough of that alone.
Is it true that wealthy developers have backed Connolly’s campaign with large volumes of bundled max donations, providing him with more than enough to compete, making the Marty ‘big money’ critiques seem silly? Absolutely. 9 or 10 other candidates would have loved to have Connolly’s warchest a couple weeks ago — and if Golar Richie had it, this race would undoubtedly look very different right now.
Our arguments have been valid. I know that no one expected Marty to do anywhere near as well as he has — that he would be the no-name candidate who couldn’t get votes outside of Dorchester and, earlier on in this race, few even gave him a shot of getting past the prelim — much less winning it.
I think that’s why it’s struck such a nerve, too. Regular people are fighting back. Too many aren’t used to seeing that and recoil. If I had to pick a favorite positive about Marty, that would be it: the fact that he’s inspired so many to fight on, that he knows so many of us struggle just to get by… and that he wants to do something about that. That is the kind of guy that drives the passion in me to write about this kind of stuff at 12:32AM, instead of going to bed… and that’s why Marty’s going to beat all the odds, overcome the entire establishment, and win this thing.
Everyone knows this. He didn’t grow up eating caviar and kowtowing to those who would make it more difficult for him to afford living in Boston. he wasn’t content to beg for scraps. Shocker.
They weren’t wild fans of Elizabeth Warren or Deval Patrick, either. Lot of good it did the MSM then, too…
Yup. I love the guy, I love these organizations and have no problem with it. That said, I also would have been fine with Stand spending money on their boy, as I’ve already made clear on BMG.
So I’m not hypocritical on this at all.
People can make their judgments on who that money is coming from, that’s fair… but you’re simply wrong to describe the groups contributing to Walsh’s campaign or spending independently on behalf of it as anything other than working family groups and labor groups. If you want to attack these groups supporting Walsh, you’re attacking working families and labor, some of the core groups in the Democratic Party — and the ones fighting to get back to the days when we all could have a slice of the American dream if we were willing to work hard and play by the rules.
Trust me, attacking those groups won’t go over well — not here. These are progressive organizations that may not be so popular among the media elites, as I noted above, and certainly not so popular in places like South Carolina… but as you saw during the preliminary… the rank and file person in Boston is deeply concerned with how they can continue to afford to live in the city they know and love and they’re willing to fight for it.
These people are understandably gravitating toward Walsh, because Walsh is the only candidate with the kind of record that proves he’s willing to take on the truly powerful interests in Boston (wealthy developers, the downtown business community and the like) that have made the city so difficult to afford. They’re gravitating toward Walsh because he’s the only candidate (at least remaining) who understands what it’s like to come from a working family in the city of Boston, which like it or not is important.
As Ernie says, Marty Walsh grew up 1 toilet Irish and John Connolly 10. When it comes to prioritizing just what a politician will focus on, all too often that matters. Lots of politicians talk about the need to protect the middle class and working families, but it’s no coincidence that it ends up being the Liz Warrens and Marty Walshes of the world who are the ones that end up doing all the real legwork. It’s funny how they’re the ones who not only talk the talk, but walk the walk — consistently supporting the causes of working families, and not just talking about it while voting to give away millions in corporate tax welfare for powerful developers that is completely unnecessary and doing nothing for the middle class or working poor.
There are exceptions, of course, but not too many of them — and John Connolly’s unfortunate positions on education, that would gut the public education system, as well as the fact that he’s kept so much of his background on the DL, make him being an exception very doubtful.
I say that with regret. I was a huge fan of Connolly’s when he was on the City Council, in a day and age when I had never even heard of Marty Walsh, but unfortunately the more I learn about Connolly, the less I trust him.
Contrast that with Walsh: the more I learn about Marty, the more I’m stunned to have such a high caliber progressive and champion of the rank and file so soon after Liz Warren.
oh my ….. take a break and get a hold of yourself.
Instead of this foolish nonsense. Could you please give us specifics on Connolly’s education policy. You just repeat generalizations and sound foolish. I’ve asked before and you keep on generating this BS instead. I’m starting to think that you have no idea.
should I address one of your questions when you’ve so thoroughly ignored any information or answers I’ve ever provided, including those I’ve gone out of my way to link and quote from to correct false and/or untruthful suppositions you’ve made, such as below.
You parade through this entire diary and its threaded comments as if Working America is some shadowy organization, I correct you and specify exactly who they are and what they’re all about, then you insulted me.
