Another successful lawyer and former legislator (both MA houses) is eager to “get back in” and make positive differences. Warren Tolman was on to describe his planks, his approaches, and why he thinks he’s the one to be the next MA attorney general.
For one of the sidetracks we dealt with in the other Dem AG candidate, Maura Healey’s show last week, he thought the two campaigns will in fact finalize a people’s pledge to limit outside money. And with a chuckle, he agreed with me that including those annoying robocalls in it would be welcome.
Tolman is very proud of his efforts as legislator in successes fighting the tobacco industry and campaign-finance and ethics reforms. Click below to hear what he intends to do if we gets the office.
Substance abuse and addiction figure in several key ways. He notes how pervasive they are in MA, as well as how few treatment beds and programs are available. He would squeeze health-care providers to give those who want to quit opiates the same weight as someone who has had a heart attack. He cites an example of a 24-year-old woman whose mother begged in vain for a treatment bed. Instead, the young woman OD’ed. “We failed her,” he said. As well as more treatment, he would crack down on physicians who overprescribe opiates.
Moreover, he refers to stats that half of state health-care money is spent on 5% of patients. He said, “I believe the single biggest issue (for MA) will be health care.” He looks to Chapter 224 as a blueprint for cost containment and said that is a key role for the AG in driving it.
Likewise, he would attack criminal-justice reform from several fronts. He wants reform of mandatory-minimums for non-violent crimes. He would prefer to see mental health care, drug-addiction treatment, and job skills training for such convicted folk. He would rather they wear an ankle bracelet and pee into a cup a few times a week than take up prison space and expense, not exiting any better than entering.
Also, he cites his two daughters and one son as partial motivation for wanting big changes to fight campus sexual assaults. For one approach, he says if elected he’ll start even before taking office to hold a campus summit on the subject. Some schools are with the program but many are lagging. He said it’s too pressing to wait.
Otherwise, he noted that among his issues on his site, were ways he’d use the AG office a little differently and some novel use of technology. For example, he’d have anti-cybercrime efforts and call for smart-gun technology on all new sales. Yet, in consumer protection, he called for traditional AG stances, such as being there for the senior who paid $5000 for a roof repair and no one every showed up.
Tolman figures his advantage headed to the primary is that this race “is about leadership versus being a lawyer.” We can check his speech at this weekend’s party convention to see how he pitches himself.
~Mike
And an additional thanks for your hard work in putting together this informative series, and to both candidates for making appearances.
I think this is what it comes down to in this race for me, and why I made my decision early to back Tolman
I think both candidates to their credit have set a bold and progressive vision for the AG’s office and are committed to transforming it’s potential in a way the incumbent has often fallen short on. I applaud Maura Healey for her work fighting for marriage equality and LGBTQ rights, and for many of her sound policy proposals. With the exception of her personal and largely symbolic at this point vote against casinos, we see very little divergence between the candidates regarding their priorities and what they hope to accomplish. Where we do see a great divergence is on the issue of leadership.
Warren Tolman spearheaded the Buffer Zone law into passage in the Senate, fought for marriage equality early on, and also spearheaded and abided by a landmark clean elections law that many of his colleagues openly disdained and successfully blocked. He has walked the walk and fought the fight on the environment, consumer protection, worker’s rights, women’s rights, gay rights, and against Big Tobacco, Big Business, and the gun lobby. This is someone with a record of success to build on.
As JimC has pointed out, Healey has the advantage, as an AAG of distancing herself from less savory aspects of the Coakley record (her attempts to stop the same referendum Healey supports for example) while also basking in the glow of her successes (mainly the LGBTQ fights and also the AG’s fight to defend the constitutionality of the buffer zones, among some others). What we have not seen thus far, is the kind of leadership that goes beyond that and actually enables the AG to impact legislation and policy on a broader scale. Tolman views the office primarily through the lens of a policy maker, while Healey still views it through the lens of a prosecutor. To me that is their greatest distinction, and the fact that Tolman has been able to win an impressive record on a host of these issues in the past, and that is why in a field of two good candidates he is the best choice.
I have said this before and I will say it again Susan Fargo led on the buffer zone
Healey was claiming she has done more than Tolman on this, when in reality he joined Susan Fargo as a key sponsor early in the process and also has a detailed plan to keep women protected. Susan Fargo clearly was and remains a great champion on behalf of women, and I didn’t mean to imply otherwise in my comments or deny her the credit she is due.
But that’s a fight for another day (and of course I have nothing but sympathy for people who have had to make their way through protestors).
