Coakley has worked her whole career to keep families safer from gun violence. As Middlesex DA she worked with schools to develop programs that would help prevent tragedies like Columbine, she worked in cities like Lowell to launch 24-hour tip lines in the languages spoken on the street to help combat gang violence, and she advocated for legislation that would increase the maximum penalty for illegally carrying a loaded gun. As Attorney General, Coakley called on Congress and the President after the Newtown shooting to renew a meaningful and comprehensive assault weapons ban, to ban high-capacity ammunition magazines, and to close loopholes to ensure that all purchasers of firearms at gun shows undergo a background check prior to purchase, regardless of the seller. She strongly opposed the National Right to Carry Reciprocity Act, which would require all states to recognize firearms permits obtained in other states, even if those states have looser gun control laws She has a clear record that demonstrates her commitment to the safety of our families.
Grossman’s first salvo on this issue was a fake debate that his campaign staged in April. His campaign put three podiums on the steps of the Statehouse, one for him , one for gun-rights advocate Jim Wallace, and an empty one for Coakley even though his campaign knew she wasn’t coming. There were no podiums for the other 3 Democratic candidates. They had not even been invited. In an article written by Michael Jonas in CommonWealth the author quotes Jim Wallace saying about Grossman’s campaign’s portrayal of Martha, “Martha Coakley was being made to look like the darling of the NRA, and I think that’s probably a little bit laughable,” Wallace said when asked about the idea that he had been praising her. “If you look at her track record, unfortunately, she’s pretty much ignored the plight lawful gun owners since she’s been in office. I don’t think we’re here to praise Martha.” It was poor political theater.
Although we know he technically isn’t allowed to coordinate with Super-PACs the second salvo was an ad funded by a Super-PAC that implies that she hasn’t done everything possible to protect our families. The ad isn’t true but Coakley can’t debate it because it isn’t Grossman. It is put out by a group that is funded by secret special interest money. If it had been an ad paid for and put out by Grossman there would be room to debate.
Coakley, who was the first Attorney General to support a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United has stated repeatedly that secret special-interest money has no place in Massachusetts elections. Her campaign has asked Grossman’s campaign to sign the People’s Pledge to keep secret, outside money out of the Governor’s race. They have so far refused.
There have never been Super PAC-funded ads in a Democratic primary. These ads tear down candidates with little regard for the truth. They are funded by secret special interest groups. They are the opposite of the transparent campaigns so many of us have fought for. These Super PAC-funded ads will hurt all Democrats in November.
Grossman is the only Democrat in this race to have a Super-PAC. The chair of the PAC is his neighbor and friend Barry White. We have no idea who the other contributors are, if they are from firms that do business with Grossman in his role as Treasurer Grossman, we don’t know much of anything because they are funded in secret.
I had hoped for a better campaign from Grossman and his team. I have long admired him and thought he would fight a fair fight this campaign. I am disappointed. I would ask that you join me in asking him to disavow these Super –PAC ads and ask others to do the same.
Follow this link to a petition to call on Grossman to disavow the SuperPACs http://petitions.moveon.org/sign/massachusetts-say-no?source=c.em&r_by=11002128 that was just launched by MoveOn.
I supported Steve when he ran for Treasurer in 2010, but am deeply disappointed that he had both refused to sign a People’s Pledge and to disavow this latest attack. Regardless of who you support in this race, we should all agree that outside money and special interests have no place in deciding who our next Democratic nominee, and Governor, is. When Senator Warren says that the playing field is “rigged” against the middle class and poor- she’s right. How can the voices of the people be heard over SuperPACs and their wealthy backers? They can’t be, is the scary thing.
Steve Grossman should immediately disavow this SuperPAC and their misleading ad.
That word has been thrown around a lot by the Coakley campaign, but what exactly is misleading about the ad? They address a single issue on which Coakley took a position that is likely unpopular among Democratic primary voters. Please, what is misleading?
Martha has seen first hand the effect gun violence has on our communities- she visited Edgewater Technologies the day after Christmas 2000- and is determined to stop it.
