Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

  • Shop
  • Subscribe to BMG
  • Contact
  • Log In
  • Front Page
  • All Posts
  • About
  • Rules
  • Events
  • Register on BMG

Coakley Talks PACs and Platform

April 25, 2014 By massmarrier

Coakley with flagIt’s not exactly driving the money changers from the temple, but Martha Coakley wants outside cash out of the MA race for Governor. Today she called for a people’s pledge for the Dem candidates to eschew super PAC blind contributions. She’d found that competitor Steve Grossman (MA Treasurer and Receiver General) would benefit from a forming super PAC. She’s agin it and told me she was surprised and frankly disappointed.

She came by her view honestly, railing against Citizens United, to the point of getting other AG’s to start campaigns in their states for an amendment to overturn the SCOTUS decision. She also is trying to return the power to states to regulate campaign finance in their borders.

She joined Left Ahead today for a chat. By the bye, I did ask whether there was friction as both she and Grossman competed. She claims collegiality and that when they meet at debates and such they are pleasant and keep to issues.

Click below to listen in as we speak of the campaign and her particular issues. While having a solid law-enforcement/criminal-justice career, she is not running as the law-and-order candidate. Rather, her platform covers a wide range. We touched on many planks. For a few examples, we concurred on getting involved earlier and better with kids as well as adults to avoid incarceration, ensure real rehabilitation and enable reintegration into society. On the other hand, she has health-care proposals for reducing costs, emphasizing mental health and more, but does not share my love of single-payer, which she described as not in itself “a way to save costs.” We seemed to meet in the middle on fiber for internet speed. I am chagrined at how European and Asian nations skunk us with our feeble copper to their fiber. She agreed that we should be a leader in such technologies and as governor would work toward that…otherwise no promises.

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/lefties/2014/04/25/coakley-hits-all-issues-in-governor-run.mp3

While many of the planks she proposes are fundamental, progressive sorts, she is convinced she’d be able to realize them. She speaks of massive infrastructure improvements and maintenance in areas like transportation and telecommunications. She seems undaunted by the prospect of getting them legislated and funded. She compared these to health care, in that we didn’t ask whether it was possible, rather how to accomplish the reform. Listen in as she speaks of areas where she worked with the legislature on manifesting big goals.

~Mike

Please share widely!
fb-share-icon
Tweet
0
0

Filed Under: User

Comments

  1. hlpeary says

    April 25, 2014 at 7:06 pm

    Words and actions…Coakley’s are not matching up…Kayyem calls her bluff on today’s PAC issue stunt:

    magov14.com/kayyem-release-juliette-kayyem-responds-to-martha-coakleys-email-to-her-regarding-peoples-pledge/

    • sabutai says

      April 25, 2014 at 9:36 pm

      Ugh. It’s got it all: needles posing: (“Thank you for your renewed interest in pursuing a People’s Pledge”), smug instruction on how to campaign (“discussions about such detailed issues are best done in a face-to-face meeting”) and even a needless slapdown (“in the future I would greatly appreciate if you refrain from using my personal email account”).

      I get that Kayyem is trying to score points on this issue same as everyone else. But when you correct people publicly, the intent usually isn’t to change behavior but to claim higher ground. Why not identify by name and number the objectionable parts of Coakley’s proposal?

  2. massmarrier says

    April 25, 2014 at 7:12 pm

    …went directly at Grossman, attributing to Avellone:

    “In August of 2013, I received a letter from Treasurer Steve Grossman asking me to sign his ‘People’s Pledge.’ In the letter, he asked me to join him in ‘fighting the influence of unlimited and unaccountable outside interest group spending in the 2014 campaign for the Democratic gubernatorial nomination’. I proposed a pledge, called the Commonwealth Pledge, that went even further on stopping outside influences. He was not interested. Now, 8 months later, the Treasurer’s close friend has opened his own Super-PAC in an attempt to spend outside money in a Democratic Primary. We know Super-PACs are all about special interests having special influence on the election and the candidate. This is hypocrisy at its worst and it is bad for the Democratic Party. Lining up big special interest money to spend in a Democratic primary is not good for the Party or its ability to appeal to ordinary citizens. We are the Party that should be inclusive, fair, and for everyone – not special interests.”

