This post is written by Marty Walz, President of the Planned Parenthood Advocacy Fund of Massachusetts.
Earlier this week, the Planned Parenthood Advocacy Fund announced its endorsement of Maura Healey for Attorney General. The response has been overwhelmingly positive. A few people have wondered why we endorsed Maura when her opponent, Warren Tolman, is a supporter of women’s health. If you’ve been wondering the same thing, read on for insight into why we are confident Maura Healey is the Attorney General we need in Massachusetts.
Maura Healey has been a leader. Indeed, she has been a champion for women’s access to health care. And she’s been doing it from the very place she seeks to lead.
Back in 2007, I was a State Representative and took a leadership role (with former Representative Carl Sciortino) in passing the state’s buffer zone law. Fast forward to 2014. As the CEO of Planned Parenthood League of Massachusetts, I’m invested in preserving the law and protecting the safety of our patients and staff. I can attest that Maura Healey’s work from 2007 to 2014 to enforce the buffer zone and preserve women’s access to health care has been unceasing.
For Maura, there was little time to celebrate after Governor Patrick signed the buffer zone law. She ensured the law did the job it was meant to do: protect public safety. That meant partnering with providers like Planned Parenthood, local law enforcement, and District Attorneys to ensure it was properly implemented and enforced. When the buffer zone law was challenged in court, Maura was an instrumental member of the legal team that successfully defended the buffer zone four times in the federal courts.
In addition, as head of the Civil Rights Division within the Attorney General’s office, Maura assigned herself direct responsibility for responding to the concerns and fears of doctors and staff at reproductive health centers who received hate mail, threats, and other forms of harassment.
In her final days at the Attorney General’s office before dedicating herself as a full-time candidate, Maura spearheaded a Supreme Court amicus brief opposing Hobby Lobby’s efforts to undermine contraceptive coverage in health insurance policies.
From her first to last days working in the Attorney General’s office, Maura made women’s health her priority – and she will continue to champion women’s health when elected as Attorney General.
Massachusetts needs an Attorney General who will prioritize women’s health. Massachusetts voters need elected officials they can count on to make Massachusetts a state that leads the nation in protecting and advancing women’s health. Maura’s unique record of leadership and unwavering focus on protecting women’s access to health care are what earned her Planned Parenthood’s endorsement.
The Healey campaign certainly is showing momentum and gravitas with the candidate’s talents, passion, right-headed (not to be confused with right-winged) thinking and accomplishments being showcased. I am enjoying getting to know someone whom I very mistakenly assumed was a “mini-Martha.”
Carry on!
While Maura is not a politician, Maura has been working toward the Attorney General’s job, and getting results on hugely important issues. Clearly the stakeholders who know her work and what she is able to do are starting to speak out. I hope everyone will look at her record in the office. Her plans for the office which are online are in depth. Clearly I am a supporter.
I would like to know Ms. Healey’s specific positions about privacy and about the militarization of police.
I’m happy that Ms. Healey supports the buffer zone. I’m also aware that this much-needed law has been in place for years — supporting it hardly takes political courage.
While her predecessor has been in AG, government surveillance of citizens has exploded. Ms. Coakley has supported that expansion. I’d like to know if Ms. Healey also supports that expansion.
Similarly, the militarization of police has exploded while Ms. Coakley has been AG. I’d like to know whether Ms. Healey will continue that militarization if elected as AG.
when we talked with Healey a couple of weeks ago, though off the top of my head I don’t recall the specifics.
When you ask “whether Ms. Healey will continue that militarization if elected as AG,” what do you mean, exactly? That’s not a policy dictated by the AG’s office, though certainly the AG could weigh in.
I mean constantly escalating expenditures for armaments, assault vehicles, combat-style communication gear, and so on. I mean a gestalt that transforms our image of “cop” from the neighborhood fixture who knows everybody and everybody’s kids to the uniformed soldier in riot gear who creates an intimidating “presence” at public events.
I mean a society that expects and even welcomes a heavily-armed uniformed military presence at virtually every public gathering.