That’s why she worked to secure a $200,000 federal grant to fund a new Assistant District Attorney, whose sole job is prosecuting gun crimes. That’s why she spoke out against the National Right to Carry Reciprocity Act, which required all states to recognize gun permits obtained in other states- because she knew it was bad for our communities. That’s why she filed an amicus brief to protect the federal authority to prosecute straw gun sales. That’s why she’s called on Congress to renew an assault weapons ban, a high-capacity magazine ban, and to close the loopholes in our background check system. That’s why she has urged the legislature to include a provision in Speaker Deleo’s bill that allows for police chiefs to seize weapons from those who are deemed unsuitable.
The ad is misleading because it implies that the Attorney General doesn’t have a strong record on gun violence, despite the fact that she has spent her career fighting violence in our neighborhoods. The ad doesn’t tell you that Martha has an “F” from the NRA, nor does it tell you her strong record of sticking up for our communities. Because of her time working in public safety, Martha knows the most effective way to reduce violence is by stopping the flow of illegal guns across our borders, not through a one-gun-a-month law.
Getting an F from the NRA is incredibly easy and is really just a marker that the candidate supports gun control.
Coakley is not bad on guns, but I believe she is the weakest of the three Democrats, and this is all the more disappointing given her experience as a DA.
A disappointing thing from all candidates is not taking on the gun manufacturers in MA. They are often the ones making the huge numbers of guns that eventually come back illegally.
The PAC supporting Grossman would like us all to think that Grossman got capital double-F minus minus and therefore, merely getting an F isn’t good enough. You seem to agree with this line of reasoning…
The ad is supposed to make us believe Grossman is stronger on gun control than Coakley, which I think is a fair point.
It’s the Coakley supporters who are arguing that an F from the NRA means she’s great on the issue.
I think she has room for improvement compared to the other candidates. But, it’s not the biggest issue for me (or most voters, I suspect) this election. There are many other policies on which Coakley lags well behind her competitors.
Still waiting for a good response to the criticism of the Partners deal . . . (from Coakley or any of her supporters)
The AG’s office has laid out a detailed argument about why they think the Partners deal was the best possible settlement under the circumstances:
http://www.mass.gov/ago/news-and-updates/press-releases/2014/2014-06-24-partners-settlement.html
In my view, those who legitimately question (as opposed to just seek to score easy political points) the AG’s commitment to reducing Partners’ negative impact on health care costs can’t been paying attention to the leading role AG Coakley has taken in this area for many years.
That was the press release that came out with the original announcement of the final deal. It is not a reply to the criticism of that deal, levied by Berwick and other heath policy experts.
Coakley did nothing to reduce Partners’ negative impact on health care costs, all this deal did was temporarily slow the growth of that negative impact. It does not reduce the impact. This deal just ensures that Partners’ out of control prices are the norm.
We need a governor who will take the lead on reversing rapid health care cost increases, not just try to slow them. Martha Coakley will not be that governor.
This, however, is true:
“the best possible settlement under the circumstances.”
It’s just that the circumstances are that Martha Coakley is running for governor and battling with one of the biggest entities in the state would not help her campaign.
Yes, this detailed explanation of the statement came out before the esteemed Dr. Berwick commented. But much of the rest of what you say here is simply “doubleman-speak”:
That’s simple not true, as you acknowledge in your next confusing sentence and despite your misleading use of terms like “temporarily” and “slow the growth”. Semantics aside, there’s no substantive difference between “reducing” Partners’ impact on health care costs and “slowing the growth of that negative impact.” Among other things, the settlement reduces the negotiating power of Partners, limits its ability to acquire physicians, and places a hard cap on Partners’ cost growth (tying it to inflation). Yes, these provisions are not for all eternity but generally are in place from 6.5-10 years each and they will have a real impact on health care costs. And for much longer than “temporary” suggests.
To the contrary, maintaining the status quo would result from either allowing (without restrictions) or absolutely preventing (through a lawsuit) Partners’ acquisition of South Shore Hospital. This settlement seeks a wise middle ground that leverages Partners’ desire to acquire South Shore Hospital to get serious and very real concessions from Partners. Operational and legal reforms that actually will control Partners’ cost growth and change the “norm”.
There are no candidates for Governor or serious policymakers of any kind who believe that we can actually “reverse” health care cost increases. Goods and services cost more over time because of inflation if for no other reason. Health care cost grow faster than inflation because utilization also increases with technological innovation and because Partners has the negotiating power to increase their prices rapidly. The best we can do is slow cost growth (“cost containment”). Single payer (which I strongly support, for the record) doesn’t promise to decrease health care costs and it shouldn’t.
