BOSTON – State Senator Barry Finegold, Candidate for State Treasurer, announced on Tuesday the official endorsements of Representative Brian Dempsey, Chair of the House Ways and Means Committee, and Representatives Patricia Haddad, Speaker Pro Tempore, and Ron Mariano, House Majority Leader. The Treasurer works closely with House Leaders to develop the state’s annual budget and advise the Commonwealth on financial investments and legislative decisions.
Speaker Pro Tempore Patricia Haddad announced her endorsement saying, “I worked closely with Barry when he was a legislator in the House and saw his commitment to helping the Commonwealth succeed on a daily basis. He’s used his unique experiences in both the public and private sectors to bring change and opportunity not only to his district, but to communities across the state. I know he will be a tremendous asset in helping grow the entire state’s economic health as our next State Treasurer.”
Chairman Dempsey, who has proposed a 36.2 billion dollar budget this legislative session, also announced his endorsement of Sen. Finegold alongside House Majority Leader Representative Mariano. All three legislators have worked closely with Finegold since he entered the legislature as a state representative.
“It’s truly an honor to receive support from my friends in the House,” said State Senator Barry Finegold. “I’ve spent the last eighteen years working as a legislator and know the important role these leaders play in moving Massachusetts forward. I’ve also seen the extent to which these individuals work together with the office of the Treasurer and I look forward to collaborating with them when I become Treasurer.”
Senator Barry Finegold is seeking to become the next Treasurer and Receiver General for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. He currently leads all candidates with cash on hand of over $400,000, more than all others in the race combined, and was the first constitutional office seeker to qualify for the ballot with far more that the requisite 5,000 certified signatures.
Barry Finegold was raised in Andover and Tewksbury and attended public school in both towns. He played football at Andover High School and went on to play for Franklin and Marshall College in Pennsylvania. He graduated from F&M with a major in government and a business concentration. Once he returned to Andover, Barry decided to run for the Board of Selectman, taking on longtime incumbents to win and become the youngest Selectman in the town’s history at age 24. A year later, in 1996, he won election to the Massachusetts House of Representatives as a Democrat representing the 17th Essex District consisting of parts of Andover, Tewksbury and Lawrence. He was the youngest member of his freshman class.
Working during the day and going to class at night, Barry put himself through Massachusetts School of Law in Andover, graduating in 1998, and was admitted to the Massachusetts bar the same year. He holds a Masters in Public Administration from the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University. In 1999 he won the Kennedy School Fenn Award for Political Leadership, and in 2003, he was selected as one of the top 100 young “Democrats to Watch” by the Democratic Leadership Council.
In 2009, he was named Chairman of the Joint Committee on Telecommunications, Utilities and Energy. In this position, he championed renewable energy policies that have helped make Massachusetts a leader in clean energy.
Barry took on a contested primary and general election for the State Senate seat in 2010, and went on to win the race to represent the Second Essex and Middlesex District that includes all of Andover, Dracut, Lawrence and Tewksbury. He won reelection in 2012, sweeping every precinct of all four communities. He has served as the Senate Chairman of the Joint Committee on Election Laws since first being sworn into the Senate in 2011.
Now in his second term as State Senator, Barry has continued with this spirit of taking on new challenges – this time with education and election law reform. Under his leadership, the Senate recently passed the most significant election reform bill in decades, modernizing our election laws and making Massachusetts a national leader in ensuring free, fair and accessible elections. The bill included provisions providing for early voting, same day registration, election audits, online voter registration, and pre-registration for 16 and 17-year olds.
At age 29, he founded the law firm of Dalton & Finegold in Andover. He continues to work as a partner at the firm, which specializes in real estate, estate planning and corporate law. Barry lives in Andover with his wife, Amy, and three children, Ava, Ella and Max.
###
seamusromney says
Especially the support from the Joe Lieberman Democratic Leadership Council.
And then there’s his role as a founder of the MA chapter of the DLC. Stated goals included “reforming [i.e. weakening] child labor laws,” and making it easier to privatize governmental functions without actually proving any cost savings.
If you want a pro-child labor Treasurer, vote Barry Finegold! If you want Joe Leiberman Jr. for Treasurer, vote Barry Finegold!