I’m somehow reminded of the way sand-lot baseball games played in schoolyards by neighborhood kids in the fifties have been replaced by carefully-organized and supervised “organized” ball. We have lost something organic and precious, and replaced it with something manufactured and self-serving.
While I am supporting Warren Tolman, I appreciate that Marty Walz took the time to clarify that she believes both candidates have good records on this issue but that she was particularly impressed by Maura Healey on the buffer zone issue as well. This is not a misleading endorsement like the MassEquality one. While I still feel that Warren Tolman is the best candidate, particularly on women’s issues, it is nice to hear well thought out reasoning and acknowledgement of the opponents merits in an endorsement such as this. This is clearly a big get and will make it more of a race for Tolman.
I have the highest respect for Warren Tolman and would never have believed I would not be supporting him. Several months ago, Maura Healey walked into an event and began introducing herself to activists and discussing issues. She was impressive. I went home and googled her to find out why I had never heard of her and where she came from.
Maura has already been the architect of historical change in her short time at the AG’s office in some brilliantly effective calculations on solutions in the fight for issues we care about.
What wasn’t there was any of the usual steps taken to launch a political career. It looks like she just woke up one day and said to herself, “I love my job and I’m REALLY GOOD at it.”
Maura Healey has shown in a very short period of time that she isn’t about filling the position until the next comes along, but doing the job, REALLY WELL. Maura has the passion to do great things, with the experience to get them done and without extraneous personal ambitions to limit her action.
For those activists that get up every day and work to make change, sometimes feeling like they are just screaming in an empty room, the ease of Maura’s success with marriage equality is remarkable. Voting for Maura Healey will allow her to continue the work of making real change that will directly make a safer and more just society.
I get that same impression from Tolman. He was clearly happy outside of politics for 14 years and decided to come back to public service to serve in an office he clearly has a lot of ambitious plans and directions for. I don’t see it as a stepping stone position for him, but a last hurrah in public service. Either should make a fine AG, but I make my call based on his proven record of delivering on the issues he cares about-which are all the issues most of us care about-getting money out of politics, protecting consumers, protecting the middle class, protecting us from guns and unsafe drugs, and protecting our civil liberties while utilizing restorative justice to reduce recidivism and crime.
Besides the important but ultimately symbolic ‘no’ vote on casinos, I just don’t see Healey making it a point to prioritize those same issues and her record in the AGs office seems to be around issues like protecting marriage equality and women’s rights that Tolman has just as much commitment to and experience fighting for. Either will do a fine job, it’s not a lesser of two evils election, but Tolman clearly has a broader vision for the office and a better record to implement it. IMHO.
What was he doing for 14 years? From Marty Walz’s endorsement we can see Maura doing her job.
What of it? So did I. So did David Kravitz, I believe. So did Martha Coakley and Scott Harshbarger, and Justice Lenk and Justice Gants, and Justices Brennan, Blackmun, Stevens, etc. So did Maura Healey.
…that Tolman has utterly and completely sworn off any connections he has or may have had to the gaming industry at about the same time many tea partiers will admit that Obama was born in the US.
Legitimate questions about the business dealings of someone who wants to be Attorney General are in no way similar. You may be satisfied with his answers, but that doesn’t mean they have been complete or that we know anywhere near the whole story. Insult me all you like. It doesn’t make you right.
I for one do not think it’s reasonable for him to take his name off of patents he had a hand in developing and he can’t rewrite history. The best he can do is sever current ties, and not by having to play six degrees of separation in the process.
There is nothing unreasonable about expecting Mr. Tolman to transfer those patents to somebody else. Ownership of those patents is very clearly a “current tie”, and it should be severed.
If I helped invent something, I’d want to hold on to it thank you very much. Very unreasonable expectation in my book.
No one made him run for office.
Besides, what is the root fear here? Do you all think he’s going to corruptly use the AG’s office to sneak gambling into/force gambling upon the state and reap the rewards personally? It’s not like he has hidden his views on the matter in terms of public policy. As Shannon O’Brien’s endorsement post pointed out, he is among the most ethical people in public service. If anything we need more like him. Having gotten to know him and studied his public career I am confident that he will conduct himself as AG in a manner that is completely above reproach.