I just don’t by this at all. Politically, taking on Partners is a clear winner. The insurance companies, most other hospitals, the health care labor unions and many others are eager to battle with Partners. Look at the Questionaires from the nurses union and SEIU (available on Maura Healey’s website, for one). The MNA asks pressing questions about “the negative impact of health care consolidation”, “anticompetitive behavior among large health care systems”. SEIU does too, noting that “rapid
growth in health care costs, significant market consolidation and increasing price disparities have all had a direct and negative impact on communities, consumers, and workers.”
I’d certainly like to think that the endorsement of these powerful unions (and many others) that Coakley has gained (at least in part because of her leadership in taking on Partners) will help her campaign. To me, it’s simply political gamesmanship to suggest that Coakley would rather coddle Partners than gain the support of many other powerful political interests (not to mention the general public) who benefit from her ongoing and extensive efforts to limit Partners’ negative impact on health care costs.
… I said pretty much the same thing about the ad and that you agreed with it. You don’t like my verbiage, but you agree with me: Steve Grossman is the bestest-super-duperest-most-virile anti-gun crusader EVAH!! In comparison to Steve Grossman, Martha Coakley is selling hollow point bullets out the backdoor of the AG’s office…
Yes. Exactly. An “F” from the NRA is a pretty darn good indicator of gun safety bona fides. It is Grossman, et al, who is suggesting that an “F”, the worst possible grade to give, isn’t good enough. The interesting thing is that, to my knowledge, Grossman hasn’t been graded by the NRA… ever. Wonder what grade they’d give him?
… I’ll reply to it.
n/t
I know the AG has been a proponent of many forms of gun control. But one-gun-a-month is a gun-control measure that she opposes. No debating that. That’s all the ad says! You can’t seriously expect an ad that’s meant to draw distinctions between a frontrunner and a distant opponent to point out all the things they agree on, or to highlight the frontrunner’s accomplishments. The ad isn’t saying she’s weak on gun control, but asserting that she’s wrong on this one proposal. You can debate the merits of the proposal, but I think the ad is pretty straightforward.
– Boston Globe
That quote is from months ago, but I agree it was not necessarily an accurate claim when it was made by Grossman’s campaign. I would be interested to hear the AG say whether she would support any sort of cap on gun purchases, which I don’t believe she’s addressed…
Anyway, the ad does not say that Martha Coakley supports unlimited gun purchases. Once again, all it says is that Coakley opposes the one-gun-a-month cap and Grossman and Patrick support it. Am I missing something? I don’t see anything misleading there.
First, that anyone would think that a legal process to limit handguns would have, in any way, impacted the gang members who shot Willie Marquis Turner… Or, do you contend that they obtained their guns legally? I understand that there is a vague, handwavey, argument about the total number of guns on the street being a function of the number of guns sold legally… But the argument the PAC makes is, at best, a second order conjecture about a side affect of black market economics as, and when, it intersects with the legit market… thus it is to be dismissed and with prejudice.
Secondly, the ad forthrightly declares Coakley ‘opposes’ the bill when, as far as I can tell, all she did was express her opinion (in 2013, when she wasn’t a candidate) as to the uselessness of the bill. Personally, I’m thankful for an AG who’ll call a bad law a bad law. Sound’s like someone who’ll make a good governor someday…
Thirdly, it misleads on both Coakley’s and Grossman’s general stance on gun violence: Grossman is depicted as rabidly anti-NRA and Coakley is painted as pro-NRA only in comparison, eliding a very clear history of contention over gun rights in this state. Did you know that she was sued by gun owners for continuing to enforce regulations regarding the purchase of Glock handguns put in place by Scott Harshbarger? I didn’t think so. Also, there’s no indication that Steve Grossman thinks the NRA is anything other than a liberal bogey-man to scare people…
1. The ad doesn’t say that this law would have saved the victims portrayed in it. It says “One less gun can save a life.” This is an argument very similar to those made by the President as he pushed Congress to enact tougher gun laws. I agree with his sentiment that “if there’s even one life that can be saved, then we’ve got an obligation to try.” I do happen to believe that this proposal would have an impact on straw purchases which help to fuel the trade of guns used in crimes.