If you want a Democrat for Treasurer, vote someone else.
fenway49 says
I had the exact same reaction. And don’t forget his work in the Senate for the charter school industry.
fenway49 says
Anyone still want to get on me for suggesting Lehigh’s de facto endorsement of Maura Healey is a point against her?
jconway says
Thought they folded up shop.
fenway49 says
My point a while back was that Lehigh’s repeated columns praising Healey and bashing Tolman drove me more to Tolman’s side, because of Lehigh’s long DLC and anti-union history. Here’s Lehigh, back in 2003, praising the DLC for its “good ideas.”
jconway says
Is that they actually had a good strategy in the alte 80s/early 90s. Combine social moderation and security hawkishness with stronger and more populist responses to Reaganomics. Look at the Clinton who campaigned in 92′-I’d vote for that guy in a heartbeat. The problem is, they realized that they could make more money and have more power by moving to the left on social issues and further to the right on security and economics. And I would argue Obama has done little to change the structure of the party or reorient it towards his vision as much as he has wholeheartedly embraced second term Clintonianism.
Now of course, there is no room for cultural conservatism in the party, which is mostly a good thing, I’ve long given up on splitting the difference on abortion or guns since I don’t think it can work for voters motivated on those two issues. I do think moving further to the left on bread and butter issues can make a difference bringing downscale whites back into the fold, and ensuring we get a permanent Latino majority voteshare.
JimC says
The problem is that the strategy was awful, a gutless betrayal of our ideas. It was (and is) the epitome of choosing short-term gain over long-term victory.
More here.
Ever feel marginalized? You are, and it’s because of the DLC and its rotten ilk. To this day, I don’t trust Hillary, and this is the biggest reason why.
In fairness to them, the party has always had two halves. But they weaponized one half and began the hippie punching. It was and is flat out wrong.
jconway says
The first betrayal was on social issues, and I would argue for the time it might’ve been the only way for a Democratic to win.
Sister Souljah neutralized the party’s weaknesses on race
Safe, legal, and rare was neutralized the party’s weaknesses on abortion.
Clinton backing the Gulf War which Congressional Dems opposed and being to Bush’s right on Israel neutralized national security.
But he ran as a true populist, in the Warren style, and was all about saving the middle class and fighting against trickle down economics. He said it didn’t work, and the whole point of it’s the economy stupid was to run on the left on economics while being comfortably in the center right on social issues and security. And arguably all that betrayal did is undo the damage the New Left caused and restore the New Deal coalition.
But then they made a second betrayal by moving to the center-right on economics and embracing Rubinomics. It was a short term way to ignore the House Republicans who prevented populist economics while dispersing those higher corporate tax revenues in a way to buy time and favors on a ‘growing’ middle class and hide the fact that the fundamentals of the economy-even under Clinton-were not benefiting the middle class. And the pivot on NAFTA, WTO, and trade where he was just as good as Bush or Dole would’ve been.
The first betrayal is undone by the majority of Americans now being solidly socially liberal. Undoing the second betrayal will be a lot more difficult since the funding pipeline from Wall Street is so secure.
Not to be cynical, but we will likely get 8 more years of the same under Hillary that we have had for 16 years under Clinton-Obama. And the religious right boogeyman will be sufficient enough to keep the left at bay for 16′ and 20′. But once the GOP abandons the religious right, a shrinking base from which to draw electoral votes, then politics will get interesting. But they can coast on being the lesser of two evils for at least two more cycles. Sad to say but it’s true.
jconway says
The DLC wing for the most part has won the national security fight. The party is still run by the same people it was in 2004, and Dean and his organization is just another fringe group on the margins hoping to get into his tent. It’s still the Clinton’s party. And the only man who could’ve stopped it and chose to ride with it is the man currently in the White House. Not sure why he did that. Sometimes I even wonder if Obama had been in the Senate in 2002 if he’d have voted for the war like everybody else who wanted to be “viable”.
JimC says
… because it’s not the Clintons’ party. Once he emerged as the alternative to Hillary, he pretty much rolled.
(But yes, he would have voted for the war in 2002.)
jconway says
They had a real smooth convention and she didn’t take the fight to the floor, PUMA got silenced, what kind of Faustian bargain did he make with them? They get to write policy while he is the figurehead? He got stuck with all their people, part of which just has to do with the machinery of government in a two party system, but some of which (Larry friggin Summers!) was self-inflicted. Obviously she declined VP for State (even if Obama wants to insist that Biden got the first choice and picked VP-I just can’t buy that).