And now you want me to in good faith address questions you have (which I have in fact addressed on BMG before and feel no need to rehash), so you can ignore whatever I write and insult me some more?
Get a hold of myself, indeed.
I don’t dislike Walsh and I’m not “for” Connolly. It these warped entries that I’m responding to. This post is the culmination and asking these same questions with the same rubbish you post as the response. You provide nothing but talking points and generalizations. Sorry you are upset about that, but it’s what you are doing and you are doing it over and over.
on this site:
You want substance? You’ll get substance.
Half of Connolly’s standard stump speech is about the Trotter school. It was named an “Innovation School” and a “Turnaround School,” the principal was allowed to fire most of the no-good lazy union teachers (65% turnover in a couple of years), and now it’s gleaming. New library, spiffed-up classrooms. John asks, pleadingly, “Why can’t we do this for every school?”
He doesn’t tell you that, as part of the bargain, the Trotter also got “increaased funding.” Or that the funding came from the Gates Foundation and federal grants passed on by the state pretty much exclusively to schools that adopt such “flexbility plans.” No mention that its new library (Per the Globe, “Two thousand books, gallons of paint, new carpet and shelves were just a few of the additions made to the library”) came courtesy of “Target and The Heart of America Foundation.”
Quoth the assistant principal in the Globe article: “Not every school in Boston Public Schools has a library like this, so it’s special for us.” Indeed, the Trotter “competed against eight other BPS schools, writing grants and applying, for the chance to get a new library. ‘This library reaffirms our student’s dignity,’ [Principal Mairead] Nolan said. ‘It shows the kids they matter and that they deserve the best.’”
I’m all for getting the kids at the Trotter “the best.” They do deserve it. But so do the kids at all our other schools. As to the councillor’s question, “Why can’t we do this for every school?” Because we’re not having a serious conversation about providing that level of funding to every school. Instead, time and time again it’s only the schools that play by the “reform” agenda that are showered with foundation and government cash. Maybe, just maybe,
John Connolly insists on extended school day. He’ll tell anyone who’ll listen that he, alone on the council, voted against the latest BTU contract over it. You know who else is interested in that? The BTU. They’re just not willing to ask teachers who work many hours outside the building and spend part of their meager paycheck buying supplies the BPS won’t to expand the day with no additional pay. If Connolly really wanted an extended day more than anything, he’d be open to negotiating in good faith. Instead he’s run on “getting tough” on the BTU, tougher than Menino. Funny, since Menino’s administration took the position that “residents of Boston should not have to pay for the extended hours, and Menino has filed legislation allowing the city to have longer school days without paying teachers a premium.”
To hear the media tell it, Connolly’s a hero and everyone else a union sellout for not forcing a contract with longer hours, but no more pay, down the BTU’s throat. They like the KIPP model: appallingly low pay for teachers in the building from 7 to 5:30. Already, proponents of these “reforms” are pushing, as a virtue, the “new model” of 20-somethings teaching for a few years before going to law or business school.
That’s not the society I want. The charter/voucher/”innovation school” movement creates Potemkin Village schools for those who get into them, with disproportionate funding and ability to exclude troubled students. The rest are left to rot in an underfunded public system, whose failures will be blamed on the union. Rinse and repeat.
And for anyone telling you the Globe cares about the “outside money” issue as you do, rather than just pushing Connolly’s substantive agenda, I call bullshit.
When I see a contribution from Joe Blow, I assume that Joe is most likely representing himself. When I see large expenditures by some organziation, I have no idea what their motivations are and I don’t want to have to spend a lot of time researching each organization to try to figure out what they think they are going to get in return for their rather large spending.
That’s the problem. Is it really that they think that Walsh is going to be good for “working families” or is it just that they think that he will rubber stamp construction projects that will employ people in the construction trades.
http://www.workingamerica.org/
http://www.workingamerica.org/issues
you purposely avoided the foundation of the question.
So I am going to read their website and take everything they say about themselves at face value? Give me a break. If you believe that, then we should all just go look at each candidates websites and make our decisions purely based on what we read there.
Working America basically equates to the AFL-CIO, but for non-members. In a day and age when union membership has been attacked so severely that barely 10% of the country belongs to a union, are you really going to attack an organization allied with the AFL-CIO, to give a chance to build labor support among non-members?
