The name “Ron Mariano” and “Capital Grille” are joined in my mind, like “dental plan” and “Lisa needs braces” …
Why? I knew there was something. And friends, this is why we have “institutional memory”, so that at the moment of Mariano’s supposed ascension to Speaker of the Commonwealth (God save it!), I can dredge this up: A 2007 Janet Wu classic, interviewing a Ron Mariano who forgot to wear shame that day. Click the link — it’ll take a moment to load the Wayback machine:
Rep. Ronald Mariano hasn’t faced an opponent since 1992. But last year, he raised more than $100,000. If he isn’t spending it on a campaign, what did he spend nearly $44,000 on? Well, there are the meals at Boston’s top end restaurants — $842 for dinner at Abe and Louie’s and $1,000 lunches at Ruth’s Chris and at Capital Grille, which the chairman called a team building event for his staff.
“A $1,000 lunch at Capital Grille. Do you think that’s right? Do you think your constituents eat at Capital Grille?” Wu asked.
“Well, most of the money that I raise is from the industry,” Mariano said.
He’s talking about executives and lobbyists for banks and insurance companies. But wait until you hear why they’re so generous to the chair of the Financial Services Committee.
“I’m able to raise lot of money based on the committee I’m chairing,” Mariano said.
“What do you mean by that?” Wu asked.
“Well, the committee I’m chairing is very active. It has a lot of financial bills. So, people want access and think that coming to fundraisers gives them access,” Mariano said.
“And does it?” Wu asked.
“Sometimes,” he said.
Maybe it’s legal. Nonetheless, it’s corrupt! And that’s your new speaker, the guy who “has the votes”.
It’s true, we’re not in a great era for shame.
(Here’s our post from that time: “A moat made of money”)
Perhaps I’m having a brain-fart, but I’m unable to persuade the link to do anything except ask me for money.
It does sound as though the merry-go-round continues to turn, and will do so as long as we keep listening to the music.
Ironically, my very first exchanges here at BMG (on the old platform) were about the pervasive culture of corruption in Massachusetts government. Fast-forward to almost-2021, and nothing has changed.
This article seems to imply Mariano lined up the votes six years ago. Something I wish progressives on the hill could figure out how to do.
https://commonwealthmagazine.org/politics/mariano-supporters-say-he-has-the-votes-if-deleo-steps-down/
If there’s one thing I’ve learned in politics it’s get a CURRENT nose count. I know there’s not a lot of turnover, but six years still equates to three election cycles and if a week is a long time in politics then six years is an epoch. There needs to be a challenge just on principle to break this cycle of automatic succession. It’s one thing that we have a pretty good idea who the next three British Kings are going to be, but that shouldn’t be how the Speakership works. The other thing I’ve heard is that Mariano is trying to have a vote before newly elected members are seated, but a lame duck House can’t impose its will on the House-elect, right?
To be fair to Ron, it’s been a tough year. Wit so many restaurants closed, where can he spend his industry donations?
Lest we forget, self-dealing corruption like this is a double tax that corrodes public faith in the ability of government to make things better.
So, the angry public can’t change things, but they can reject a gas tax or an income tax increase, because it will just get spent at the Capital Grille; no progressive income tax, because that gives more power to the legislature that cannot control itself.
I’m saying that not only is the moat of money odious on its face, it is also why we cannot have nice things generally.
Um, wasn’t he spending campaign contributions at the Capital Grille rather than tax dollars? I might be annoyed if I were a donor, but not as a taxpayer.
Oh, come on. Why let mere facts get in the way of an excellent rant?
This comment actually epitomizes the issue, though. I remember some at BMG arguing during the Probation Department scandal that it was “just patronage” and should not have been prosecuted. The state Supreme Court apparently agreed with that argument and voided all of the convictions. Oh, and we should not forget that Mr. DeLeo was an “un-indicted co-conspirator” in that case.
Most people do not draw these distinctions — for many people, corruption is corruption, legal or not.
The fact that generations of Democratic lawmakers have adjusted state law to ensure that patronage and campaign funding abuse is not criminal is a huge part of why it is so hard to convince voters that tax increases are required.
I think that’s the real message of Trickle up’s comment, and I think it’s real and valid.