    —
    Sheila B. Lalwani
    Communications Director
    Press Secretary
    Avellone for Governor

  3. methuenprogressive says

    April 25, 2014 at 8:52 pm

    “Voters should determine who wins elections, not outside money!” – Steve Grossman.
    http://bostonherald.com/news_opinion/local_coverage/2014/04/with_super_pac_support_steven_grossman_changing_tune

  4. Pablo says

    April 25, 2014 at 8:52 pm

    According to David S. Bernstein:

    Avellone reports $788 raised 1st half April. Not a typo. #magov

    — David S. Bernstein (@dbernstein) April 18, 2014

  5. bluewatch says

    April 25, 2014 at 10:15 pm

    So, this is the same Martha Coakley who recently had to pay $24,000 in fines because of campaign finance violations!

    And now, she’s acting holier than thou about campaign money.

    What a hypocrite!

    • methuenprogressive says

      April 25, 2014 at 10:56 pm

      What a hypocrite!

      • bluewatch says

        April 26, 2014 at 8:54 am

        So, Martha Coakley is the Attorney General responsible for enforcing campaign laws.

        And, Martha Coakley was caught violating the laws she’s supposed to enforce.

        And, Martha Coakley has Emily’s List and millionaire Barbara Lee.

        And, Martha Coakley refused to sign a People’s Pledge.

        Grossman is correct about who should determine elections, but Martha is using outside money and has violated the law. Steve Grossman deserves an equal playing field.

      • kbusch says

        April 27, 2014 at 11:04 pm

        You realize that one can be disturbed by the Coakley campaigns’ issues with campaign finance and also simultaneously believe Coakley is our best choice for governor. One doesn’t have to reduce the world into a simple good/evil, black/white, for us/against us thing.

  6. methuenprogressive says

    April 25, 2014 at 11:13 pm

    Is it motivated by greed? $45,000.00 in cash from the liquor industry, who Grossman supposedly “regulates,” and this:

    Treasurer wrestles with potential conflicts over family firm
    State Treasurer Steven Grossman’s family marketing firm touts an impressive list of high profile clients that includes some of Boston’s biggest private sector names: the Bruins, the Celtics, J.P. Morgan Chase, and the high-powered law firm Mintz Levin.

    Those organizations each have something else in common. They all have lucrative financial relationships with the state Treasury or the Massachusetts State Lottery, which Grossman oversees.

    Grossman declined to be interviewed about the potential conflicts.

    http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2013/12/16/state-treasurer-grossman-wrestles-with-conflicts-over-family-firm/YNBWu2GsmgweqfN9H5Rn6I/story.html
    And he’s too good to answer questions?
    He’s exactly the kind of shady insider pol the GOP hopes we nominate.

    “Voters should determine who wins elections, not outside money!” – Steve “Flip-Flop” Grossman.

    • Christopher says

      April 26, 2014 at 12:01 am

      …for an endorsement post for your candidate (Coakley?). Let’s not tear down other Dems, especially progressive ones. Don’t whine about what another candidate did to yours either. We can’t control that. What we can control is the content of BMG and THAT is where I call on things to stay positive.

      • methuenprogressive says

        April 28, 2014 at 12:52 pm

        reading recent posts here on BMG.

        I think Juliette Kayyem is the most interesting candidate. I really like her background. She’s a candidate who can inspire and excite voters. She’ll make a terrific Governor.

        I think Coakley won’t survive the Primary. She”ll be buried under Grossman’s negative campaigning. I know the intellectually lazy think that by objecting to Grossman’s attacks, and not buying into “the cops are Nazis” theme popular here, I “must be in Coakley’s camp,” but no. I just think she’s getting a raw deal from “fellow” Dems enjoying the group-think tear-her-down game.

        I think Berwick is all pie-in-the-sky, and not a fighter. His “Medicare for All” is great, but hardly original. Jamie Eldridge’s bill of the same name was sent to committee months ago. Did Brewick support it? Did he know about it?

        I think Grossman will win the nomination. And lose the general.
        And, unlike many here, I’ll vote for our candidate in the general no matter who it is.

        • jconway says

          April 28, 2014 at 1:25 pm

          And, unlike many here, I’ll vote for our candidate in the general no matter who it is.