You know… people who want an America that’s strong for everyone, where people have decent health care, the opportunity to organize at their workplace and can count on a government that won’t shut down because Tea Partiers threw a tantrum over established law?
This is the organization that can’t be trusted and you’re going to lump in with some corporate and shadowy Super PAC?
Would it have *really* taken you anymore than 30 seconds to have gone to their wikipedia page and read the first paragraph?
I imagine the 30 seconds it would have taken to do that would have been a lot less time than the two posts you wrote complaining that you didn’t know what the organization was and couldn’t trust it as any different from corporate Super PACS.
So, can we all agree that Working America is a perfectly respectable organization and that ANY candidate should be proud to have their support, as many of our favorites on BMG would be the first to say, including Liz Warren — who I door knocked on several occasions for *through* Working America and allied organizations, which no doubt knocked on tens of thousands of doors for Liz.
furry kittens?
Why do you hate America!
These are your comments to others here, you are sounding like someone from the Tea Party.
Your attitude on this thread has been decidedly unappealing.
he’s getting under my skin.
I addressed a point he tried to make through providing more information, based on facts and surrounded by fair-minded arguments.
You respond by ignoring all of it and trolling with an absolute asinine post.
Good day, sir. Good day.
I’m done with that, my comments are based on your response to those who have offered a different opinion to you. Somehow they hate unions or hate working families. Screw that. I have a distaste for that nonsense and I’m done with that. Make a case for Walsh or tell people why Connolly’s position hurts people or bad on education like I’ve noted in other posts. You have given us nothing.
I cannot tell from that website what the AFL-CIO thinks it is going to get in return for getting Walsh elected (or what it is trying to stop from Connolly). That is why I hate to see big outside money in any race.
BTW, I don’t think that unions are bad organizations, but I do recognize that in the course of trying to get the most for their members, sometimes they don’t do the best thing for non-members. I don’t want to see any one interest group control the outcome of this election.
it’s just these bizarre responses.
has been slanted and hypocritcal. Elizabeth Warren took in contributions of over $5M from unions, including large amounts from LIUNA, Sheet Metal Workers, and Government employee unions. President Obama raked in $400M! Walsh has received a huge amount from unions, primarily building trades unions, which he would NOT have to negotiate with. He has gotten the support of the Firefighters, but not the teachers, though this should change. As Democrats, do we oppose the dues of working people being used to elect candidates who would be supportive of working people? If so, where was the outrage in the Warren and Obama races?
I’m talking about organizations trying to influence elections, and in a mayoral election, these dollars have a significant impact as the pool of money is much smaller. It’s buying an election plain and simple. So to me it’s a character issue with the candidate.
So why do you keep calling them “organizations” when you know they’re unions?
Trust me, I have been biting my tongue, but enough is a enough already. BMG has been avoid/burring this.
Globe editorial
We have gone through this man, many times, it purposely takes away from the candidate. They should be the ones talking and they should own what they do, both positive or negative. But everyone already understands this, and have looked the other way.
I’ve seen nothing sketchy about the group yet. They supported Elizabeth Warren and they’re supporting Marty Walsh. Both of those candidates have proven track records and agendas I support.
The Globe has been pushing the Back Bay “reform” agenda for longer than I’ve been alive. I can’t even stand to read their editorials anymore. Sure, Connolly’s getting his money from individuals. Because the individuals who have money are the ones who want him. How much money has he taken in from top employees of Bank of America, which tricked people into foreclosure? Fidelity, which holds our city and state ransom every couple of years for tax breaks, then moves the jobs away anyway? How about Bain Capital and our white-shoe law firms? This guy spent months begging for outside money from a group that gets its money from the Waltons, until he decided it would be better to play the “I deplore outside money” card than be associated with that crowd in heavily Democratic Boston.
And trust me, you haven’t “been biting [your] tongue.” You bash Marty Walsh at least ten times a day.
the basic premise is that the candidate should speak for themselves, deliver their own message and own their campaign. That’s it. If it were Connolly he’d be getting the posts, which BTW I already called him out on. This is the first POST I made on the topic on Walsh. I’ve commented and noted that it should be a post but never posted. Stop the BS.
on the issue, and I respect that you posted on Connolly when he was about to take the Stand for Children money. But your post vs. comment distinction is a little disingenuous. The site consists of both and you’ve had nothing good to say about Walsh since the day after the preliminary.