But the facts are he improperly spent campaign contributions, not tax dollars, and maybe that is illegal. However, it is also irrelevant to the question of raising taxes. What public service or government function was deprived of 44K because Mariano burned it at the Capital Grille? Does. Not. Compute.
“However, it is also irrelevant to the question of raising taxes.”
The resistance of a large and growing body of Massachusetts residents — including self-professed Democrats — who flatly refuse to support raising taxes because of a belief that any resulting increased revenue will be improperly squandered by corrupt officials refutes your assertion of irrelevance.
The most important public service or government function of all: TRUST.
How can you fail to see the toxic impact of flagrant and pervasive corruption of public officials? How can you fail to see that when courts declare that corruption legal, it makes the problem worse?
Do you remember a Catholic Attorney General and gubernatorial hopeful named Tom Reilly? When the clergy sex scandal broke wide open, then-Cardinal Bernard Law was clearly identified as THE key figure in the decades-long practice of moving perpetrators from parish to parish while simultaneously silencing victims and their families. Thousands of innocent children were victimized because of Mr. Law’s direct acts.
Do remember that Mr. Reilly was famously and openly unable to charge Mr. Law for anything, claiming that while Mr. Law’s actions were abhorrent, they were not illegal under Massachusetts law at that time.
Do you think that Mr. Reilly’s handling of that matter was “irrelevant” to the immediate collapse of his political career?
Some years ago, when the Boston Globe was still a real newspaper, it described widespread abuse of disability compensation and pensions for police and fire personnel. Those pieces documented a widespread network of participating doctors, lawyers, and consultants who helped perpetuate these abuses. Cooperative elected officials such as Martha Coakley were at the very heart of that particular scandal. It was literally an industry.
How many people in that corrupt industry were ever investigated and prosecuted? Like the Probation Department scandal, it played out as legal corruption — widely known, well-documented, and absolutely ignored by Democrats who controlled the agencies responsible for stopping it.
The facts are that Mr. Mariano has shown himself to be deeply corrupt, as all of his recent predecessors have been deeply corrupt. The facts are that the reversal of the Probation Department scandal convictions have made Massachusetts residents more convinced that Massachusetts elected government is pervasively corrupt.
Elevating Mr. Mariano to Speaker of the House will confirm that belief in a huge number of Massachusetts voters — including yours truly.
Massachusetts Democrats have a corruption problem. That corruption problem is already causing grievous harm to both the state and to our political future. We ignore that reality at our extreme peril.
I hope you are willing to view my comment as a “substantive contribution to this discussion”.
Yes, yours is substantive; Scott’s felt ad hominem. To be clear, I’m not defending Mariano’s campaign spending on the merits. I am simply pointing out that his campaign war chest and the state’s tax revenues are two completely separate pots of money. The distinction is so clear to me that I’m trying to figure out where I am failing to communicate. As for Reilly, I hope you are not suggesting that he should have charged Law with crimes that don’t exist. That would fundamentally contradict liberty based on the rule of law.
Of course the two are separate pots of money. There is no doubt room for several more angels on the head of that pin.
The assertion is that Mr. Mariano is corrupt. That has nothing to do with whether or not he squandered tax dollars.
An honest Attorney General who was not Catholic would have brought indictments against Mr. Law. An honest court that was not Catholic would have found a way to convict Mr. Law for at least some of those indictments.
The fiction that what Bernard Law did was not against the law is just as unreal as the fiction that Democrats stole the election from Donald Trump through massive voter fraud. The premise that there would have been a conflict between putting Bernard Law behind bars and the rule of law is an expression of faith, not reality.
Bernard Law was a guilty man whose crimes destroyed the lives of thousands of people. I think the observant Catholic who had a constitutional duty to bring Bernard Law to justice put his religious beliefs before that constitutional duty.
Wait a second – you said above that Reilly was UNABLE (not unwilling) to bring charges against Cardinal Law, and that he found nothing illegal in what Law did. It still sounds like you are suggesting that just because what Law did was morally reprehensible Reilly should have found something, anything, to charge him with and I can’t abide that. Sounds to me like Reilly WAS doing what he felt was his constitutional duty to not make up the law as he went along.