Is that the case here? Serious question.
http://patents.justia.com/inventor/warren-e-tolman
Warren Tolman helped invent three pieces of technology to assist in perfectly legal recreation!
I suppose he could seek a ruling from the Ethics Commission on something like this, but Dan Wolf tried that and we lost a potentially great candidate for Governor as a result. I’m not convinced the public is best served by this holier than thou bruhaha.
1. Online gaming for money is NOT legal. Mr. Tolman is much more than a disinterested bystander in the question of whether or not online gaming for money should be made legal.
2. The technology Mr. Tolman holds patents on is presumably MUCH more valuable if online gaming is made legal in Massachusetts.
3. The online gaming industry is working very hard to make online gambling, for money, legal in Massachusetts.
4. The online gaming industry would very much like to see state-sponsored gambling expanded to include online forms of whatever rackets are offered by the state.
5. Holding a patent does NOT necessarily mean the patent holder had anything to with the actual invention. Patent ownership is readily transferred among parties.
You’ve made it clear that you don’t care one iota about gambling (or presumably office holders who profit from expanded gambling). Nevertheless the future of gambling, including on-line gambling, matters to a great many voters besides you.
Mr. Tolman’s reluctance to clearly and decisively divest himself of this hot potato leads me to conclude that he cares more about the potential rewards from these holdings than about the office he seeks.
I think it smells bad. I’ve had more than enough of government officials, of any party affiliation, lining their pockets from investments in areas regulated by the offices they seek or hold. I’m particularly alienated when the practice in question is so harmful to so many people in this state.
It’s up to policy makers to decide whether it will be or not, and he’s not running for an office that enacts legislation. If you think he’s in it for himself you clearly do not know him.
We now know he not only worked at a law firm but worked for Fast Strike Games, that they were not a client of the firm. We now know he holds patents for gaming technology. He was not upfront about that and he still isn’t. Who knows what else he was doing in addition to working at a law firm, which btw, has no trace of him on the site. What else was he doing for 14 years?
I expect this line of attack from Republicans.
This “line of attack” is what happens when a candidate has a potentially embarrassing past and attempts to evade inquiries about it.
I think both your and Mr. Tolman should expect “this line of attack” from anyone who opposes the expansion of state-sponsored gambling in Massachusetts. I don’t think party affiliation is particularly relevant to that opposition.
…and how it might inform his enforcement of relevant laws as AG. I just think people are trying to make his legitimate business dealings in his absence from elected office into something shadier than it is. Even if the worst allegations are true I don’t find it necessarily embarrassing. I find the attacks to be a bit knee-jerk and not particularly relevant to opposition to gambling per se.
Legitimate business dealings can and sometimes do constitute a conflict of interest. Witness Cheney’s affiliation with Halliburton and the amazing parade of windfalls that the company reaped after he became VP. It is entirely appropriate to examine whether a candidate might profit financially from decisions made by the office he seeks.
You’ve made it clear that you don’t care about gambling. You’ve said you oppose jail time for politicians convicted of bribery, extortion, and similar corruption (so long as it’s “non-violent”).
Do you also not care about an obvious conflict of interest?
In another comment, you brought up Mr. Wolf and Cape Air. If Mr. Wolf were running (or being confirmed for) for Director of Massport, his ownership of Cape Air would be a real and very relevant disqualifier.
Legalized gambling, and the role of the state in collecting revenue from it — either in the form of taxes or through direct participation — is almost certainly going to be an issue of direct relevance to the Attorney General for the foreseeable future.
Do you argue that it is mere coincidence that Martha Coakley supports Casino gambling as gubernatorial candidate, and found a creative way to impede efforts to block it as AG?
I find myself wondering just what standards for ethical conduct by government officials you draw. I think the comparison to Mr. Cheney and Halliburton is quite relevant to the argument you seem to be making for Mr. Tolman. By the standard you seem to offer for Mr. Tolman, the billions of public dollars that flowed through Halliburton were just fine (and of course Mr. Cheney had nothing to do with those and had no benefit, direct or indirect, from them).
Is that really what you mean?