          CentralMassDad-not a Democrat or a progressive I might add (though a great contributor here!)-is the only person pledged to that. And EB3 (again not a self-identified progressive or democrat AFAIK).

          I have been quite clear I am ready to hold my nose if she wins-but I also reject the notion it is disloyal of me to fight to ensure a better candidate wins. Or that it is sexist. Or that it means I love Scott Brown or Charlie Baker or whatever other sins Coakley opponents get accused of.

          • methuenprogressive says

            April 30, 2014 at 11:35 am

            I also reject the notion it is disloyal of me to fight to ensure a better candidate wins. Or that it is sexist. Or that it means I love Scott Brown or Charlie Baker or whatever other sins Coakley opponents get accused of.

            You’ve invested a lot of time in playing the victim here.
            How’s that working out for you?

    • JimC says

      April 26, 2014 at 7:33 am

      Do you mean to say a MARKETING firm has HIGH PROFILE clients?

      • methuenprogressive says

        April 28, 2014 at 12:13 pm

        His office hands out lucrative contracts to his company’s clients.

        Grossman declined to be interviewed about the potential conflicts.

        Sooner, or later, Grossman will have to answer questions on this. He needs to set that podium back up.

        • JimC says

          April 28, 2014 at 2:57 pm

          You do know Steve Grossman is our sitting state treasurer, right?

          In your link above, two of the cited examples are the Bruins and the Celtics. So I guess he should refer whatever business it is to the Red Wings and the Knicks?

          • fenway49 says

            April 30, 2014 at 12:39 pm

            I can tell you the Lottery was advertising at the Garden long before that. The scratch tickets are new, but Red Sox and Patriots versions came along around the same time, and those teams make more off the deal.

            It’s also not surprising that one of the top few law firms in Boston advises the treasurer’s office. Mintz Levin was a national leader in public finance law when I was in law school, over a decade ago. Also before Grossman was elected.

            JPMorgan Chase I don’t like, but they’re one of the largest banks in the U.S. It’s also not surprising the state treasurer’s office would deal with them, particularly since they’ve acquired so many other companies the office might have dealt with in the past.

            I’ve also seen nothing to suggest that Grossman Marketing made significantly more money off these entities since those deals were reached than it did in the past.

    • kirth says

      April 26, 2014 at 8:47 am

      methuen’progressive’ we heard you the first two times. Enough is enough.

      • SomervilleTom says

        April 26, 2014 at 4:23 pm

        We know Martha Coakley supporter methuenprogressive is in Ms. Coakley’s camp. I hope he keeps posting. I look forward to helping BMG associate the phrase “Martha Coakley supporter” with him. Martha Coakley has spent a career cultivating the support of voters like methuenprogressive. First as a prosecutor and then as AG, Ms. Coakley has encouraged the attitudes that methuenprogressive articulates so eloquently.

        That’s why I support Don Berwick.

        • methuenprogressive says

          April 28, 2014 at 12:59 pm

          He thinks “we are a hairs-breadth away from martial law enforced by a heavily-armed, inexperienced, and undisciplined police force”?
          He thinks the cops are the Gestapo? The Stasi? Nazis, as you have articulated so eloquently?

          • SomervilleTom says

            April 28, 2014 at 1:50 pm

            I stand by my comments.

            I reject your distortions of them.

            • methuenprogressive says

              April 28, 2014 at 1:59 pm

              You claim a candidate should be defined by their supporters.
              Except yours being defined by you.

              • SomervilleTom says

                April 28, 2014 at 3:20 pm

                Who said anything about “both ways”? I’m happy to have myself identified as a supporter of Don Berwick, and that’s among the things I mean by “I stand by my comments”.

                My objection is to your frequent distortions of my comments (and those of others). Please cite a statement from me, in context, where I said that I think the cops are “Gestapo” or “Nazis”.

                I do think that the NSA privacy intrusions rival anything that Stasi ever achieved.

                • HR's Kevin says

                  April 29, 2014 at 8:16 pm

                  You did in fact bring up the Gestapo, Nazis and the Stasi in your criticism of cops. So I don’t think there is all that much of a distortion. I don’t think you realize how often you allow your rhetoric to go way beyond what you actually believe. You do realize that bringing up Nazi/Gestapo in just about any context is highly inflammatory, do you not?