I still need you to draw a straight line for me between Mariano’s campaign spending and taxes. Why should my vote consideration be, “I don’t like the way a legislative leader spends campaign funds so let’s punish schools, public safety, infrastructure, public assistance programs, etc. (and by extension all of us who depend on same) by depriving them of necessary tax revenues.”? I’m honestly not trying to be obtuse here.
I wrote “famously and openly unable”. I assumed that you would be able to understand the irony I intended. In the famous quote “There are none so blind as those whose livelihood depends on their not seeing”, do you think the quote is referring to people who literally have vision defects?
I and many voters felt that Mr. Reilly did not find what he refused to seek or see. I do not share your faith in Mr. Reilly. You think he was doing his constitutional duty. I think he was showing obeisance to a religious figure and institution.
I’m not trying to change your vote. I’m trying to help you see how voters like me see the situation.
I struggle to understand your blind faith in public figures like Mr. Reilly and Mr. Mariano.
I word your question very differently from you: “I see a succession of legislative leaders abusing the public trust at every opportunity with the limited amount of money they already have. Why should I give them even more money to squander?”
If you learn that the bank where you keep your retirement savings lies about the compensation it pays its executives, admits that it improperly collects fees and penalties and defrauds its contractors, would you continue to keep your life’s savings there because they haven’t yet been caught stealing depositor funds?
It’s a lot easier for me to switch banks than move out of state, and those services still need money. The thing to do about corrupt legislators is to vote them out. I invite you to cite directly from MGL which law(s) you believe the then-Cardinal violated.
I’m not suggesting that you move out of state. I’m instead asking you to stop making excuses for corrupt Democrats.
I am not the Attorney General. I’ve never claimed the legal expertise required to bring the necessary indictments — that’s why we elect an Attorney General.
What I do know is that priests having sex with 14 year old boys is both illegal and immoral. Moving priests from parish to parish, while knowingly suppressing information about what they did, was almost certainly illegal if a zealous prosecutor actually wanted a conviction.
I’m quite certain that if the leader of some non-religious criminal organization did the same thing, that leader would have been arrested, indicted, convicted, and incarcerated.
Attorney General Tom Reilly gave Bernard Law a pass because Tom Reilly was an observant Catholic and Bernard Law was sitting Cardinal. I know that and so do you.
I have absolutely no idea if the second part of your comment is true; I would have to see the law. It certainly would be illegal now with mandatory reporting, but I am just plain ignorant of whether that was the case then.
Anyway, I followed you down a tangential rabbit hole. If Mariano violated campaign finance law OCPF would surely be on it as they tend not to be shy in my experience. If it’s not illegal and you feel it should be you are free to contact your legislators, but don’t decide you’re outraged about something then work backwards to find a law that might work to prosecute. That sounds like Ken Starr’s modus operandi.
@That sounds like Ken Starr’s modus operandi.:
Again, I fear you have the causality inverted. Abuses like those of Ken Starr happen when government fails to address rampant corruption.
People are very good at smelling corruption. It is true that a handful of people will always believe the worst about every public figure. It is also true that the media has an enormous influence over what people feel and believe (that’s why advertising works).
I agree that we don’t want to go down the Ken Starr rabbit hole.
When organized crime was out of control during prohibition, federal authorities successfully brought indictments, convictions, and punishments of tax evasion to resist the waves of violent crime sweeping the country.
Bernard Law should have been indicted, prosecuted, convicted, and punished. For SOMETHING. He wasn’t.
The Probation Department scandal was outrageously corrupt. Bob DeLeo was a central player (an unindicted co-conspirator). The subsequent reversals of the many convictions in that case did not make the corruption less real.
Successful government requires the TRUST of the people. That trust, in turn, requires that government avoid the perception of corruption.
The standard you apply — that behavior must be illegal — only enables more of the already pervasive corruption that is paralyzing Massachusetts government.
There are only two choices – if already illegal prosecute and if legal advocate a change in the law to make it illegal for next time. Surely you know that ex post facto laws and attainders are not appropriate. Of course “the behavior must be illegal” in order to prosecute – I can’t believe I have to point that out!
I’m of course familiar with the prohibition on ex post facto laws and attainers.
There are almost never “only two choices”. The gangster-era prosecutions of mob bosses like Al Capone for income-tax evasion were not because it was legal to machine-gun people on the street.
