I'm sure they're real sorry and they promise not to do it ever again!
picking the mayor of boston is worth tens or hundreds of millions of dollars. where is the criminal investigation?
I thought the same exact thing. $30,000 fine on $500,000 worth of illegal spending. Just a cost of doing business expense.
It was a settlement. Unfortunately, since they settled we will never know if they are guilty or not or if they broke any laws or not. They maintain there innocence with this settlement and there will never be a trial or a fine. However, all superPACs are wack!
More union political crap
Brought to you by the letter D
(Yes, I know that the mayoral elections are non-partisan)
It isn't the unions, it's a failure of democracy. You can't have good governance and elections when politicians can be purchased and this problem is only getting worse.
You're sleeping if you think this is limited to unions. Pay attention to what PACs support Charlie Baker in a few months.
It's a failure of people. We let ads and attack messages sway our views. We'd all be better off if people took their own initiative to read about candidates, to understand the biases of things they're reading and just to be generally more educated.
Funny how somebody always manages to devolve all blame for any given societal ill to nameless individuals (or, in other instances, classes of individuals).
Humans are social animals. The society that we have was not built by a bunch of individuals. Start there.
Nobody is putting a gun to our heads and forcing us to vote for the candidate who spends the most. It is ultimately and completely up to us.
Often the candidate with more money does not win so it's not a problem with just raising the most amount of cash. The problem is that there is an clear relationship between donations and favorable legislation/policies to the party who gave said cash. This often works to hurt the economy and society as a whole while helping one special group. (For example, the laws regarding car dealerships which prohibit real competition.)
Even a voter who pays close attention won't see when a politician lets a lobbyist write the regulations for an industry as a thank-you for hosting a big fundraiser. The amount of serious political reporting and muckraking is on the decline and donations are on the rise.
So yes it's the fault of "the people" for voting these people in but fixing the campaign finance regulations would be a good first step.
They're NOT putting a gun to a lot of our heads and allowing us not to vote by design. By suppressing interest in a wide variety of ways, they have distilled the voting bloc to its most fanatical cores which further suppresses anyone else's interest further. Then they just have to whip the frenzy into their core, via spending money, a tad bit greater than the other and voila.
It's easier to predict if you're going to win or not if you know the early polling data is truly representative of what's going to happen at election time. That only happens if "undecideds" and less interested parties aren't voting and only the superfans of either side go out to vote (as their early data is spot on since they're easy to understand and predict).
As for voting for whomever spent the most, it's also a bit of a chicken and egg problem. Are we voting for them because they spent the most or are they able to spend the most because it was likely we were going to vote for them anyways? Incumbents win because they're a known quantity. They also get the most money to spend because these days they've fundraised the entire time they were in office and they're the most likely to win.
Finally, in a case like this one where the incumbent is out of the election, money may have the greater influence...but for the same reason that incumbency does. Familiarity. If you've heard the name repeatedly, heard their intentions and messaging the most, then you're more familiar with them and they become the brand you trust if you're put on the spot. It's a factor of how our brain works...the gun to your head is of your own making.
Unions were super PACs before PACs existed for nonunions.
No they weren't. By saying so, you raise the question of whether you know what a SuperPAC or a union really is. But then, you're an anon (not verified), so we return to not caring what you may know or not know.
I hear we'll be working a 12 hour shift instead of the 16 hour shift we work the rest of the week.
No worries about child care, either - they work here too.
1910 is calling. It wants its news back.
So long as they keep their working conditions, too.
BIG HINT: unions are a big reason these things are more 1910 than 2010.
A do-over for the 2013 election.
And an undo of all that has happened since.
Somewhere over the rainbow ...
So how about some specifics?
When I ask friends who were paying attention, they suggest the mayoral election here and in New York City was about a middle and working class restoration after a few decades of mayors who sucked up to rich assholes left them feeling left in the lurch.
So should the counter revolution entail things like Entitled Neighborhood Autonomous Empowerment Zones?
I know... luxury condos from Suffolk Downs to Paul's Bridge.
A new dazzling forbidden city clone could wrap the entitled core with walls and strict entry requirements including proof of net worth above 250k and certification by the related Neighborhood Imposition Authority.
Think of the tuition that could be extorted from enrollment at Boston Latin!!