2. Around 1:50 in the debate video, she says “I don’t [support it]. I’m on the record not supporting that.”
3. It makes no mention of the NRA. When I asked what about the ad is misleading, I was referring to the actual content of the ad. Like I said above, I’m not arguing that Coakley is some NRA hero, nor am I discounting her good work on other gun-control issues. But the purpose of the ad is to draw a distinction on a position of hers that I imagine is out of step with most primary voters, and I think it does that clearly and honestly.
… quoting a 2010 debate about a law proposed by Deval Patrick in 2013…
Maybe “that”, isn’t “this”…
The Governor proposed a one-gun-a-month limit in 2010. It was proposed once again in 2013. Same idea, same opposition from the AG.
… Coakley fails to support a (twice) proposed law that, apparently, can’t be supported (twice) by the legislature…? Looks like Coakley isn’t the only one not supporting it.
That dog, quite pointedly, fails to hunt. And Grossman, et al, wants to point out that Coakley would hurt the dogs feelings by pointing out that, well, it don’t hunt.
Pffftt…
Whether the measure could pass in the legislature is a different question and yet again one that is not addressed explicitly or implicitly in the ad. I happen to support the measure, but my initial question was “what exactly is misleading about the ad?” So far, the responses have been less than satisfying. I find it off-putting that rather than offer a defense of the AG’s position (as some have here), her campaign and many of her supporters are saying the ad is misleading. You can debate the campaign finance laws in play, the merits of the one-gun-a-month proposal and the prospects of its passage, and the manner in which the issue of gun control was raised by the Grossman campaign earlier in the year, but none of those things are addressed in the ad and none of your comments answer my question.
I’ll ask once more, can somebody please tell me what actual content of the ad is misleading?
… that they are ‘less than satisfying’ says more about you than about the answers…
but they don’t answer my question. It’s a 30-second ad.
You told me that it misleads because the proposal wouldn’t have saved the life of Willie Marquis Turner. The ad doesn’t say it would have.
You told me that the AG has only shared her opinion on the “uselessness” of the proposal. I showed you a video of her saying she doesn’t support it.
You told me that it depicts Grossman as anti-NRA and Coakley as pro-NRA. There is no mention of the NRA whatsoever.
So forgive me if I’m not satisfied.
… Are you going to argue that the ad can’t be misleading by implication? If so, then we have nothing left to discuss.
Is there a difference, here? “does not support” doesn’t preclude “I find the bill usesless.” Again, you’re adhering to strict definitions when they suit you and being squishy when they don’t…
Yes. Excuse me for bringing the diary back into this diary… you know, all those words at the top of the page that details a phony debate with an empty podium… clearly trying to label Grossman as rabidly, virulently, anti-NRA and, by implication, depicting Martha Coakley as far less so…
I don’t think it’s unreasonable to ask a campaign and its supporters who have made numerous claims that an ad is misleading to say how specifically the ad is misleading. There is not that much content there to analyze. I also didn’t realize there’s a problem with focusing a comment on a specific element of the diary and trying to keep replies to that comment focused on the same. The Coakley campaign and supporters here have made specific claims about the content of the ad, and it’s those claims I’ve questioned. I’m not defending the empty-podium stuff, but that has nothing to do with the content of this ad or whether it is misleading.
Of course an ad can be misleading by implication, but I don’t think that mothers of victims of gun violence pushing for tougher gun control measures that might or might not have saved their children fits that bill. Relatives of victims of the Sandy Hook shooting advocated for myriad gun control measures, many of which would have done little or nothing to stop that shooter who used his mother’s gun in that tragedy. No reasonable person I know accused them of misleading lawmakers by advocating for more strict regulations in spite of that. Their personal stories are powerful and their point is not just that we should do things that could have saved the lives of their loved ones, but that we should pursue any measure that might prevent others from having to suffer through similar losses.
Secondly, the ad forthrightly declares Coakley ‘opposes’ the bill when, as far as I can tell, all she did was express her opinion (in 2013, when she wasn’t a candidate) as to the uselessness of the bill.
You’re the one who seemed to try to draw a distinction between the AG’s view that bill is useless and the ad’s claim that she expressed opposition. Or am I misunderstanding your statement above? I linked to the video to eliminate any ambiguity about where she stands on this, validating the central claim of the ad.
