If spending the avg annual Somerville income of 6 people in 10 days to win a state senate seat is wrong, I don’t want to be right. — leland4anything
Politics in the Age of Trump comes to Massachusetts: a group run by Wall Street hedge fund executives called Education Reform Now (Sessa Capital, Covey Capital, Charter Bridge Capital, Cubist Systematic Strategies, and Sanford C. Bernstein employ its directors) dumps $200,000 into a state Senate race to try to buy a seat for former Virginia Republican Leland Cheung who backs an expansion of charter schools (13 percent of them for-profit businesses nationwide).
Progressive Democratic champion Pat Jehlen, endorsed by Blue Mass Group and a host of others, is the target of this crass last-minute attempt to bring Trump’s style of Wall Street 1%-er politics to Cambridge, Medford, Somerville and Winchester.
Hilariously, in a brilliant PR stroke, Jehlen has now challenged Liam Kerr, head of Massachusetts Democrats for Education Reform, who will spend the Wall Street money to help Cheung, and John Petry, co-chair of the board of Education Reform Now, who got the money from Donald Trump Vladimir Putin Pearson Education he won’t say, to a televised debate about the issues facing state government in Massachusetts and about the role of money in politics.
“DFER is spending $200,000 it received from Education Reform Now Advocacy in a campaign to defeat me — twice as much in two weeks as I’ve spent in the eight months of this campaign. That makes them my real opponents, so they are the ones I should be debating, not the Cambridge city councilor whose name is on the ballot,” Jehlen wrote in an email. She says Somerville Community Access Television has agreed to provide studio space, and the station’s Joe Lynch, who moderated a previous Jehlen/Cheung debate, has agreed to moderate.
Kevin Franck has been all over this story, and reported yesterday on the tight links between the Cheung campaign and MLM Strategies and the Novus Group, who work for DFER.
I guess we’ll see next Thursday what the value of Wall Street hedge fund money is in a Massachusetts Senate election.
…this may be politics in the Age of Koch or the Age of Citizens United, but I really don’t think that Trump or his views have much to do with this race either way.
It seems to me that hallmark of the pro-charter groups like DFER (and apparently Mr. Cheung) is a careless disregard for truth. I view the ascendancy of Mr. Trump as a consequence of the morally and philosophically bankrupt view that anything goes so long as it is accompanied by enough money.
I agree with you that this is about politics in the age of Koch and Citizens United — I view “Trumpism” as the immediate consequence and personification of those more abstract concepts.
Donald Trump didn’t just happen. The GOP created him.
And has done good work as a city councilor to promote racial reconciliation, work with BLM activists and he picketed with Harvard hotel workers during their unionizing drive.
Point was, he’s not a racist and has done good work. He is using dark money and pursuing an incumbent who has done far better work more consistently and reliably on the issues I care about. So we can definitely ding him on that, comparing him to Trump is hyperbolic and unfair.
Mr. Cheung is doing more than passively “using dark money”.
He sent a slimy email that demonstrates “a careless disregard for the truth”, and attempts to advance the agenda of the source of the dark money.
The clear insinuation is that Ms. Jehlen is somehow bullying him (nobody else is running). Mixed in with that is an apparent insinuation about racial attacks, presumably directed at him. Then there is the outright lie about “smear tactics” of the MTA. Not surprisingly, he makes no effort to support his allegation.
I offered two specific criteria by which I labelled this campaign “Trumpist” — a careless disregard for the truth, and an apparent belief that anything is ok so long as I throw enough money at it. It seems to me that Mr. Cheung is, so far, very much “Trumpist” by those criteria.
When I talk of “anything is ok so long as I throw enough money at it”, I refer to his apparent embrace of deep-pocketed charter school advocates. In 2014, while a candidate for lieutenant governor, Mr. Cheung said (emphasis mine):
In 2005, Mr. Cheung was a Republican candidate for congress.
I’m glad that among his many acts and postures, he’s managed to get a few correct. As nearly as I can tell, this candidate has NO political compass whatsoever. He’s against lifting the cap on charter schools until an organization that wants to do just that dangles some money in front of him. Then he’s for it.
He’s a republican candidate for congress until he loses an election and moves to a state that’s more Democratic than VA. Then he’s a Democrat.
I grew up in Maryland. I was a Democrat there. I went to school in Pittsburgh for four years. I was a Democrat there. I’ve lived in MA for forty two years, and I’m a Democrat here.