It was, instead, because Mr. Capone was very good at corrupting local authorities and intimidating witnesses. Good enough that there was never enough evidence to successfully prosecute him at the local level.
The Catholic church had a similarly corrupt hold on Massachusetts authorities during the several decades of the clergy sex abuse scandal. Tom Reilly was part of that corruption.
On the national level, we see the Trumpists showing us what happens when an entire government is turned to corrupt purposes. The behavior of the perpetrators is already illegal — that doesn’t matter if the prosecutors won’t bring charges.
I’m not arguing that anyone should be prosecuted for behavior that is not illegal. I am instead arguing that CORRUPTION is a toxic cancer that does not have to be illegal to exist.
The voters of Massachusetts steadfastly refuse new taxes because a large and growing majority of them believe that corrupt Massachusetts officials — both elected and appointed — will simply pocket the resulting increased revenue.
If public rail transportation in Massachusetts is as sporadic, unsafe, slow, unreliable and expensive after a tax increase (regardless of the nature of that tax increase) as it is before the tax increase, then the tax increase will be opposed.
A large and growing majority of Massachusetts voters do not believe that they will see any benefits from increased taxes. That’s why they oppose increased taxes in all forms.
THAT is why the appearance of corruption — regardless of its legality — is so toxic to good government.
Honestly, I always feel dejected when I’m reminded that they nailed Capone on tax evasion of all things. I want to scream – IS THAT ALL YOU’VE GOT! Surely he committed or conspired to commit multiple murders.
Obviously state officials are salaried by tax dollars, but are you seriously accusing them of pocketing tax revenues improperly? I hope you can back that up as that is a serious charge!
I’m weary of going around and around on this.
Al Capone was nailed on the charges that federal authorities knew they could win convictions for. Federal authorities were well aware of the ways that Mr. Capone and others like him had successfully corrupted the justice system. They found a way to bring him to justice.
I’m weary of going around and around on this.
Let me try one last time. NO, I am not accusing officials of “pocketing tax revenues improperly.”
I am accusing officials of erecting, over a period of decades, a relatively well-operating machine that keeps themselves and their designated “friends” in power and wealth and protects them from being overly disrupted.
The Probation Department scandal was a good example. The several scandals at various state labs are another. The disability and pension abuse scandal is a third (I note that NPR is reporting just this week that an ENORMOUS share of the CURRENT police and fire personnel are out on “disability” compensation).
The list goes on and on and on. These abuses suck funding away from desperately needed programs. Even worse, though, is that these abuses cause the public to absolutely refuse to increase taxes — because the public is convinced that higher taxes will only lead to more money squandered on no-show jobs, fraudulent disability reports (for which the medical providers and attorneys never seem to be prosecuted), and so on and so forth.
Only the truly stupid (or desperate) officials actually pocket these revenues illegally. The corruption engine is driven by the much larger number of people who understand how to work within the corrupt system to ensure that their gains and rewards are completely legal.
Massachusetts government has a pervasive culture of corruption. It has taken generations to enshrine in law. When the prosecutors, police, courts, and legislators are all compromised by this pervasive culture of corruption, then relying on those prosecutors, police, courts, and legislators to stop it is a fool’s errand. Of COURSE the Probation Department scandal convictions were reversed on appeal — how would state government function if elected officials were actually punished for selling no-show jobs in exchange for campaign contributions?
Massachusetts has been my home for nearly fifty years and I love living here. I despise the pervasive culture of corruption that so thoroughly dominates Beacon Hill.
@Christopher: Rent-seeking activity means that public power is hijacked for private gain. That is the first tax, since it diminishes the power of government to do good by whatever amount got greased. It is what most people (rightfully) object to.
(I hope you get that, it’s got nothing to do with who picked up the tab for lunch.)
The second tax is that voters say, Screw this, screw government, I’m just going to vote no whenever I can. Which they do. It is the second cost of corruption–the destruction of the only tool that can deliver equity and fairness.
I understand the principle but fail to see how it applies in this particular context. I for one vote to get my services funded adequately.
And yet so many do not. Is it worth understanding why that happens, do you think?
Because they throw temper tantrums in the voting booth and want to stick it to the Man even if it means shooting themselves in the foot?
Way to blame the victims, Christopher. And here’s the thing, though: they get the last word.
What is THAT outburst about?
