Apparently Charlie Baker has problems remembering where he works

Oopsies, he says about federal campaign records on which he listed himself as an executive at an investment firm.

So? Who hasn't had an elder moment or 33? Seems New Jersey sent some pension business the company's way after he sent a donation to the New Jersey Republican State Committee, and that's kinda illegal under New Jersey law, the site says.



    Free tagging: 


    Meanwhile Ms. Coakley abuses

    By on

    Meanwhile Ms. Coakley abuses consumer protection law to circumvent the legislature on a daily basis and *crickets*

    any time a republican

    By on

    any time a republican politician does something shady/unlawful, republicans just scream "but look over there". Why don't you either defend Bakers actions, criticize them, or do nothing. But just trying to change the subject is not a great debate tool.

    Are you OK with this pay to play or not? Are you ok with him lying that he was an employee or not (he lied either when he said he was or when he wasn't).

    Difference is Republicans are

    By on

    Difference is Republicans are named, shamed, and held accountable for this shit. Democrats have a blue wall of silence.

    How so?

    Who is being held accountable in the shenanigans at the MassGOP convention? Baker's been quiet as a church mouse.


    By on

    Democrats are being incarcerated and crickets from the liberals. Take you own advice.

    There's an example of it in today's Globe.

    MassGOP so obviously got caught doing shenanigans and so Tom Keane pens some wickedly unfunny satire in the vein of "Dems do it too!"

    If there's a valid comparison between Defranco and Fisher it's not in his 'column' nor have I heard it anywhere else. For anyone who thinks Fisher didn't get 15% all you need to do is explain why the MassGOP is treating the convention tally sheets as if they were state secrets.

    And Democrats?

    By on

    Don't do the same thing? Any time anyone mentions Obama possibly not telling the truth about anything (Benghazi, health care), the first thing Democrats do is bring up Bush "lying" (I don't know if either man lied or just had false information) about WMD's. To say one party is morally superior to the other is ridiculous, each has some very honorable, intelligent, and sincere well as some scummy career politicians who are only looking out for themselves.

    Your definition of lying

    By on

    Bosguy22, your definition of "lying" is quite odd. You claim that Obama lied about Benghazi, but 13 congressional hearings, 50 congressional briefings, and 25,000 pages of official findings proved that he did not lie. You claim he lied about health care, but such claims have been debunked thoroughly; the supposed "lie" is how he said "if you like your health plan you can keep it" even though some plans have been canceled. However, 1) many of the plans canceled would have been canceled anyway, and the insurance companies just used 'Obamacare' as an excuse, 2) the remaining cancelled plans were terrible plans that didn't offer any real coverage; Obama did not expect anyone to like plans that were awful.

    And, of course, your example of Bush lying is qualified with "maybe he just had false information." Yeah, Bush is a real stand-up guy who totally deserves the benefit of the doubt. "Bin Laden determined to attack within the United States" - hmm, better ignore that one and stay on vacation. "I don't spend that much time on [bin Laden]." Good call.

    What was Charlie Baker endorsing?

    By on

    Whether the graphic is or isn't from the Democratic party (it isn't), it's true Charlie Baker donated $10,000 and Baker's place of work got a contract to manage NJ pension funds.

    Baker's response is that he's not an employee of GC so it's not illegal. I'll leave the question of whether it's illegal or not to others. I will say that it should be illegal for Charlie to get business from NJ in return for making a political donation, and it is illegal for Christie administration to make politics a factor into its fiduciary responsibility managing public employee pension funds.

    Now, Baker says he's not an employee of GC but these are the job titles he's listed himself on GC filings;

    1. executive,
    2. investor,
    3. consultant,
    4. executive in residence,
    5. entrepreneur in residence,
    6. finance,
    7. VC,
    8. CEO and
    9. executive/entrepreneur

    When Baker donated $10,000, was he endorsing NJ Pension Fund management contract or Chris Christie or both?

    Now the GOP must be grateful

    By on

    Now the GOP must be grateful Fisher is on the ballot in case the SEC sanctions Charlie and he cant run at least they will have someone on the ballot.