It’s unfortunate that we’re rubbing each other the wrong way this week. I’ve generally agreed with what you’ve had to say. But you called Ryan an “unbalanced jackass” and you’re telling me that I’m “nutty” and “bizarre,” so it’s not surprising there’s some conflict.
He was like the USS Constitution firing on HMS Guerriere. Let me assure you, the remainders of your argument was not worth towing back to port.
please read.
What’s wrong with judging candidacies based on which interests are giving? If all I knew about two candidates was that big labor was giving to one and big oil to the other I’d vote for the one getting from big labor, though I do think individual donors to groups seeking to effect election outcomes should be disclosed. Also, I think there is quite a bit of merit to third-party validation.
You really want to quote something that includes this:
We all know anyone can form that, but Working America is not that.
All this tells me is the writer of that editorial was no more interested in Wikipedia’ing “Working America” than you were. The Globe’s — and your — laziness is not a valid criticism of Marty Walsh.
I’ve already described what Working America above, so check back there for details.
What’s important though, as Kitty said, is that no one was complaining here when it was Working America donating to Liz and having their members knocking on doors for her. No one complained because it would have been ridiculous to do so: Working America is made up of regular working people and progressives and allies with the AFL-CIO. Vilifying them is unseemly, but the elites and establishment I guess is desperate and hoping all too many other people are too lazy than to do a simple Wikipedia search.
Unfortunately for those elites and the establishment, it doesn’t matter. The people of Boston are sick of having a Boston for the haves and have nots and are not buying what any of the elites, including those on Morrissey Boulevard, is selling.
Telling the truth is a character issue for me in a candidate. LIke …. were you really a teacher? Are you a development attorney? Things like that.
then you can decide.
The problem is that’s it’s hidden 3rd party organizations that send the message instead.
Marty Walsh:
John Connolly:
It doesn’t take much reading between the lines here to understand why most labor unions – including the Super PACs they fund – would be supporting Walsh over Connolly.
Walsh want to speak for himself.
He does. He’d also like others to speak on his behalf.
first honest thing I read here today
1. It’s a loaded question. Have you stopped beating your wife?
2. It’s factually untrue. Marty has been everywhere and has been addressing these issues all along. All along. It’s practically all he gets from the media, and he addresses it every time. To their chagrin, I’m sure.
3. Like almost every time you’ve been forced to make an argument, you’ve made a bad, terribly generic one that could equally apply to John Connolly. Why are you the one who has to take up that Torch?
Note the fact that I don’t care — just making a point — since we’re all here to make arguments. If we weren’t willing to defend the candidates we liked because of some lame ‘they should defend themselves from attacks on the internet’ since all of 10 people may read most of them this far down, then what is a BlueMassGroup for?
This is a discussion site and it would be much more interesting if next time you didn’t feel the need to ask loaded questions. If these are the caliber of your arguments… you really have nothing.
I mean John Connolly, as demonstrating that the same argument could be made of you. As I said, I don’t think it’s a valid argument. You should continue to provide your thoughts… just not with loaded questions, please.
So let me get this straight, if it’s not a candidate’s message, we ‘can’t decide,’ ie don’t need to know.
So the fact that Connolly was never a real teacher (for any significant length of time, anyway), but has appeared to claim otherwise throughout the election is immaterial… because the truth is not a part of his campaign message?
The fact that he’s really an elite, well-paid development/real estate attorney doesn’t matter… because he doesn’t want to talk about it?
Do you realize how absurd your argument is here?
Or hypocritical, given your obsessiveness in decrying an organization comprised of friends of the AFL-CIO? We can’t trust Marty because an honest to goodness organization of progressives support him — that you’ve lumped in with Ebil SuperPACs because Wikipedia’ing is such bother — but we have to look past all of Connolly’s lies because he’s not including the lies as part of his campaign message?
And they are lies — lies of omission, sure, but they’re are lies nonetheless.
your position ….
latching onto the little tidbit at the end, ignoring all the rest, isn’t exactly forthright.
That said, you really want to compare Bank of America, Goldman Sachs, HMOs and Exxon Mobile to unions? Seriously? Because they’re not. They’ve all played their part in crushing unions to the point where what unions can spend is a tiny drop in the bucket.