And this whole idea of unions... UNIONS!!... throwing money ineptly at elections is profoundly repulsive..
Don't those stinking peasants realize that election buying is a right solely reserved for corporations ..from which all blessings flow?
I'm sure that is what motivated out of state education interests to dump money into the mayor's race through a Roslindale interior decorator, concern about the middle class and poor. Definitely not school reform.
I'd prefer my local officials to be bought locally, not by out of state groups, thanks.
..not by out of state groups, thanks."
Too bad you don't get a choice.
Any sense of how big this ed contribution pie slice was?
And graft is graft whether you are buying a concrete contractor another McMansion or an Ed Services mega corp gets a redundant test package sale.
All I know is when I ask around, my friends who have no children or ed concerns voted for whoever would be least likely to continue making the same kinds of messes Menino made.
And they were generally tired of being crabgrass to stomp in the rush to pander to wealth and tourists.
The shrill rush to grasp any straw at hand to whip the winner is hilariously similar to teahadist squeals about "Benghazi'.
This at least suggests neither right nor left enjoy a monopoly at gnawing on spent bones when a distraction is wanted.
Now all you gotta do is find something more substantive and that natural shrillness should push it over the top.
In the mean time, you may as well hone self control at punch signaling as it sux when it just flies through air..
You're so right.
Two wrongs DO make a right. Pardon my error.
And, just for YOU, I will never again post a single thing without posting plenty of detail...and making the length of any post equivalent to that of a short story. (Following your exemplary lead, natch.)
..purity politics boil down to perfection being enemy to what good might be extracted from an otherwise vile mess?
Detail is fun for those who retain attention spans.
Chelsea Clinton paid $600K by NBC
How do I get into that union ? Wonder if she gets dental and vision insurance coverage too.
I was wondering when we would get a token non-sequitur attack on some random non-Bostonian who happens to be connected to a particular political party. Thanks for being a predictable troll!
Political influence is money in the bank. Its convenient for the intelligentsia when a Union is involved, to diagnose it as the scourge of civilization. But otherwise ( as in Chelsea's case ) , its A - OK. Its all related , sequituring or not, capice?There is not an electron's worth of value in her position for that dough. You know what is all about. Martin was a Laborer in the Union, he knows the value of a hard days work. Your random generalizations dont get anything created or built. Maybe you are stealing time not being productive, on your employer's resources. Who knows.
I'm not seeing the connection between someone getting paid to do a job (albeit a salary that is inflated for the work put in, but then again see the comment below about Sandra Bullock's $70m for a few week's work) and a Super PAC funneling money into a local campaign.
Unless you really think that Hillary and Bill Clinton, who are not in any office now nor have they been for the last few years, might be unduly influenced by a high-money job that their daughter had? The only parts of that situation that have anything to do with this one are the words "office" and "high-money".
I'm just not seeing the connection you're trying to make, nor does this follow-up post make a whole lot of sense.
The theory is that by employing Chelsea Clinton, NBC would be in a better position to score news on the Clinton campaign. Therefore, the $600,000 would be a bit of a payoff for access, even though on the surface the decision to employ Chelsea is purely based on the need for an employee. Of course, this would be based on the idea that Chelsea has no qualifications.
In this case, the $500,000 payoff from the AFT (via a sympathetic ad campaign) through an occasional voter would also be an attempt to get something from Walsh, though the two are not linked.
I'm not agreeing with kvn on this. I'm just giving a disinterested party's take on the claim. I could be off, but then again I didn't make the analogy.
Dude ,it's all about political influence, the acquisition of. The fact that neither of the two are in elected does not diminish the reach of their influence. That's the nature of politics, it shouldn't be a surprise. I just find the sum paid to Chelsea beyond rediculous . That's my perception.
I see where you're going, I just think the analogy is stretched thin. I would have recommended highlighting a former lawmaker who goes into the lobbying world, or a former aide becoming a big-wig at the local AFLCIO or something along those lines. But I get what you're saying (now).
Humanzees are clannish.
Much of Holywad is now a ridiculous nepotistic shit show,
Jon Voight gave us Angelina Jolie, There is the Baldwin posse.
Billy Ray's rambunctious daughter gets the lottery prize for pumped mediocrity.
