Member of the reality-based community of progressive (not anonymous) Massachusetts blogs
If Chris Gabrieli is so good for democratic ideals (little ‘d’), then why does he think he’s above the level playing field which public financing and spending caps are supposed to impose? The Worcester Telegram asked the same question:
In other words, by setting a spurious spending cap Mr. Gabrieli effectively has defeated the core purpose of the public financing law: to reduce the role of big money in statewide campaigns. That may serve his narrow political purposes, but it hardly bespeaks a balanced, global approach to policymaking.
Ee-zactly right. The spending cap isn’t about wasting “taxpayer dollars,” (which by the way are set aside exactly for that by individual taxpayers on their returns) it’s for making sure that taxpayers themselves are one of the larger “campaign contributers” of statewide offices. Self-funded or not, it helps a campaign become about ideas and about how well a candidate spends his money, giving the voters a chance to see them in action against the others, comparing apples to apples in the finance arena so to speak.
It might have been the right political move for Gabrieli (who can’t win at this late date on his ideas, personal charm, or by inspiring devotees to volunteer for him), but it certainly wasn’t the moral move. His tepid arguments about not wasting taxpayer funds for such rich candidates belies his supposed support for campaign finance reform, spending caps, and fairness. So tell me, Chris Gabrieli, are you for or against a fair playing field for all candidates?
[Addendum: I also wanted to add that my respect for Reilly went up a notch when he opted in to the public financing. Kudos to him for actually “getting it.”]
[HT: Beyond495]
[powered by WordPress.]
42 queries. 0.693 seconds
June 16th, 2006 at 3:12 pm
Lynne, I have to agree with you except for one thing. “This late date” only applies to nerds like us. For most of Massachusetts, it’s still too early to be thinking about the governor’s race.
June 16th, 2006 at 3:25 pm
Have to agree with Sco on this one.
June 16th, 2006 at 3:27 pm
Well, sure, but in terms of gathering the devoted activist, one has to start working long before the public is noticing. So that you have enough people to knock on doors and then, if you win, to turn people out for the general.
That’s what makes Gabrieli so dangerous…if he wins the primary with his money, he’s poison for November against Healey, who has even more money (thus negating his only advantage). Whereas Deval (and to some extent, Reilly) might have less money, but has far more volunteers working for them who really believe in the candidate and can introduce him to their neighbors and friends.
That’s what’ll make it hard for me if Gabrieli wins - I’m not sure I can enthusiastically sell him to voters if he’s the nominee.
June 16th, 2006 at 3:44 pm
Gabrieli did NOT say that public financing is a waste of taxpayer dollars.
He DID say that it would waste taxpayers’ public financing dollars IF it was spent on these SPECIFIC three gubernatorial candidates, all of whom have large personal wealth or large campaign war chests.
Further, Lynne, you talk about post-primary field strategy as though, if someone other than Deval wins the primary, all of the Deval supporters will “take their ball and go home.”
Is it the Deval supporters who are being divisive, then?
June 16th, 2006 at 4:34 pm
Well, I was just reading the agenda for the NDN conference next week, and it talks about us entering the “post-broadcast era” of politcs. If that’s where we truly are, then maybe no candidate will need to spend $15+ million on TV ads. Maybe the problem of big money in politics trumping ideas and real voter interaction finally corrected itself.
June 19th, 2006 at 10:23 am
Fine, then Gabrieli should have not taken public financing, BUT put his “artificial” cap at the SAME cap that he’d have if he had. 1.5M. By setting an “arbitrary” cap, he’s ignoring WHY CAPS ARE IMPORTANT in the first place and also just saying that he doesn’t feel he can win if he doesn’t outspend his opponants. Lovely message to send.
I’m sorry, but you cannot expect 100% of Deval supporters, who joined his campaign because it’s NOT about politics as usual, to be 100% enthusiastic about selling Gabrieli as a candidate when all he’s been doing is playing by politics-as-usual. Personally, early on (even after the way Gabrieli got into the race in March) I was PERFECTLY willing to consider working my ass off in the general for whoever won. However, Gabrieli is alienating us with his tactics, which is precisely why we’re here in the first place - to change how to win so that not only RICH candidates - or candidates with the most corporate support - can run. Why should anyone reward someone who’s willing to put tactics above principle and unity with our help in the fall? No, seriously? It’s not misinformation - it’s tactics vs. principle and your candidate is failing that test over and over again.
He made a joke out the cap for heaven’s sake!
June 19th, 2006 at 10:23 am
len: Maybe so, but I’m not holding my breath yet, not in this state and not in the national arena. We’re at the beginning of the reform, no where near as powerful to crash down all the gates just yet…but we’re working on it.