Left In Lowell

David outlines how the article claimed by DiMasi to protect his records from investigation is, well, no such thing.

What is clear from the text of [Article 21] is that even if it does apply, it does not somehow require DiMasi to keep the records secret. Nor does it even appear to entitle him to do so. To the contrary, the main purpose of the Article is to shield legislators from civil or criminal liability for things that they say in public, on the floor of the legislature.

So that’s pretty much that. Article 21 reads:

The freedom of deliberation, speech and debate, in either house of the legislature, is so essential to the rights of the people, that it cannot be the foundation of any accusation or prosecution, action or complaint, in any other court or place whatsoever.

David’s seems to be quite a reasonable interpretation of the Article. It appears to be a protection of legislators to say things in debate and not expect to be prosecuted. How it would protect personal records is beyond me. Though I guess the state Supreme Court will have to weigh in on that one.

The frustrating thing about this is, if there isn’t any wrongdoing here, this whole secretive thing is undermining confidence in the House, in the leadership, and jeopardizes DiMasi’s hold on the Speakership. Presumably he’s doing this in order to protect his leadership (whether actually guilty, appearing guilty but actually innocent, or completely innocent). If on one hand he is guilty, well, I guess we’ll have to ferret this out the hard way. If innocent, however, protecting himself in this manner (ie, acting guilty) is only likely to lose him the leadership. Of course if he’s found to have done something wrong I want him gone. But if he goes, and we find out this was a trumped-up witch hunt, we’re going to regret it, and to a large extent, it’ll be his own damn fault.

Well, you can’t say Governor Patrick is sitting around on his hands with this ethics problem swirling around Beacon Hill. From a press release yesterday:

GOVERNOR PATRICK ESTABLISHES TASK FORCE ON PUBLIC INTEGRITY
Bi-Partisan Task Force Will Advise Governor on Ethics and Lobbying Reform

Governor Deval Patrick today signed an Executive Order forming the Governor’s Task Force on Public Integrity. The task force will examine the existing regulatory frameworks that govern ethics, lobbying and public employee conduct, and will seek input from public officials, experts and the public. The group will make recommendations within 60 days relative to legislation necessary to strengthen current laws, regulations, investigative and enforcement mechanisms, and penalties.

“We in public office are not entitled to our positions. We are placed here by voters to do the best we can on their behalf, and we are expected to conduct their business honestly and openly,” said Governor Patrick. “The members of this task force offer a broad range of professional backgrounds and experience. All of them share a commitment to ensuring the highest standards of honesty and public integrity.”

For more details, you can go here for the full press release (including the names of the people appointed to the 12-member task force) and the video/transcript of the speech.

Who knows if this will really do anything in the end (though I like the idea of this coming down to legislation the Governor introduces…at the very least, even if it fails, it’ll showcase the good guys and the bad in the legislature). But hey, it can’t hurt. It’s better than a kick to the head, anyway.

By the way, this task force includes getting input from the public, so if you have something productive to offer, please do. If you are one of those people who bitch and moan about the corruption on Beacon Hill and you don’t put your input in, I don’t ever want to hear you complain again, on this blog or anywhere. This is your chance to do something productive about this problem instead of just trying to run candidates against it. (That means you conservatives, too.) Of course, to my mind, those same people who do the most bitching are the ones that want to keep that corruption around - it strengthens their arguments against Big Government. If government actually worked really well (I argue that it already is headed there under progressives), then how would you convince people to be pissed off about it and vote for your guy? You might actually then have to run on the issues…heaven forfend.

It never looks good when, under any sort of inquiry or investigation, one claims an obscure and rare form of immunity for yourself. It looks really, really bad. Sort of a doth-protest-too-much moment.

Such is DiMasi’s strategy with the State Ethics Commission investigation into payments to his friends received from companies seeking government contracts. He’s claiming “constitutional immunity.” If that sounds really weird to you, it ought to. It was last used here (successfully) in 1808.

And what the hell is DiMasi doing meeting with other lawmakers behind closed doors to explain his side of the story?

What angers me most is that this puts progress in Massachusetts in jeopardy. DiMasi, while not perfect on the issues, is far more progressive than the Reps hungrily lining up to take his place should he fall. Though I could smack DiMasi on tax loophole closing bills, as Speaker he’s been awesome on the environment, gay marriage, and a host of other issues. If he turns out to be hiding wrongdoing, I want his head, on a platter, served up with a side of baked beans. And then if he still won’t resign, primary his ass.

As Charley points out, what exactly is this going to do to address Wilkerson again? What she did was quite illegal. It even comes with possible jail sentences!

But certainly, if we can use the sad, disgusting situation with Wilkerson to gain some ground on ethics, transparency, and other reforms, great.

By the way, she withdrew from her sticker campaign. Gee, ya think?

State Senator Dianne Wilkerson has had a long troubling run of ethics problems while in office. These have been very well documented in many places, not the least of which include the Globe and the Herald.

She narrowly lost the Democratic primary to Sonia Chang-Diaz, but proclaimed herself moving forward with a sticker campaign to keep her seat. She will, of course, not appear on the ballot, an uphill battle no matter what. Now, she’s facing potentially another couple of explosive ethics and tax problems, says the Boston Phoenix. (Via BMG.)