I don’t think it’s unreasonable to ask a campaign and its supporters who have made numerous claims that an ad is misleading to say how specifically the ad is misleading. There is not that much content there to analyze. I also didn’t realize there’s a problem with focusing a comment on a specific element of the diary and trying to keep replies to that comment focused on the same. The Coakley campaign and supporters here have made specific claims about the content of the ad, and it’s those claims I’ve questioned. I’m not defending the empty-podium stuff, but that has nothing to do with the content of this ad or whether it is misleading.
Of course an ad can be misleading by implication, but I don’t think that mothers of victims of gun violence pushing for tougher gun control measures that might or might not have saved their children fits that bill. Relatives of victims of the Sandy Hook shooting advocated for myriad gun control measures, many of which would have done little or nothing to stop that shooter who used his mother’s gun in that tragedy. No reasonable person I know accused them of misleading lawmakers by advocating for more strict regulations in spite of that. Their personal stories are powerful and their point is not just that we should do things that could have saved the lives of their loved ones, but that we should pursue any measure that might prevent others from having to suffer through similar losses.
Secondly, the ad forthrightly declares Coakley ‘opposes’ the bill when, as far as I can tell, all she did was express her opinion (in 2013, when she wasn’t a candidate) as to the uselessness of the bill.
You’re the one who seemed to try to draw a distinction between the AG’s view that bill is useless and the ad’s claim that she expressed opposition. Or am I misunderstanding your statement above? I linked to the video to eliminate any ambiguity about where she stands on this, validating the central claim of the ad.
Not sure why that posted twice.
Pretty boring debate between two dull campaigns over an issue that might rank fifth on my list of priorities for the next Governor. Hopefully Berwick can hit hard at the insider politics, bad casino and Partner deals, and restoring trust and accountability to the government. Probably not the year to focus on single payer though, it’s a box he has had a hard time getting out of.
At least we’re discussing issues. 🙂
And 40 different comments have surrounded it. There ought to be a prize.
There is no reason why we, as Democrats, need to embrace these secret cesspools of unlimited cash within our party. I understand that we shouldn’t unilaterally disarm in a race against well-funded Republicans, but SuperPACs have no place inside a Democratic primary. I would like to think my party, and the folks who seek its nomination, stand for disclosure and transparency at the very least.
This is a specific assault on Massachusetts campaign finance laws, and on the full disclosure and contribution limits that have played a part in our elections for as long as I can remember.
This is both toxic to the political process and shameful from someone who is campaigning as a progressive.
With Coakley so far ahead I actually welcome this leveler in some ways. I also think SuperPACs in the 2012 GOP presidential primary served to keep it competitive longer which IMO was a good thing. I don’t have a problem with Coakley’s position and work on guns and I agree the phony debate was a bit of a stunt, but there’s no reason she can’t respond to attacks whatever the source. Candidates do that all the time. I don’t think it’s fair to hold candidates accountable for outside ads and while I appreciate the break from negativity this is why I’ve always been a bit skeptical of People’s Pledges.
I don’t think Coakley should be lecturing anyone about campaign finance disclosure irregularities or quid quo pro’s.
n/t
It’s well known she screwed up her own disclosures from the last campaign and has intervened twice during this campaign to help her donors over the people by defending Partners from scrutiny and protecting the casino industry from democracy. Nor am I defending the Grossman super PAC, this behavior is more reason to vote for the only clean candidate left in the race-Don Berwick.
It is well known (but I forgot) about her disclosures, but your brush seems to have gone a bit wide on the fence. Who says she has donors at Partners? Who says she has casino donors?
Tangentially “Really” is Word of the Day on BMG. How come I never get these memos?
Tangentially, what is the plural of really? Is there such a thing as more than one really?
And besides, I really (woops!) can’t get excited about “dark money” . And I don’t think many political activists do either. Ordinary civilians don’t even think about it. Professional political consultants want it for their candidates so they get somebody else to pay for stuff they want, and have no comment and if they can’t find somebody to front one, they can only hope their opponents have one so they can accuse the opponent of (read comments on this post)
The political press love it. Endless opportunities for unbridled
speculation about secret sources of the dark money.
Which details how Grossman, and even Baker, have now moved to her left on this issue critiquing her settlement as an inside deal conducted in secret. And her opposition to democracy regarding the casinos is also well known, and was rightly mocked in the SJC decision.