If Tolman were to make a decision on who might benefit from a state contract, that would be a concern and closer to the Cheney analogy. I think Coakley is acting on her views both as AG and a candidate which is fine to the extent the law allows. I think so many “conflicts” are more appearances than obvious and I have little patience for appearance arguments. My reference to Wolf is precisely that he wasn’t up for a directly involved position like Director of Massport, but was considering running for Governor. Forcing people to make these choices I think is a great way to keep otherwise committed and qualified people out of public service which I think is a shame.
The state has been seeking ways of getting the Lottery online since at least 2012, when Mr. Grossman formed a task force to “consider” the issue (emphasis mine):
Last January, state Lottery officials asked legislators to pass legislation allowing online lottery games (emphasis mine):
The legislature is apparently doing exactly this, with Bill S.101: An Act relative to lottery online products.
The Attorney General will be DEEPLY involved in a large range of issues involving gambling and online gambling, ranging from establishing and regulations through consumer protection. The legislation is pending, the players — and high-rollers — are lining up, choosing sides, and making strategy and tactics.
We know that Tolman has had involvement with this industry and we know that his position on these matters is basically favorable. The legislature will have to legalize these methods, possibly with input from constitutional offices. Our method of governance will take care of this the way it should without suggesting that someone is disqualified as an ethical matter.
“Tolman, who also works as vice-president of a hedge fund Entrust that invests in other hedge funds, said he will likely step aside from his private sector work sometime early next year to focus on the campaign.”
http://www.patriotledger.com/article/20131107/News/311079699
But here again, no trace of him on its site. So that makes three (3) firms he worked for or with in 14 years, all of which have managed to erase his on-line presence. Wouldn’t everybody care about the work history of an AG whose employers so effectively covered any trace of him?
And before the extreme loyalists get hives, I’d like to clarify that I’m not accusing him of wrongdoing. I am accusing him of silence. Only Mr. Tolman can answers these questions and not doing so lets us know how he will act as AG.
Do law firms usually keep information about former partners on their websites?
Mr. Tolman is not just a “former partner”, he is a former partner who is a candidate for Attorney General — an office of some relevance to pretty much any Massachusetts law firm.
I find Mr. Tolman’s reluctance to sever his ties to “Fast Strike Games” more troubling than his history with Entrust or a law firm, at least at this stage of the campaign. Having said that, I do expect at least one or two of his colleagues from those years to step forward and enthusiastically endorse his candidacy. I also expect those colleagues to be forthcoming with the press — and accurate — about Mr. Tolman’s activities as a former partner.
Keeps info up about someone who leaves. When I’ve left law firms I was gone from the website the next day. There’s no there there.
I think you’re absolutely correct about mere mortals who leave their firms.
At the same time, I suspect that if you were running for AG — and your former partners or managing partners encouraged and supported you — one of them would make themselves available to the press.
I’m nearly certain that if you won the election, your prior law firm would find a place to congratulate you as fast as they earlier expunged you.
Shows no mention of ANY staff member. This is typical for hedge funds, by the way. They are highly secretive.
I take your general point, his private sector work deserves some scrutiny. But expecting private sector website to keep a listing of him after he leaves is a little silly.
Sue — I couldn’t agree more! I don’t ever remember being this enthusiastic about a candidate for AG.
You articulated my feelings and experience learning to respect and appreciate Maura Healey and her candidacy for A.G.
I don’t think I have ever been so excited about an AG race. She has been working in the office for the last seven years. For the last couple she has been in charge of half of the office. She knows how to manage a large law firm. She talks about her role in working on the repeal of DOMA, working with APPLE to make them modify their devices so that people who are blind can use them, and her work with the division that helped people avoid foreclosure. I don’t know how anyone could say that she doesn’t have the vision for the office. She has been there doing it.
Didn’t Tolman sponsor the original Buffer Zone legislation, back in the 1990’s? I feel like an endorsement like this doesn’t really take the candidates’ full voting records into account. Tolman has done a lot for women throughout his career, and Healey just seems to have done a couple cases as part of her job as AAG… I think this endorsement might be a tad biased.