                • SomervilleTom says

                  April 30, 2014 at 8:45 am

                  Removed from context, I could say that both you and methuenprogressive also brought up the Gestapo, Nazis, and Stasi.

                  Context counts.

                  I’ve already said, here, that current surveillance operations of the NSA dwarf those of Stasi. I stand by that inflammatory assessment and comparison.

                  For me, thousands of cops firing automatic weapons at night at unknown targets in the middle of a residential neighborhood is “highly inflammatory”. The video of our governor looking in admiration at the uniformed apparently military honcho he has just yielded authority to is “highly inflammatory”.

                  I used both “Gestapo” and “Nazi” in the context of hypotheticals — IF fill-in-the-blank THEN whatever.

                  Here are some examples, in context:
                  Which part do you challenge

                  The end result is a police state. The world’s experience shows that a police state is more likely to resemble Stalin’s Russia or Hitler’s Germany than any other model.

                  I am very well aware of who the Nazi’s were. I encourage YOU to learn more about who the Germans were who put them in power

                  Sounds like…

                  An important reason why cops are different from Nazis is that in a free society like ours, with active discussion like we have here at BMG, movements in that direction are noticed and objected to. Perhaps the two of you feel that such vigilance is quaint or unnecessary. Some of us disagree.

                  Perhaps the two of you might explain, point by point, how the NSA surveillance program differs from that pursued by Stasi.

                  The “security” so many of us seek cannot be obtained by the muzzle of a gun, no matter what caliber, nor by an ever-larger military (whether you call it “police” or “Gestapo”). The claim of “security” has been used by tyrants and dictators for as long as tyrants and dictators have existed.
                  …
                  The approach the two of you (methuenprogressive and jconway) advocate results in heavily-armed police at EVERY significant public gathering. It creates an insatiable appetite for “intelligence”, as EVERY organization is infiltrated by government agents. Please tell me how the resulting police state differs from those that have preceded it.
                  …
                  The best way to avoid comparisons between over-militarized local police forces and the Gestapo is to … wait for it … NOT militarize them.

                  Nevertheless…

                  To answer one of your perhaps rhetorical questions, I use the phrase “Keystone Cops” to express my contempt for the utter incompetence demonstrated a year ago. I think the term “Gestapo” is an accurate characterization of what will result if and when they ever become competent.

                  The NSA is already conducting surveillance operations that would be the envy of Stasi. I think the behavior of our authorities a year ago demonstrates their passionate desire to be the boots-on-the-ground to enforce the “learnings” from that surveillance.

                  I certainly hope that it remains possible to use Hitler and Stalin as examples of what we wish to avoid. I certainly hope it remains possible to speak out when our own government’s behavior resembles that of a police state.

                  If that offends your sensibilities, then I offer my condolences and invite you to avoid the kitchen if you don’t like the heat.

                • methuenprogressive says

                  April 30, 2014 at 11:38 am

                  That, I hope, offer night courses in history.
                  Enroll as soon as you can.

                • HR's Kevin says

                  April 30, 2014 at 12:53 pm

                  You are utterly incapable of taking any kind of criticism whatsoever. You cannot comprehend the idea that you might ever use counterproductive rhetoric or turn off the very people you are trying to convince.

                  I am not offended by your speech at all. I just find that your hyperbolic metaphors are largely counterproductive to making your point.

                  Ask yourself this. Do you post here to persuade people or simply to satisfy a narcissistic compulsion for attention?

                  All too often you spend an enormous effort trying to prove yourself right in absolutely every respect rather than trying to actually be persuasive.

                  Like it or not, invoking Hitler etc. is going to distract people from paying attention to your actual argument. It might be fun for you, get a rise out of some people and give you a self-righteous rush, but not much more than that.

  7. Andrei Radulescu-Banu says

    April 27, 2014 at 11:11 pm

    The time to call for a People’s Pledge was at the beginning of the campaign. Now it just looks like Coakley is worried she can’t get outside PAC support, so she is suggesting other candidates should also forgo PACs.

    • methuenprogressive says

      April 28, 2014 at 12:03 pm

      Coakley, Grossman, Avellone, Berwick, and Kayyem all were in favor, but negotiations broke down.
      http://www.bostonmagazine.com/news/blog/2014/04/25/martha-coakley-steve-grossman-peoples-pledge/

      In November, there was talk of bringing in former state party chair John Walsh to arbitrate; Grossman’s camp did not sign onto the idea, although versions differ on how strongly. In any event, negotiations continued without an outside moderator. There was one meeting with the candidates themselves, followed by email exchanges and other conversations among the campaigns’ point people.