I only know Mr. Cheung from his commentary here and from the slimy email he sent me while attacking my senator who is orders of magnitude better on EVERY issue than he is (and who does NOT take dark money from DFER).
As far as I can tell, he is at least opportunistic, careless with the truth, and with no apparent political or philosophical grounding in ANY political tradition except advancing his self-interest.
As far as I’m concerned, that’s good enough for me to label him “Trumpist”.
…he was a candidate for VA House of Delegates from Falls Church. I’m pretty sure he has never run for Congress.
You’re absolutely correct, I should have read the material more closely.
I thought this downrater liked it when people did that.
Because this is a “reality based” area and neither you nor he bother to fact check your claims. TV does enough to dumb down our political discourse. We do not need it here. Google and Wiki are not the final arbiters of fact (witness your ridiculous claims about the HRC emails) but they are a starting point.
…and humans make mistakes, especially since this is a blog and not a research forum. I in fact did double-check what I thought was true before trying to correct SomervilleTom, and you uprated that comment. You cannot come on here and bully people into admitting how awful a human being they are for committing the grave sin of making a factual error and then turn around and not graciously accept it when they do acknowledge their error. FWIW, I stand by everything I’ve said about the emails, which ironically are seen as a problem precisely because of TV dumbing down our discourse as you complain about above.
Interesting that you seem to be more forgiving of yourself.
Most of us here seek common ground with each other, recognizing that each of us tends to make the same mistakes that we are so tempted to criticize in our colleagues.
Not just from going from D to R and VA to MA, but from running as the “most progressive” in the LG race (and courting Jehlen’s endorsement) to running to her right now on education and police reform (Somerville Patrolmans Union hates Curtatone and Jehlen, he sold his votes in advance on contract negotiations in Cambridge to win those unions).
But I don’t recall people criticizing the last minute dark money that helped Walsh win, nor do I recall people comparing him to Trump after he flip flopped on charters and dragged his feet on police reform.
to opportunistic flip-floppers everywhere.
Mr. Trump wasn’t the GOP nominee when Mr. Walsh last ran. More importantly, I didn’t vote in the election that put Mr. Walsh in office so I didn’t pay nearly as much attention.
I’m no fan of Mr. Walsh either, truth be told.
“Churchill: “Madam, would you sleep with me for five million pounds?” Socialite: “My goodness, Mr. Churchill… Well, I suppose… we would have to discuss terms, of course… ”
Churchill: “Would you sleep with me for five pounds?”
Socialite: “Mr. Churchill, what kind of woman do you think I am?!” Churchill: “Madam, we’ve already established that. Now we are haggling about the price”
Dem-first liberals gonna be Dem-first liberals.
If there’s anyone who Cheung could be compared to, it would be Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Marty Walsh and all the other mealy-mouthed status quo Dems who would like to see more charter schools yet flirt with teachers unions. TBH, Leland amusingly has more courage than the rest of them as he doesn’t even flirt with the teachers unions, preferring more, apparently, just the support of the anti-reform police unions.
Gave President Bill Clinton $17.6 million for his role as honorary chancellor of the for-profit school multinational corporation, has given millions the Clinton Foundation and made large contributions to both Hillary Clinton’s and Barack Obama’s political campaigns.
This is why it’s so dangerous to hold the position that elections are expensive and the money HAS to come from somewhere.
This comment has nothing whatsoever to do with this thread, it is completely irrelevant.
We are talking here about Pat Jehlen and Leland Cheung.
Perhaps one of the downraters can explain what, if anything, this comment has to do with this thread.
If there is a connection any of the parties in this thread, it hasn’t been offered. Is a secret connection from Hillary Clinton to the DFER being alleged?
What, other than a knee-jerk reaction to any mention of Donald Trump (an odd knee-jerk reaction at that, since it seems to be that any mention of Donald Trump requires a corresponding attack on Hillary Clinton), is the point?
It is easy STom. You engaged in a running commentary with others about politicians, trashed-talked Marty Walsh and then declared Bill Clinton off-limits. He is PART OF THE PROBLEM. Clinton Derangement Syndrome indeed.
You did write this, correct?
I didn’t “trash talk” Mr. Walsh, unless you insist that anything short of full-throttled support is “trash talk”. I certainly did write the quote you offer. I’m mystified by your apparent objection to it.