The people voting against tax increases most certainly are NOT wanting to “stick it to the Man”.
To the contrary, the opposition to raising taxes is coming from voters who are fed up with pervasive corruption — legal and illegal.
And services are still short-funded. If voters are outraged they should stop voting for people who do this.
I suggest that many of those voters already do exactly that.
That’s one of the better reasons why so few voters register for either party, and why so few voters actually bother to vote.
When the candidates are all perceived as equally likely to be corrupt, why would a voters who cares about corruption bother to vote at all?
So even the challenging candidates are presumed to be corrupt? That’s a lot more cynical than I can abide and since “none of the above” can’t get elected voters need to make a choice. They are frankly perpetuating the system by not getting involved.
They are VICTIMS of the system.
As Trickle Up observed upthread, you are blaming the victims.
The perpetrators are corrupt politicians — like Mr. Mariano.
To be fair in Mass the Dems are in charge but in other parts of the country Republicans are equally entrenched and may be used to running things in ways that could be viewed as equally corrupt. Wintering in Fla provides the opportunity to hear stories from all over the country about local stories of questionable political activity. If only a candidate were to pick the slogan “Drain the swamp” they might find a strong response to their message, no matter how flawed and incompetent they personally might be. People might be so disgusted with the way things run they would be willing to burn down their house to solve a termite infestation.
The system will swallow up any brief outrage though, and with a complicit media things will go back to normal quickly.
@scott12mass: You describe how Hitler, Mussolini, and Stalin came to power. I agree with your sentiment, sadly.
I would hope that wintering in Fla provides the opportunity to see from close up what happens when unrestrained racism and misogyny joins with ignorance in both the electorate and in government. The appalling SWAT raid on Rebekah Jones for the “crime” of publishing actual COVID data about Florida exemplifies the reality that Massachusetts, as bad as it is, is still far preferable to Florida.
I hope that you and your family do not become examples of the statistical data that Ron DeSantis terrorizes families of young scientists to hide.
Small sample size but anecdotally I interact with far more Blacks in Fla than I do in Central Mass. Schools are more integrated and by far there are more small business owners who are not white than there are in Mass. SW Fla just elected a Trump loving Black guy to the House.
@Small sample size: Understood. It is well-documented, now, that school districts in Massachusetts are more segregated today than they were in 1974 when forced busing was imposed.
Massachusetts was noticeably more racist when I moved here in 1974 than the MD suburb of Washington DC where I grew up.
As you note, your local experience is not representative of the state as a whole. In particular, state government in FL is much worse than here in MA (as bad as MA is).
The voters are the ultimate check. Fixing this requires that they be more involved, not less. If they want things to change they need to vote in new people. If those new people prove not to change or at least make progress, switch them out for more new people in a couple of years, rinse and repeat. Bad behavior and status quo will continue if voters do not demonstrate that they care and are watching.
@Christopher: I agree that voters are the ultimate check and always have.
This corruption will change ONLY when those voters successfully demand a stop to the APPEARANCE as well as practice of corruption.
My disagreement with you has never been about the primacy of the voters. It is instead about your insistence that corrupt behavior be illegal in order to be grounds for rejection by the voters.
Your final sentence does not accurately characterize my view. I personally may not go much for mere appearances, but voters are free to say we can do better. Of course that requires there be another choice so there needs to be a challenger – preferably in a primary if the incumbent is a Dem so we can still keep the seat blue.
I’m hearing that Russell Holmes of Mattapan is challenging Rep. Mariano. I don’t know much about him except apparently he has been one of just a few willing to challenge the leadership.
Some of my comments have been removed. It was never my intention to insult or hurt anyone’s feelings. I didn’t realize how much you are trying to mimic today’s college campuses and provide a safe space. If I caused any microaggressions in any way I truly apologize. It will never happen again. (I hope at least my apology will be posted)
I was surprised. I’ve seen worse than the one I thought was a bit ad hominem.
The terms of service haven’t changed, and neither has the moderation policy.
A good rule of thumb before posting a comment is to ask yourself if you would speak the same words to a friend or colleague at a social gathering such as a work party, a bar or a restaurant.
There was one that was flagged by the system … don’t remember why. Anyway it didn’t seem important enough to leave up. It was ad hominem and not very interesting.