And I regret mentioning it since it seems to be distracting from my other pro-Tolman points, but it is one area where I think we can see a key contrast between making policy in the legislature and enforcing policy as a prosecutor. And I think it goes to the heart of the distinction Tolman mentions on this podcast, mainly, Healey has done a good job of enforcing the law and litigating the cases she has come across, but does that experience necessarily translate into the bold policy visions both campaigns have?
Both say they want to go beyond the boiler plate issues the incumbent has stressed and really take on some powerful and entrenched special interests. I think it helps to have a guy who knows not to bring a knife to a gun fight, and has successfully employed the bully pulpit in the past and collaborated to get legislation passed. To make policy. And Tolman has the record to back up his ambitions and vision for the role.
But on this specific issue I’d agree JimC it is far more complex than a simple soundbite. It is a complex one that actually can pit staunch civil libertarians against women’s rights activists. The freedom to protest vs. the freedom to make personal medical decisions without interference. I think reasonable people can be found on either side of that divide, and it seems likely we may see the Supreme Court reach some sort of compromise that preserves the zone but shrinks it and/or prevents clinic workers from escorting the patients. It seems this should have less significance in the AG race since the litigation will be wrapped up before the primary. But it does illustrate the different roles they played on a key policy question.
We invited interested parties to submit briefs which were due on December 8, 1999. Briefs were received from State Senator Cynthia Stone Creem; the Attorney General of the Commonwealth and the District Attorneys for Middlesex, Norfolk, and Suffolk Counties; Planned Parenthood League of Massachusetts, Inc., Women’s Bar Association of Massachusetts, League of Women Voters of Massachusetts, Massachusetts Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice-Massachusetts Chapter, National Council of Jewish Women, American Association of University Women-Massachusetts Chapter, National Abortion Federation, Physicians for Reproductive Choice and Health, NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund, Alternative Medical Care of Massachusetts, Womancare/REPRO Associates, Four Women, Inc., Mass. NARAL, Massachusetts Women’s Political Caucus, Republican Pro-Choice Coalition, Feminist Majority Foundation, State Senator Susan C. Fargo, State Representative Ellen Story, and State Representative Paul M. Demakis; Robert A. Huff, Executive Director, Christian Counseling Services of Cape Cod, Inc.; Operation Rescue Boston; American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts; State Senator Marian Walsh; and Catholic Action League. – See more at: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/ma-supreme-judicial-court/1195092.html#sthash.EDXwv1sc.dpuf
correction to title of post
I also support Don Berwick. My posts are my digging and thinking. I feel like I am one lone voice in a sea of Warren Tolman talking points posted under other names.
bennett tends to have sharper elbows than the average new commenter, but I don’t think someone joining during primary season is all that unusual.
Disclosure welcome, of course, but I see no real reason to suspect there is something to disclose.
Substance abuse and addiction figure in several key ways. He notes how pervasive they are in MA, as well as how few treatment beds and programs are available. He would squeeze health-care providers to give those who want to quit opiates the same weight as someone who has had a heart attack. He cites an example of a 24-year-old woman whose mother begged in vain for a treatment bed. Instead, the young woman OD’ed. “We failed her,” he said. As well as more treatment, he would crack down on physicians who overprescribe opiates.
Moreover, he refers to stats that half of state health-care money is spent on 5% of patients. He said, “I believe the single biggest issue (for MA) will be health care.” He looks to Chapter 224 as a blueprint for cost containment and said that is a key role for the AG in driving it.
Likewise, he would attack criminal-justice reform from several fronts. He wants reform of mandatory-minimums for non-violent crimes. He would prefer to see mental health care, drug-addiction treatment, and job skills training for such convicted folk. He would rather they wear an ankle bracelet and pee into a cup a few times a week than take up prison space and expense, not exiting any better than entering.
Also, he cites his two daughters and one son as partial motivation for wanting big changes to fight campus sexual assaults. For one approach, he says if elected he’ll start even before taking office to hold a campus summit on the subject. Some schools are with the program but many are lagging. He said it’s too pressing to wait.
Otherwise, he noted that among his issues on his site, were ways he’d use the AG office a little differently and some novel use of technology. For example, he’d have anti-cybercrime efforts and call for smart-gun technology on all new sales. Yet, in consumer protection, he called for traditional AG stances, such as being there for the senior who paid $5000 for a roof repair and no one every showed up.
“Cybercrime” units are usually a joke. The lawyers don’t know the technology well enough to do anything significant. Aaron Swartz gets prosecuted for downloading some files from MIT via the totally overbroad Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. Meanwhile hackers stealing credit card info on millions of people (i.e. the people CFAA should really be used to prosecute) go uncaught because prosecutors don’t have a clue how to find them.