    By on

    Most people in the industry can't figure out the rules.

    That's why the average investor doesn't even understand that about 90% of "financial advisers" are not licensed to give "advice" nor are they obligated to act in your best interest (and in my opinion, rarely do). 90% of the remaining 10% charge so much money it makes it difficult to accomplish any reasonable financial goals.

    Sounds like Charlie Baker was probably in line to get some pay for providing leads to the company. This is a not uncommon practice in the biz. Way too complicated to even speculate (although I couldn't find a Charles Duane Baker in the SEC's database as an investment adviser representative - so he is apparently not a licensed professional).

    Whether he was an employee or an "associated person" is something for the regulators to sort out.

    Even as a one person office, I maintain a strict "if you can't vote for them, you can't give to them rule". I know this is also not an uncommon practice in the biz. However, every financial firm I know of requires you to disclose to them if you give money to anyone - but if he were not an employee, unlikely Mr. Baker had that obligation.

    If Charlie can't figure out

    By on

    If Charlie can't figure out the rules he has no business trying to get the job of administering and enacting rules as a governor does.

    Dude, the legislature doesn't

    By on

    Dude, the legislature doesn't understand half, let alone READ, most of the bills they vote on.

    Our state produces countless hours of work for lawyers and judges every single year because of criminally ambiguous and contradictory laws.

    I don't have any sympathy.

    If the rules are so complicated that they could foul up his candidacy then maybe he should have erred on the side of caution and not taken the job. Maybe he could have got a real job where employees are employees. Excuse making for the lifestyles of the rich and politically motivated? Not in my job description.

    Naive statement

    By on

    Friend of my wife's is a financial services compliance officer. She told my wife that when she started in the business in the 80's, the company compliance manual was a thin loose-leaf binder. In the 90's it had grown into a bound book. Now it runs several volumes. And then each state has different rules. Some of them don't apply to this firm which appears to be nationally registered, so only subject to SEC rules. They are also an advisor, not a broker, so only advisor rules apply, not brokerage rules, although some of those rules overlap. There are certain rules if you are an employee and other rules if you are an independent agent. In either case, you don't necessarily get licensed (and that's where they test you on the rules). Confused? Join the club. That's why advisory firms keep highly specialized attorneys on retainer or, for the bigger ones, on staff.

    Based on what I can see - sounds like the fault is very possibly with the company - not Charlie Baker - for failure to train him properly or have proper procedures in place, but that is speculation and still to be sorted out. He could still be an independent contractor and perhaps properly list this firm as his employer - for example, most realtors probably list their broker as their employer - even though they technically don't work for them - they are independent contractors (usually).

    Affiliated, associated, licensed, agent, independent contractor, employee - all of these have very specific legal meanings and will be a part of the investigation. But to say "he should have known the rules" is simply naïve. Nobody knows all the rules - even the attorneys.


    By on

    I work for an investment advisor. When I started in this business 15yrs ago, there was no compliance manual, let alone a section on campaign contributions. 10 years ago when I started with my current firm, it was 1 page in the employee handbook. Now? It's a separate document that must be read and signed every year.

    not good enough, under the circumstances

    I don't expect everyone to know all the rules when dealing with complex regulations, but I do expect a one-time candidate for governor, clearly hoping to be a future candidate for governor, to hire a damn expert/lawyer to vet his business dealings. Especially business involving a recipient of his political beneficence. Anything less is crossing his fingers and hoping no one notices.

    Actually sounds like he may have

    By on

    There was some comment about the firm paying lots of money to lots of lawyers to vet this stuff.

    Also - the article clearly quotes the NJ law restricting contributions from "any investment management professional associated with" said firm.

    I would imagine that a lawyer could argue that Mr. Baker is not licensed as an investment management professional, nor did he ever act in that capacity for the firm and therefore isn't one and therefore isn't subject to these laws. And is actually an independent contractor, not an employee further removing him - and the firm from those compliance regs.

    We'll see.