Hey, there! Log in / Register
Globe questions Walsh and Golar Richie campaign contributions
By JohnAKeith on Sun, 11/24/2013 - 4:07pm
Jim O'Sullivan and Andrew Ryan at the Boston Globe review Mayor-elect Martin Walsh's fundraising efforts since Election Day and find he's continued to raise thousands of dollars in donations, banking $63,000 since Nov. 5th. At the same time, he's helped former Boston mayoral candidate Charlotte Golar Richie retire her campaign debt, hosting a fundraiser just this past Tuesday.
That's no big deal, right?
The reporters admit, it's not unusual for a politician to get contributions from interested parties after he's won, and, "It is not uncommon for a victorious candidate to help a former rival raise money to pay off campaign debt.".
So what's their beef?
What Sullivan and Ryan say is unusual (they use the words "less typical", actually) is for a winning candidate to help a former rival who is now advising him or her, and in this case, Ms Golar Richie is on Mr Walsh's transition team, which raises the question (at least in the Globe's mind) - are people contributing to Golar Richie as a way to curry favor with "Mayor" Walsh?
But, what I find more interesting than the above (which I really don't find very surprising, unexpected, or disturbing) is Charlotte Golar Richie's latest campaign finance report, a copy of which is recreated above. (Courtesy of Jed Hresko.)
Large campaign contributors in Massachusetts are required to state who they work for; if they don't, a candidate is required to at least request this information from the donor. (There's no penalty if the donor doesn't respond, as far as I know.)
As you can see, none of the 29 contributors who gave $500 apiece to Golar Richie on November 13th provided their occupations or employers.
And, what's up with all the misspellings and wrong addresses, as well as incorrect ZIP Codes? (Who doesn't know the ZIP for South Boston is 02127?)
What's that all about?
Disclosure: Yes, I was a John Connolly supporter in this year's election, not that I think it's relevant. My issue is with the campaign contributions, not the candidates themselves. (And, in fact, prior to this year, I was begging Charlotte to run, on Twitter.)
Neighborhoods:
Topics:
Free tagging:
Ad:
Support Universal Hub
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.
Comments
Another butthurt Connolly supporter
Another butthurt Connolly supporter squawking, waving their hands, insinuating malfeasance, asserted nothing of substance. I can see liking Connolly, he was groomed to serve wealthy interests. But can't you do it without smearing Walsh?
Circle the wagons
You must be a teamster based on how quickly you're circling the wagons.
To the losers
To the losers, everyone is a union member.
The loser has been raising campaign funds too
John Connolly raised $29,474 since Election Day, from GOP lobbyist Ron Kaufman, MA GOP Chair Jen Nassour, former Republican Governor Bill Weld, and Fidelity PAC.
He wasn't elected.
Doesn't mean a thing.
It means...
It means Connolly is still raising money "the offense" Walsh is being accused of. It means Connolly spent more during his campaign than he had raised or he plans to run again. It means his strongest supporters are some of the most powerful and influential Republicans in the state. Somehow, I don't think that will help him get elected to local or state government. That's three things it's means. Can you think of any others?
Well, then, I 'd say Connolly was thinking of running again
what's Marty Walsh's excuse?
Duh
I'd say Walsh might want to run again in four years. Or is that too obvious a reason.
Well, then
I'm sure money won't be a problem for Walsh come next election, will it?
Money won't be a problem if he raises money.
I feel like I'm stating the obvious but maybe it has to be said.
nothing to see move along...
nothing to see move along....yawn
You are assuming
You are assuming the writer is a Connolly supporter. Maybe the facts are correct. Instead of making assumptions and name calling, go investigate, get some facts and get them to a media outlet. If you read the entire Globe article, you will read that a lot of politicians get money after they are elected (though some donations aren't smart to take as they are borderline from an ethics standpoint).
And I'm
Assuming you didn't read the article. See last paragraph.