      That ended in December. According to one version, Grossman killed the Pledge by unilaterally walking away from the negotiations; according to another, Coakley blew up the talks by insisting on unreasonable additions.

      • Andrei Radulescu-Banu says

        April 28, 2014 at 12:51 pm

        This is a nice piece of reporting from David S. Bernstein. According to this, it is unclear who sank the People’s Pledge. Both Coakley and Grossman seem to have had an interest to do away with the Pledge.

        • jconway says

          April 28, 2014 at 1:42 pm

          Grossman killed the Pledge by unilaterally walking away from the negotiations; according to another, Coakley blew up the talks by insisting on unreasonable additions.

          I am sure both are likely true, which is why those of us who want dirty money out of politics shouldn’t back either of these candidates in the primary. But considering her past and her own DC based superpac endorsements, the OP and subsequent comments from the Coakley camp are a little disingenuous in my book.

          • bluewatch says

            April 28, 2014 at 2:00 pm

            I am not sure what you mean with the expression “dirty money”.

            A Super Pac has been formed to help Grossman, but that SuperPAC hasn’t raised any money and hasn’t done anything yet.

            So far, Steve Grossman is working hard and playing by the rules. By comparison, Martha Coakley was caught violating campaign finance rules.

            • methuenprogressive says

              April 28, 2014 at 2:40 pm

              We heard you the first ten times. (sorry kirth)
              Her campaign did what again? Had two checking accounts, of funds legally donated to her, one federal and one state, and then paid some bills from the wrong account?
              That’s terrible. Did an industry she regulates hand her a $75K payment?
              Did she hand out huge state contracts to firms that pay huge sums to a company she runs? That, would be wicked terrible, by comparison. Wouldn’t you agree?

            • jconway says

              April 28, 2014 at 3:01 pm

              But we had a PAC free race between Brown and Warren and Markey and Gomez. I would want a PAC free race here. SuperPACs with their shady disclosure laws and ability to raise unlimited funds are dirty by their very design.

          • JimC says

            April 28, 2014 at 3:24 pm

            But “dirty money” is a stretch.

            • kirth says

              April 28, 2014 at 5:41 pm

              Money doesn’t grow on trees. It’s also known to be the root of all evil. Unless you’re growing your evil hydroponically, money’s in dirt, and therefore dirty. QED.

              • SomervilleTom says

                April 29, 2014 at 9:00 am

                Actually, it’s the LOVE of money is the “root of all evil”.

                Money itself is more neutral than you suggest, I think — unless you’re also being sarcastic (which I enjoy if so).

Recommended Posts

  • No posts liked yet.

Recent User Posts

Predictions Open Thread

December 22, 2022 By jconway

This is why I love Joe Biden

December 21, 2022 By fredrichlariccia

Garland’s Word

December 19, 2022 By terrymcginty

Some Parting Thoughts

December 19, 2022 By jconway

Beware the latest grift

December 16, 2022 By fredrichlariccia

Thank you, Blue Mass Group!

December 15, 2022 By methuenprogressive

Recent Comments

  • blueeyes on Beware the latest griftSo where to, then??
  • Christopher on Some Parting ThoughtsI've enjoyed our discussions as well (but we have yet to…
  • Christopher on Beware the latest griftI can't imagine anyone of our ilk not already on Twitter…
  • blueeyes on Beware the latest griftI will miss this site. Where are people going? Twitter?…
  • chrismatth on A valedictoryI joined BMG late - 13 years ago next month and three da…
  • SomervilleTom on Geopolitics of FusionEVERY un-designed, un-built, and un-tested technology is…
  • Charley on the MTA on A valedictoryThat’s a great idea, and I’ll be there on Sunday. It’s a…

Archive

@bluemassgroup on Twitter

Twitter feed is not available at the moment.

From our sponsors




Google Calendar







Search

Archives

  • Facebook
  • RSS
  • Twitter




Copyright © 2025 Owned and operated by BMG Media Empire LLC. Read the terms of use. Some rights reserved.