A story by David Sirota on Pando Daily: http://pando.com/2014/05/08/exclusive-christie-officials-gave-millions-in-taxpayer-funds-to-major-tech-vc-in-apparent-violation-of-pay-to-play-rules/ details how the Christie administration made a $25 million investment in General Catalyst Partners, the venture capital firm that Charlie Baker joined after the 2010 election. Baker made a $10,000 contribution to the New Jersey Republican State Committee several months before the investment thus creating an apparent violation of New Jersey “pay to play” statute. It has not been a good week for Massachusetts Republicans. This story has been diaried on Daily Kos.
Please share widely!
Baker gave a personal donation, after Christie had campaigned for him in 2010. It feels a bit fishy, but I’d need better proof before I start tossing around the pay to play law.
Full disclosure, I’m not a fan of Sirota. He’s self-righteous and mean-spirited.
I’m not either. But that doesn’t mean he’s not right sometimes.
I didn’t say “That means he’s always wrong all the time.”
instead of talking about the merits of the post, which have to do with a possible violation of NJ’s pay to play law?
And I thought some greater mind might come along and show that my bias had gotten the better of me.
Well, I’m certainly no expert on NJ’s pay to play law. But on its face, the post lays out a pretty decent case that Baker ran afoul of it, and his campaign’s protestations that Baker has nothing to do with investing funds, even though he’s working for a company whose whole raison d’etre is, well, to invest funds, strike me as a bit weak.
It’s enough to raise suspicions, I agree.
But other possibilities exist — like, Baker was brought in because they were close on this, and thought he could help. States make large pension investments like this on a daily basis. I am pretty sure you could find a Democratic candidate who works at a VC firm in another state and gave to Steve Grossman. If they got some of our money, it might be suspicious. But I’d cry foul if someone connected that dot.
I just think the bar of proof needs to be pretty high.
(PS. My first paragraph in my first comment is about the merits of the post.)
I am not a regular reader of David Sirota’s work so I defer to others on whether he is a reliable source. It did seeme that the story was interesting enough to bring to Blue Mass readers attention with a link so they can judge for themselves.
Baker’s donation stinks to high heaven and his dancing about he isn’t an employee of General Catalyst but listed them on the donor card, reminds me of Warren Tolman’s dance that he isn’t involved in a online gaming company. Baker citing a loophole in the law (he is exempt b/c of XYZ) is Clintonesque.
I hope BMG holds all candidates to the same standard regarding donations and companies being awarded govt contracts. Rand Paul, David’s favorite Republican, has a great idea. No company or individual can contribute to a party or candidate who receives government contracts. This goes for public unions as well.
Gov. Martha Coakley….could be worse I guess.
I believe this sentence: “No company or individual can contribute to a party or candidate who receives government contracts.” should read…
No company or individual who receives government contracts can contribute to a party or candidate. (“who receives…” modifies company or individual rather than party or candidate)
“”I think there is campaign finance reform — this is campaign finance reform that I support that would be held constitutional — what I would do is I would take all government contracts and I would put a clause in them that says: ‘If you want to do work with the government, if you’re going to get this 10 billion dollar contract if you’re a defense contractor, or if you’re a big union and you’re going to get a big contract, you sign the contract, but part of the clause of the contract says your contract is only valid if you don’t participate in the donation to candidates.'”
Source is Huffington Post
The quote says what I believe was intended.
He had clients but they weren’t really his clients or something.
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/senate-races/302713-democrats-increase-pressure-on-gomez-to-release-client-list
You think his clients want to be harassed by the DNC? Heck, didn’t some want an employment application from Harvard released and some were screaming bloody murder how outrageous a request that was.
Michael Sullivan and Dan Winslow released their client lists. I don’t think releasing employment applications is a requirement.
Harvard University does not have application forms for people who are being considered for employment as professors. There was no application form for Elizabeth Warren to release!
Of course, political trolls are not required to be factual with their claims, especially when they try to hijack a thread by changing the topic.