The Globe Endorsed Connolly
not unreasonable to suspect the writers support Walsh's opponent. Somehow I doubt these sort of shenanigans would be that different had Connolly the corporate lawyer and veteran city councilor won the election; same game, maybe some different players. This article seems to be chronicling business as usual, I really don't see a smoking gun.
Nah, can't have anyone
Nah, can't have anyone pointing out any dirty tricks or looting by a candidate backed by unions. Gotta perpetuate the myth that they are for the little guy and not just another layer of incompetent thieving management.
The insinuation
The insinuation is that there are dirty tricks and looting. I don't see anyone actually making the case.
Did you hear that?
That was the point soaring over your head.
Your post is a prime example
Your post is a prime example why union support among Americans is at an all time low. The unions started with lofty goals and supported the little guy. Now they are just power hungry and behave like a bunch of high school bullies.
O'
No comment on the substance here, but it should be noted that the reporter is Jim O'Sullivan, not Sullivan.
Suldog
http://jimsuldog.blogspot.com
K'
'Kay, made the change.
Also edited two sentences out at the end - too much editorial comment on my part.
I support Marty Walsh.
I support Marty Walsh. Period.
Don't blame us!
That's your problem if you have bad judgment!
I said it before and I'll say it again
Walsh is a bought and paid for scumbag.
Why, I'm shocked, SHOCKED to see there's gambling going on in here! Excellent post, John.
You say "Walsh is a bought and paid for scumbag"
You say "Walsh is a bought and paid for scumbag" but the best you can do to substantiate that serious, and if false slanderous accusation, is cite a source that says "officials should be extremely sensitive to even the perception of influence-peddling."
By the way, that source is anti-union, and pro public school privatization advocacy group funded by Republicans, that raised over $5,000 for Walsh's opponent John Connolly.
And that source does not even accuse Walsh of being involved in influence peddling, it merely cautions that he should be extremely sensitive to "the perception of influence-peddling."
You should substantiate or retract "Walsh is a bought and paid for scumbag." You're way off the rails here.
Oh, I should?
Why, because you say so? Walsh is a public figure and I'm entitled to my opinion of him. I, (and many others in this town) think he's a bought and paid for scumbag and not the meat and potatoes, working class guy his people have tried very hard to present him as. Time will most certainly tell, won't it?
You should substantiate or retract
You should substantiate or retract because you make the claim. I'll wait.
Here you go!!!
http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/2013/11/28/walsh-inaugura...
Nothing to see here, folks, move along!
OOPS! Looks like the very embarrassing story of Walsh's disgusting shakedown for his inauguration has somehow...disappeared? The link is now dead. Got 50K? Then you can buy yourself a special meet and greet with our new Mayah. Where I'm sure he'll be more than willing to listen to anything you can afford to say to him.
Here's a new link:
http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2013/11/28/walsh-inaugural-requests-don...
Give it rest with the
Give it rest with the Republican nonsense. Supporting good schools doesn't make a person a Republican. In fact, you will find a majority of Democrats and liberals support expanding charter schools. Problem is the thugs in the teacher's unions keep the Democratic party from acknowledging it.
I oppose charter expansion
I'm a progressive who opposes charter expansion. Privatizing public ed is a big mistake in a number of ways. As long as Connolly gets his funding from Republicans, he will have a hard time getting elected.
On your added points
The article speaks for itself, but I would say the sloppy records shown above speaks as to why Golar Richie, who had a great resume, didn't get to the final. Her campaign organization had and aparentally has issues. My favorite campaign blunder by her campaign was a stand out. It was quite impressive, except that it was at 8 PM on a Tuesday. Right after dark. Well after rush hour.
She'll do well in the Walsh administration, as she did in the Menino administration and in the State House. If she expects to get a good elective office, though, she needs a new campaign team.