But let’s talk about Citizens United for a second. Though I will gladly see union expenses capped when BoA, GS, HMOs and EM is capped, is CU even at play here? Does that relate to the Boston race?
You’ve given no evidence. In fact, I’ve been around the block once or twice when it comes to OCPF issues and know enough to know that unions can give and spend more than, say, you’re average PAC. There are tradeoffs, however, in a stiff maximum limit for contributions over a given year *in aggregate* for all campaigns.
It should also be pointed out that, completely unlike anything required by Citizens United, unions are required to report any money they spend on behalf of a candidate within 10 days of that money being spent. In fact, without that critical difference, much if not all of your entire post would not have been possible.
Now, if you want me to respond any further, you have to address the hypocrisy I pointed out before you decided to troll me yet again. As a reminder:
look in the mirror.
You are trying to make it seem that there is no conflict of interest with taking money from the building trade unions. That is clearly false. The mayor has a lot of influence on large-scale development in Boston. Clearly the trade unions would rather have as much construction as possible, regardless of whether such construction would be good for the city.
So my concern would be that Walsh is not going to be a sufficient watch dog over development in Boston.
I really would rather neither candidate allowed outside expenditures on their behalf. If unions want to organize their members to contribute directly to Walsh, I have no problem with that.
I would not rule out Walsh purely on this basis, but it really is a strike against him for me.
that the building trades have an interest in who is mayor, but this is much deeper for them. They feel that they’ve been loyal Democratic soldiers for a long time, and now one of their own has a legitimate chance. It’s not so much selfishness as a point of pride. With regard to development, I’m more concerned about putting a real estate lawyer in there than a former laborer.
That’s the problem.
I had to nix your beef on outside spending, because that’s just a bad argument. You know labor doesn’t have a lot of money individually, so has to collect it through small donations in PACs over the course of years… whereas wealthy interests can max out to campaigns (and max out their wives and kids and get their co-workers do to the same) and deliver just as much if not more cash directly. You haven’t addressed that issue at all in this thread and I’m beginning to wonder why.
Why is Connolly getting big donations from extraordinarily wealthy individuals okay, but labor pooling its resources not? That’s what you have to answer before continuing to make your argument that outside money is “unfair.”
I would much rather that both candidates just took money from actual residents of Boston and not take any outside expenditures. To the extent that is not the case, I consider that a strike against either candidate.
that approach ultimately breaks down, when Candidate A can get oodles of max donations from bona fide Boston residents and Candidate B is supported mainly by people who don’t have a spare $500 to donate.
You just rehashed your position. That’s not an answer as to why it’s fair to support a system that benefits extraordinarily wealthy max contributing bundlers, many of whom come from “outside,” but not the little guys.
I want a little rational behind that, like 2-3 reasons.
at fingers
Labor organizations are supporting someone they see as a labor guy. That’s kinda what they do.
with the police contract.
Connolly tried the People’s Pledge last week and it fell on deaf ears, I agree that it looked DOA and something that would be quickly forgotten. Probably for the reason you state.
Another push by Connolly this week, interested to see where it goes.
That’s all he has? The People’s Pledge?
And he’s out there practically begging Walsh not to go negative. Why? Because he knows he’s a fraud with the resume and already in the tank.
And he a wuss. By that I mean he’a never been in a fight. A political fight. Or has he made tough votes. Just a few. And he acts like they were votes on the Civil Rights Act.
Connolly is soft and running scared. Not good 5 weeks before election
yeesh, releasing an internal poll? That’s Charlie Baker bad. If they think they were helping Connolly, they didn’t.
When John Connolly refuses to take any money raised by big-money downtown attorneys, especially those dealing in the world of development, when he gives back every dime he’s collected from that “special interest”, then Marty should do the same with unions. Until then, this is just silly. Big name attorneys can bundle tens of thousands of dollars in checks without any negative appearance? As if they don’t have an agenda? But working people who belong to a union who’s dues are combined to a single payment to support the efforts of working families, that money should be returned?
This stuff is just ridiculous. And all the moreso when Connolly was against this gimmick before he was for it.
but this is about the candidate standing up and running their own campaign. If Walsh got individual donation to his campaign and he’s the one being accountable for his message, then no problem.
you’re not reading what people are writing and actually addressing those points.
Case in point, the way you just rehashed your same argument that completely ignored thinkliberally.
and yes in your world, I’m the troll. Oh boy.