There is a pattern of style over substance with these candidates. Grossman looked like an idiot with his debating an empty chair routine, they both made sure the Peoples Pledge was torpedoed, and her critiques of his super pac ring hollow when we consider how compromised her office has been regarding some of the industries it is supposed to regulate. And it looks like we will get more of the same from Healey.
I see nothing about donors at that link (and no, I didn’t read the whole thing, and I don’t have to, you’re the one making the accusation).
Top health care lobbyists gave to her last campaign, and BMG has long been aware of her own love of the dark monies.
She was the top recipient from several health care CEOs, including Partner’s competitors, and many health care economists have criticized the deal.
15 reasons the deal sucks. This article also mentions they are the top lobbyist on Beacon Hill.
And the CEO and AG at a fundraiser.
not intended to apply to the last sentence. 😉
As Democrats we have advocated for transparency and accountability. Voters should be able to know who is advocating for candidates, especially when large amounts of money are involved. I personally think that in making their decisions voters have a right to know if donors, for example, have a financial interest in who is governor. Transparency is the key.
For me, these two Globe stories about Grossman’s fundraising relationships with companies that do business with the state, including the alcohol lobby, have left a sour taste in my mouth. http://tiny.cc/i4y3ix and http://tiny.cc/l6y3ix
Now the SuperPAC and the negative campaigning only serve to convince me that he is not the candidate that the great state of Massachusetts should elect as our governor.
Which is why I strongly suggest everyone here make a small donation to Don Berwick. I officially got dropped from the MA voter rolls and it doesn’t look like I will be back on there for this cycle. Pat Quinn has my vote, but Berwick will get my dollars.
Or will he continue to hide behind this “secret” PAC?
As much as I hate to admit it, EB3 was right that gun control is not that big of an issue in this years MA elections. I am not against it like he is on policy grounds, far from it, but politically, it is not that important compared to better jobs, better transit, better schools, and cheaper healthcare. Those would be my four issues. And Grossman, with his early support of paid family leave, a higher minimum wage, unionized job creation, and other bread and butter issues should be running away with that platform. The fact that he isn’t is due to bad advice. His first ad sucked, and attacking Coakley on an issue where frankly she has done a decent job instead of the litany of areas where she has been a bad AG and a gutless gubernatorial candidate is baffling to me.
Berwick’s biggest problem is that he comes across on TV as a know it all rather than someone who is empathetic with the common person, great for the base, but I don’t see it getting enough regular dems and independents in time to close the gap. He may outlap Grossman at this point though, who is running one of the worst campaigns in recent memory-like Tom Reilly bad.
I’ve never gotten that vibe, though I think being knowledgeable in an important area is a good thing. Some people (not I) reacted that way to Elizabeth Warren too, but she got elected. Besides, on balance I WANT my electeds to know more than I do about policy.
I love that he is wonky, I am just paraphrasing why my dad didn’t like what he saw on TV. And you gotta win over college educated kids like me, middle aged professionals like my brother, and blue collars and retiree’s like my dad. I just see his coalition more encompassing the primary group, some of the secondary, and none of the third, which is a big problem. Hillary and Coakley won their primaries in this state by relying on a lot of older regular Democratic voters. Deval found a way to win them over, but Berwick has yet to do that.
It’s unfortunate that we’ve grown so accustomed to those seeking office and elected office holders being evasive, opaque, and always leaving room for plausible deny-ability in the event that public opinion changes on any one issue, that a candidate like Don Berwick is seen as a “know it all”, so I do get your point. He is firm in his convictions and bold in his approach. Anyone who saw his speech at the convention or has met him at events across the state can see immediately he has more empathy than most. So that’s the goal in August for his supporters. Get the message out.
Is that he IS a know-it-all…
MD syndrome.
I would seriously like to know why the attorney general opposed a “one gun a month” limit. It would be nice if the question were asked more directly, and by Steve himself, but it’s still a valid question.
A strong defense of her position would be vastly preferable to the response I’ve seen from her campaign thus far. If she can’t or won’t offer that defense on this one issue in a primary, I worry about how she’ll respond to far harsher criticism in a general.
It’s a “puppies are nice!” bill.
Prohibiting a hunter from buying two shotguns with his Christmas bonus? Why? What has he done wrong?
Is this your view, or the AG’s, or both?
(It also doesn’t strike me as a punishment if he waits three days, but whatever, I’ll take your free market point.)
Thirty days, I mean.