The Kennedy clan is like some byzantine epic.
The urge to resist nepotism is mainly an ideal.
The urge to spread largess to your kids, cousins and friends to be a big provider is the reality.
I'm a wasp who believes you pick your friends and you're stuck with your relatives. but it's hardly a popular outlook.
For MUCH longer than a laborer.
He got into the office of the union very quickly thanks to family connections, and then got into elected office when those family connections turned the screws on union members to "volunteer" (that is if you want to get a job...). Marty's ads focused on his being an Everyman - but the guy's tools were a cell phone and computer and influence longer than anything else. Marty had a job, paid by the unions, at the SAME time he was a) state rep, 2) ethics chair. The great irony is that he painted himself the underdog, when the truth was Connolly, with a city salary, a house and small kids, was feeling the pinch of being a regular guy and making it work.
Yes, I am still bitter, though I acknowledge his BRA work is great so far. I am now waiting for those illegal BRA actions to be 1) undone as they were illegal- Yawkey way? 2) investigated for crimes
Sandra Bullock got paid 70 million to be in gravity, maybe you could get into that union (SAG), and dental and vision is available to SAG members.
You have to know your limits, I am happy with my union.You have to have reasonable expectations in life, and work to fulfill them.
Unions are corporations too!
That's called politics.
Let's start at point one- admit it, you were a Connolly supporter. No shame in that, but that does influence your views in this. It's partisanship. Walsh somehow screwed up, even though it was a Super PAC theoretically unconnected (and I was reading something yesterday that I cannot find now that said that campaigns are getting tired of Super PACS as they are messing with the crafted message they are trying to put out themselves due to the unconnectedness) to his campaign, so you are smelling blood in the water.
Second, what has Walsh done in the past 8 months that needs undoing? A fair contract with the firefighters? What?
Look, I'll take it that politically, this stings for Walsh (even though it shouldn't, theoretically.) He has 3 years to put this behind him. That's why we no longer elect mayors (or governors) to one or two year terms, so they can get things done. If he can prove that he has independence in education matters, he's done a good job. If things stagnate in the schools, the charge that he is a tool of the teachers' unions just might stick. Still, it's 8 months in.
Second, what has Walsh done in the past 8 months that needs undoing?
Under what system does "the guy whose supporters illegally influenced the election hasn't done anything evil." exonerate illegal campaigning?
What has he, Mayor Martin J. Walsh, done as mayor that needs undoing? I did not write "what did Walsh's supporters do a year ago that would entail going against what the City Charter says the term of the mayor is?" The poster said we need to undo what Walsh has done. I want to know what he thinks needs undoing.
Also, did you bother reading what I said about Super PACs, or for that matter do you understand how Super PACs work? Do you understand how campaign finance laws work? Or do you just hate the guy?
I don't hate Walsh; I think he's doing OK so far but it's too early to tell. I honestly have no idea what you're on about; my posting here wasn't about Walsh it was about illegal campaign acts by 3rd parties.
I was going to say what you said, but then I basically would have been mimicking you, which would accomplish nothing.
A do-over for the 2013 election.
And an undo of all that has happened since.
I questioned what needed to be undone.
You questioned my questioning, noting that Super PACs engaged in illegal campaign activities. I responded in kind, as I view things.
It should be noted that first nothing illegal was admitted and second the Walsh campaign itself was never accused of coordinating anything, which would have been a big no no.
Look, my outlook on Connolly was formed based on what he did to Murphy when he was trying to get on the council, so I can't hold it against anyone to have issues with how the outside parties did what they did. To be honest, I never liked how shady groups were active in the campaign. However, I will once again repeat that it is now up to Walsh to make sure there is no quid pro quo.
Of course, anonism still hasn't noted what needs to be undone, but I will wait in real, as opposed to internet, time.
Got the better of them
Martin, if we have your attention here , tear down that city hall. Beannacht ,mo dheartháir !
Undoing the election would be in effect going back in time, thereby undoing everything that's happened since.
I'm not some anti-Walsh guy.
And you said the opposite.
Have a nice day!
Look for the union label.
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Copyright 2022 by Adam Gaffin and by content posters.Advertise | About Universal Hub | Contact | Privacy