As the only African-American state Senator, and a supposed progressive (though some have questioned this too), it’s unfortunate that Wilkerson has destroyed herself this way. An accidental mistake or two might be forgiven, but her pattern of behavior showcases an attitude of entitlement and rules-don’t-apply-to-me. Her progressive record and minority status does not mean she deserves to be in the Senate.

More and better Democrats, the motto of much of the progressive blogosphere. It’s gratifying that the better Democrat, Chang-Diaz, won the Democratic nomination. Let’s hope we can put the ethics-challenged Wilkerson behind us and get some better governance for Second Suffolk.

Keep reminding yourself that SecTreas Paulson is, himself, a giant of industry, formerly of Goldman Sachs, a company that would directly (and highly) benefit from Paulson’s proposed bailout (despite the fact that this company is in less trouble than others).

So, Paulson tells Congress, bail out my friends no strings attached, and sometime in the future, think about oversight, which is the privilege of Congress. You know, long after we have any ability to hold the current bunch of crooks accountable..as they’ll have happily jumped off this crashing plane via sweet, cushy, well-stocked golden parachutes.

Nice. (If you haven’t called Niki Tsongas to tell her to vote against any bailout that gives Paulson even remotely anything he wants, you should do so ASAP. Call our Senators too, while you’re at it.)

Factcheck.org is the snopes.com of debunking political truth from fiction. It is highly respected as a nonpartisan source for deciphering speeches and political rhetoric by all sides.

McCain misquotes Factcheck.org in his latest ad. (They also change a quote from a Wall Street Journal article, which itself appears to require retraction as being false.)

A McCain-Palin ad has FactCheck.org calling Obama’s attacks on Palin “absolutely false” and “misleading.” That’s what we said, but it wasn’t about Obama.

Our article criticized anonymous e-mail falsehoods and bogus claims about Palin posted around the Internet. We have no evidence that any of the claims we found to be false came from the Obama campaign.

The McCain-Palin ad also twists a quote from a Wall Street Journal columnist. He said the Obama camp had sent a team to Alaska to “dig into her record and background.” The ad quotes the WSJ as saying the team was sent to “dig dirt.”

The transcript of the ad:

McCain-Palin 2008 Ad:
“Fact Check”
Announcer: The attacks on Governor Palin have been called “completely false”…”misleading.”

On screen: Photo of Obama, FactCheck.org banner, “‘completely false’ . . . ‘misleading’ 9/0/08″

And, they’ve just begun.

The [Wall Street] Journal reports Obama “air-dropped a mini-army of 30 lawyers, investigators and opposition researchers” into Alaska to dig dirt on Governor Palin.

As Obama drops in the polls, he’ll try to destroy her.

Obama’s “politics of hope”? Empty words.

McCain: I’m John McCain and I approved this message.

Off. The. Rails. No such thing as the Straight Talk Express. No person in the country should ever believe a word that comes out of McCain’s or Palin’s mouths from here on in. They are repeat liars.

[via dKos]

McCain has long said he learned his lesson from being a part of the Keating Five. Or has he? I suppose that old dog hasn’t learned any new tricks. Because his campaign, and some of the highest advisers he’s got, are lobbyists of the old traditional sort. But they’ve done their job. They’ve brought in lots of money from their clients. This nifty little Flash application can show you the connections these guys have, and how much money it means.

But don’t mention this internets application to McCain. He might get testy. You wouldn’t like him when he’s testy…

[Via AMERICAblog.]

Ron Suskind is known for being a heavy-hitting journalist. It’s he who was told by a Bush administration official that he was part of “what we call the reality-based community” and “while you’re studying that reality—judiciously, as you will—we’ll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that’s how things will sort out. We’re history’s actors…and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.” Which is, of course, why the words “reality-based community” is proudly displayed on progressive blog sites the internet over (including this blog).

Suskind has a new book, and it’s a bombshell:

Author Ron Suskind appeared on the Today show and said that Bush ordered the CIA to forge a letter after the invasion linking Saddam Husein and al-Qaeda, in an effort to justify the invasion after the fact. His new book is “The Way of the World.”

President Bush committed an impeachable offense by ordering the CIA to to manufacture a false pretense for the Iraq war in the form of a backdated, handwritten document linking Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda, an explosive new book claims.

Suskind’s sources are named and from the intelligence community who claim to have actually seen the letter and witnessed key discussions.

ThinkProgress; Today; Crooks and Liars has some excerpts and details.

Kudos to Rep. Niki Tsongas, who told us in the campaign that she wouldn’t capitulate to giving telecom companies immunity from their part in breaking the law and trampling our constitutional rights. She is in the list of 129 good souls who voted nay. Unfortunately, it still passed in the House. I beg the Senate to do everything, including filibustering our own Democrats if necessary, to stop this entire bill from going forward. This includes immunity for telcos, but also some of the other dangerous provisions.

And no, Senator Obama, “doing your best” to just strip immunity from the bill doesn’t cut it. Find someone on your staff to read the bill carefully, because it appears there’s a lot not to like about it (not that anyone read it thoroughly, having less than a day to review it). If your colleagues filibuster it, support that. Anything less isn’t leadership.