I am amazed that you think Bill Clinton has anything whatsoever to do with this race. Do you REALLY think that Bill Clinton is remotely relevant to the primary between Mr. Cheung and Ms. Jehlen, or to the deceptive and dishonest campaign that DFER is running against Ms. Jehlen?
Here’s what I think. Pat Jehlen is my senator, and she is among the brightest lights of the MA senate. Her opponent is, as nearly as I can tell, an unprincipled lightweight who has no clue about the office he is running for and why so many of us who live here so enthusiastically support Ms. Jehlen. I see a deceptively-funded DFER doing the bidding of pro-charter forces (and working hard to obscure that fact).
I think Pat Jehlen is a super senator who I’m happy to vote for on Thursday. I think her opponent is a dishonest puppet. I think Bill Clinton has nothing whatsoever to do with any of this.
Don’t hide behind Sen Jehlen when you want to defend Bill Clinton taking the money of charter school pimps. Unless you can show us a permission slip. Neither you nor I speak on her behalf.
This is a thread about Senator Jehlen, not Bill Clinton.
The cited link is about for-profit universities. Nobody has shown any connection to “charter school pimps”, and Bill Clinton has nothing to do with this race.
I most certainly CAN speak on Ms. Jehlen’s behalf, that’s what we do here at BMG during campaigns.
When Bob Neer simple-mindedly invokes Trump in the original post, which is about the influence of money on candidates, there is nothing irrelevant about bringing up the influence of money on other politicians.
I think that there may be worse instances of money influencing politics than the Clinton Foundation, but there’s nothing irrelevant about the comparison.
Since apparently we’re in that mode.
was, at best weak, and, less charitably, sounded like rationalization.
I don’t find the thread-starter “simple minded”.
I think this thread is about a candidate who less than two years ago said he opposed lifting the cap on charter schools and who now — in an apparent quid pro quo in exchange for support from DFER — supports it.
I think that’s specific and sleazy. I think the candidate’s email was similarly sleazy and careless about the truth.
In my view, the attempt to make this about some vague and generic “money influencing politics” — and from that step onwards to yet another attack on the Clintons — dilutes the discussion into meaningless hand-waving.
That’s why I downrated your comment.
If this thread were ONLY about Jehlen and Cheung, why would anyone care? The post and this thread were about the State Senate seat they are running for.
This thread is about charter schools and the influence of money on politics. “$200,000 to buy a Mass. Senate seat for a former Virginia Republican?” Read the goddamn title of the post before you declare someone’s comment “completely irrelevant.”
As far as I’m concerned, this thread is about:
– An unprincipled primary opponent attempting to unseat my senator
– A sleazy and dishonest front group spending dark money to help that opponent
– The way the charter school movement seems to rely on deceptive processes and practices like these to advance its nearly-always hidden agenda
In my view, the far more generic “influence of money on politics” is so universal that it can (and has!) been used as a Trojan horse to inject hostility about the Clintons to pretty much every discussion.
We’re talking about where the money comes from. You seem to think it matters some of the time but not other times. Why is that?
We are talking about a candidate who sent an email containing a dishonest attack against a sitting senator. We are talking about a candidate who in 2014 opposed lifting the charter school cap and who now happily accepts support from a group dedicated to lifting.
Most of all, we are talking about a primary contest between Pat Jehlen and Leland Cheung. I get that you seem to want to talk about something different.
Nevertheless, THIS thread is about Mr. Cheung and Ms. Jehlen.
You keep missing that critical element. Money buys POWER and you have toled me it HAS to come from somewhere.
I get that you have discovered that money buys power. That’s only been true for as long as humans have had money. FDR was no pauper.
The practical effect of your commentary on this thread is to distract attention from support of a candidacy that you yourself claim to support, in order to continue your diatribe against the Democratic nominee, whom you also claim to support.
And where that money comes from matters. You say it matters some times but not others. Please explain.
Will it matter? Will you listen to my answer?
It matters when it is offered in exchange for a quid pro quo. In my opinion, our Probation Department scandal was criminal because it was apparent to me that jobs (often no-show jobs) were being exchanged for contributions and votes. Some participants here disagree with me about that.
Thousands of attorneys have collected millions of dollars attempting to shape explicit rules about what is acceptable and what is not. Since those attorneys have generally been paid by those with money, the resulting rules have a rather pronounced bias towards those with money.