I think most are missing the possible point
Charlotte Richie sold her endorsement to her supporters as one of principle. Any hungry reporter would next go looking to see what kind of conversations she hypothetically could've had with Walsh's camp before she endorsed. Perhaps she's the one who asked for the financial commitment. Perhaps - hypothetically - she made a similar request to the Connolly camp. It's very possible none of those asks nor conversations happened - but that is the logical next step for investigation given the fishiness of the mystery donors.
Marty had plenty of leading progressives on his campaign, who could've also given to Charlotte without anyone batting an eye. But instead,you have 29 donations form people who - to be blunt - have pretty much never before supported a candidate of color nor a female candidate. If someone has the extra $500 lying around to donate to candidate they barely know - solely based on "a friend" encouraging them to do so... well, I'd say that flies in the face of the Walsh campaign being the "working person's" campaign.
Walsh and his supporters have every right in principle to call on supporters to support Richie. Where it gets tricky is if it was coordinated... campaign finance law restricts campaign-to-campaign donations to $100 a year... that's a far cry from $14,500. And, back to my first sentence, in an election that came down to 4800 votes, I'd say it's valid to ponder whether $500K from a mystery PAC made the difference... and, valid to ponder if voters of color would have followed Richie's lead if they her campaign would receive a bunch of money from Southie and the South Shore at the end.
New Boston, Old Boston and public campaign finance
Lots of things are possible. I'm happy to see new Boston and old Boston come together to retire Charlotte Golar Richie's campaign debt.
I would prefer a campaign finance system that did not put candidates and thus electeds in a position to "return the favor." It's public finance. But until we get there, I suppose newspapers will write stories about how fishy OCPF records look, without actually claiming anyone has done anything improper.
Um, yeah
Well, you wrote it much better than I did!
Donating to Gain Favor?
Here's a logical break in the argument above: If someone wants to curry favor with Martin Walsh, why would they donate to Golar-Richie's campaign? Why wouldn't they just donate to Walsh's?
Also, I find it comical that there is any concern whatsoever about the correctness of a zip code, or the listing of an occupation related to $500 donations from individuals while money from PACs and other special interest groups has been pouring into this, and other elections.
Campaign finance las is a farce. If you would like to point out issues with campaign finances, please do, but don't pretend that the issue is some small time individual donor putting the wrong zip code on their forms.
If someone wants to curry
If someone wants to curry favor with Martin Walsh, why would they donate to Golar-Richie's campaign? Why wouldn't they just donate to Walsh's?
Because he asked them to? I'm not saying it happened in this case, but it's a powerful reason. Someone who has already maxed their yearly donation to Walsh would be able to donate to Golar-Richie as yet another way to curry favor. Then they can max themselves out on Walsh again next year. Whether or not it happened here, it absolutely happens.
Shocker.
Best lines in the article--the one stating that no promises were made and the quote "campaigns are private." Really?
One of the reasons for the erroneous addresses
Wow. Someone just Facebook commented to me about the spreadsheet above to explain what went on with the spreadsheet of names and addresses.
If the person who wrote up the spreadsheet used Excel, they very well could just dragged the numbers so that when it went from one cell to the next, it just added one number - so, 02127 in the first cell became 02128 in the second. Likewise, 126 O Street in one cell becomes 127 O Street in the second.
I'm embarrassed I didn't see that at first.
Yes, the person who did the record-keeping may have done a really sloppy job, but it looks as though they were in a rush to get all the contributions in from November 13th in order to file their November 15th report.
There are still other questions, though ...
good point about Excel, however...
When you enter donations/deposits in the OCPF system, you enter them one at a time, either in their web app or their Windows app. there is no Excel upload. The only possible use of Excel would be if someone tallied the donations first, and then gave the list to whomever did the data entry. And, the use of an Excel file might indicate a separation of duties within the campaign.. or it could indicate just how coordinated those 29 donations were.
My table was indeed done in Excel (.csv download --> Excel file) but I did not change the data. I did sort by last name to make things clearer.
And, if you look at CGR's expenditure reports, just as sloppy... multiple "illegibles"; they misspell the names of their own paid consultant; missing data.