There are few issues where it seems like they disagree now.
JimC says
… don’t know how to reply to this.
David says
Yes. I think it’s unfair to Healey to blame her for the views of one of her (apparent) supporters, much less to attribute those views to her without any indication that she in fact agrees with them. It seems more likely to me that Lehigh is anti-Tolman rather than pro-Healey.
fenway49 says
I think this shows a pretty clear pro-Healey stance. But for the most part the things about Tolman that Scot Lehigh finds dubious (most particularly labor ties) are, as they were with Marty Walsh, the things I consider positive.
I’m not saying Maura Healey’s DLC. I’ve got every reason to think she’s not. But the issue was whether Lehigh’s a decent litmus test. Frankly, when the DLC-praising, “reform”-loving crowd of which he’s a charter (pun intended) member, lines up behind someone, it pushes me more to the principal opponent of that candidate.
Christopher says
I would not hold DLC support or affiliation dating back to the golden age of Clinton against anyone. Finegold may not be an ideologue, but he is definitely on the progressive side of the spectrum, and probably about as progressive as a Merrimack Valley Democrat can get away with.
seamusromney says
And if he crows about the DLC liking him now, clearly he still considers them a worthwhile organization.
If personal loyalty forces you to support a DINO, just come ot and say it’s about personal loyalty. None of your friends will think less of you for it, because they’ll want that same loyalty someday. But pretending he’s a progressive is delusional.
fenway49 says
It’s not our problem in the rest of the state if the conservative Merrimack Valley won’t elect a better Democrat. We’ve got two better options in this race.
Christopher says
He is not a DINO and better than any GOPer that could have been elected by a long shot. I have yet to see anything relative to the TRG position that disqualifies him either as a progressive or as someone who could do the job.
Christopher says
He was my Senator until I moved out of his district (but can still look out my window and see his district), but I’m also not as opposed to the DLC as some here are anyway. There is no question he is on the progressive side of the center, though. When progressives wanted to hear from progressive candidates running in the CD-5 special in 2007 ultimately won by Tsongas, Finegold was invited to speak to them; only Jim Miceli was not considered progressive.
jconway says
Can’t imagine a Democrat getting away with saying this bullshit today:
Though some still do, most of us are not ready to be the roll over party again.
michaelbate says
He is cosponsoring a really ugly criminal justice law that attempts to mainly undo the wise SJC decision that life without parole for juveniles is unconstitutional. It imposes a 35 year minimum sentence. It should be left to the discretion of the parole board and the judge.
I feel strongly about criminal justice issues. MA, a supposedly liberal state, has some of the worst criminal justice policies in the nation. I supported the recent “Jobs not Jails” rally on Boston Common and advocate for enlightened policies that seek to rehabilitate.
So I would not vote for Finegold for any office. He is morally disqualified.
Christopher says
…are relevant to the office of Treasurer, how exactly?
FWIW, he often cites one of his very first votes in the House as an example of willingness to take tough votes. It was a vote on the death penalty. Cellucci was pressuring him as were many of his constituents to vote for it. He ultimately voted against it, which won him respect from people who disagreed and he has continued to win elections since.
David says
I am not a fan of the recent trend of dismissing the importance of a candidate’s views on a major public policy issue because there’s an argument that it doesn’t fit squarely within the four corners of the job description of the particular job the candidate is seeking at the moment. No, the Treasurer doesn’t enforce criminal justice policy. No, the next Attorney General won’t have any official authority over whether the anti-casino ballot question passes. But in every case, the candidate seeking a new office is looking for a promotion, and whether a promotion is deserved should be assessed on the candidate’s whole record. It’s fair to emphasize those squarely within the job description, but it’s not a good idea IMHO to dismiss others, since they may tell you a lot about the person’s values. Also, if the candidate gets the promotion, he or she may well seek another one in the future when that issue may turn out to be very relevant.
fenway49 says
If he’s the treasurer and runs for governor in a few years. He’s still young.
And I’ve heard the death penalty story (which is from 20 years ago) so many times, in the exact same words and intonation, that it’s hard to take it seriously at this point. The same claim – “I was under pressure to break the other way” – could be made by many of the 80 other Reps who voted against the death penalty.
Christopher says
So we have 80 reps who stand up for principle against expediency. That’s a good thing it seems. If he runs for Governor we can bring this up, but I like to take things one race at a time.