In a perfect world, none of this would be true. In a perfect world, the poorest pauper would have the same access to people in power as the wealthiest man or woman.
We are in an election campaign where, for example, the Clinton campaign has enough funds that it can buy advertising in NH that causes the Trump to spend money it doesn’t have attempting to rebut it. That makes a difference. So long as Citizens United is in effect, so long as candidates are required to pay media in order to be heard, etc., etc., etc., then a national candidate MUST have access to funding. I don’t like that any more than you.
Nevertheless, that is the system we have and I am not ready to concede this election to Donald Trump and the GOP in order to feel pure and righteous about not accepting any “dirty” money.
In the imperfect world we live in, and given the very flawed legal system that is, with all its faults, the best we’re able to accomplish, we must do the best we can to understand when and why some financial arrangements are different from others.
Reasonable people will have differences of opinion about that.
And made a similar argument when Obama backed out of public financing in 2008. In doing so, he helped cripple that system and the culture of corruption that is certainly fueled by corporate interests largely on the right has also infected the left which feels it has to dial for the same dollars to compete. Protecting the court, ending the war, saving Obamacare-these are all good reasons to fight the right tooth and nail and fight fire with fire.
My concerns about Hillary Clinton doing it are two fold:
1) Does she need to?
Sanders matched her dollar for dollar with small contributions and it seems she could’ve adopted a similar fundraising model for the general and reduced her reliance on Wall Street contributions. She didn’t, which leads me to think she prefers their money to grassroots fundraising either as a matter of convenience or a matter of course. She is also holding a massive lead over Trump and should start using that money downballot, especially since the Senate and increasingly the House are within striking distances. I want her to act on this in her first 100 days to show she is serious.
2) Clintons have a toxic relationship with money
For profit colleges are a massive Ponzi scheme subsidized by tax dollars and it’s shameful Bill Clinton lent his good name and even the use of his wife’s State Department connections to advance the interests of one. It totally kills their line of argument about Trumps “colleges” since they literally profited off of similar activity. That was a compelling argument too that convinced a few Trump voters I knew to defect to Johnson.
The Goldman money and “I took the same fees everyone else does” also parlay into this, along with the close ties between businesses that they had financial relationships with and the foundation. These are not disqualifying issues and I am not arguing Trump isn’t substantially more corrupt and dishonest, I am arguing it serves as a one two punch to me and a signal that this rhetoric against Wall Streer is rhetoric. There will be no sturdier hand for our foreign policy or protecting social equality, I am happy to vote on those issues especially against this opponent. But I do think progressibes are right to be wary about the Clintons deep ties to Wall Street that go beyond the ends justify the means tactics Obama did.
Jehlen endorsed and campaigned for Sanders, many of her supporters on this site, the BMG Editors, the Cambridge City Council, and Medford and Somerville officials she has been endorsed by all went for Clinton. What does this tell you? That all politics and all revolutions start locally.
Working to keep Jehlen in the Senate, and elect hundreds more like her to the legislature, is the only way progressive change trickles up and pushes the national narrative in our direction. We can debate endlessly about whether Clinton or Sanders is the true progressive, I know both of them would be happier to work with statehouses and a Congress full of legislators like Pat.
No need to nationalize this race and I’m already supporting Jehlen. I have to add that I do spend time listening to independents and Republicans. But we have to try and see how we look to others, eh?
but Trump is the shiniest object within view, so I guess he has some people mesmerized.
Leland 4 Anything was AGAINST lifting the cap when he ran for LG.
Now he is FOR lifting the cap.
Funny how $200,000 can change one’s point of view, isn’t it ?
Fred Rich LaRiccia
proud son of public school union teacher mom
” All that I am or ever hope to be I owe to my mother.” ABRAHAM LINCOLN
..if he wins the primary you will move heaven and earth to elect him, even against an anti-charter candidate who happens to be GOP.
You have few principles, only parties.
He (most likely) won’t win.
Who is the Republican, by the way?
There are zero Republicans who qualified for the ballot in that district although any idiot can try a write-in campaign.
Whaddaya hear, PP?
I’m still being blasted by some here because of my refusal to support our most recent gubernatorial nominee.
I guess you’re using the plural “you”. I don’t know about anyone else, but I reject the smear.
Slogans before substance.