The Bay State’s congressional delegation hauled in nearly $11 million in campaign cash between 2005 and 2007, 81 percent of which came from donors living outside their districts, a new study reveals.
Rep. Barney Frank (D-Newton) took in the most campaign cash of the Massachusetts delegation - $2.4 million - 91 percent of which came from outside his district and 73 percent of which came from out-of-state, according to campaign watchdog MAPLight.org.
Frank spokesman Peter Kovar said Frank’s chairmanship of the House financial services committee and involvement in gay rights and other “high-profile” national issues explains the high percentage of out-of-district donations.
Rep. Ed Markey (D-Malden) topped the Bay State list with 93 percent of his $1.1 million coming from out of his district. Markey ranked 45th of 421 House lawmakers in the study.
Nationally, House members raised $700 million, 79 percent of which came from outside members’ districts.
The study tracked donations of $200 or more.
“Instead of a voting democracy, we have a dollar democracy - may the biggest-spending special interest win,” said MAPLight executive director Daniel Newman.
Other Bay State lawmakers’ donations included:
Rep. Richard Neal (D-Springfield), $1.1 million, 90 percent out-of-district, 22 percent from Massachusetts;
Rep. Michael Capuano (D-Somerville), $1.2 million, 85 percent from outside his district, 45 percent from Massachusetts;
Massachusetts is written off by presidential candidates. It’s a sure thing.
But there are a series of state elections that your vote does matter…and can have a huge impact on state politics.
Here is my take on the three questions:
Question 1, to eliminate the income tax. Truthfully, how you vote on this is really about sending a message to Beacon Hill. If the citizens do vote to end the income tax, and I believe they will, the Democratic Legislature will just ignore the will of the people, as they have done many times in the recent past.
Question 2, decriminalizing pot possession of 1 oz. or less. Anyone caught with said amount will have to “give up pot” and pay a $100 civil fine. Does anyone think telling someone they have to give up pot is going to work? It’s already an illegal substance. $100 fine is beans. This question sucks. A vote yes sends the wrong message, and it paves the way for the complete decriminalization of marijuana. I predict it will be close, but will pass, even though it shouldn’t.
Question 3, seeks to ban dog racing and betting. The pro-Question 3 effort is spearheaded by the Massachusetts Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. I have not been able to pay attention to the ad campaign to see who make the most compelling argument. That said, I don’t lose any sleep at night if a greyhound gets hurt on a racetrack. Racetrack owners who are leading the opposition argue the animals are well cared for, and that 1,000 jobs would be lost if this question wins. Sorry, but people are more important than animals. Vote no.
Where your votes can make the most difference is Beacon Hill.
Beacon Hill is nearly 90% democrats. This is absurd. The reason why your vote on Question 1 is meaningless is because of the state legislature has shown time and time again your vote is bupkis–totally meaningless. The “party of choice” takes that choice away from you. You vote for change, and they take it away. Party of the people? Not quite. It’s only natural that we disapprove of the whole government body, but like our particular elected official…but people, please, look at the record of your elected officials. If they are not on your side, don’t give them the privilege of your vote. The only way to reign them in is to bring something resembling balance to Beacon Hill, and yes, that means electing some Republicans. Here is a list of candidates running for election and reelection:
Bottom line, electing mostly or all Democrats is failing this state. If you want change, the answer is clear: send the Democrats packing. If you choose to accept the current state of Massachusetts politics as it is, don’t be surprise if at the next national election we’ll have end up sending a few less congressional representatives to sit in the Capitol.
The nation’s battered economy needs an old-fashioned “Rooseveltian lift” of regulatory reforms and government spending on the infrastructure, clean energy and other sectors, U.S. Sen. John Kerry said yesterday.
Kerry, facing a re-election challenge from Republican Jeff Beatty, rejected GOP calls for more tax rebates to stimulate the economy, as was done last spring.
“I am for a stimulus package. I am not for a stimulus package that just sends out checks,” said Kerry at a Boston Herald editorial meeting yesterday.
Instead, Kerry said the nation needs to spend more in areas that will both help the economy in the short run and long run - such as on roads and bridges, clean energy initiatives and life sciences.
Calling current financial woes the most “complicated economic time we’ve had since the Great Depression,” Kerry said new approaches are needed to reform the current financial system.
Obviously, John Kerry doesn’t know a thing about history or economics. If he did he would know that FDRs New Deal (which included tax increases, bank consolidations, higher tariffs and forced unionization amongst other things) prolonged The Great Depression rather than got the country out of it.
If that is something Kerry wants to happen again, then how could anyone possibly vote for him?
Just watched Barney Frank on The O’Reilly Factor a moment ago… they got into a very bitter argument and Bill O’Reilly ripped Barney Frank a new one… Hopefully it’ll be on YouTube soon…
U.S. Reps. Barney Frank, Michael Capuano, Ed Markey, John Olver, Richard Neal, Jim McGovern and Niki Tsongas voted for the massive $700 billion plan that ultimately failed on a 228-205 vote.
Congressmen Stephen Lynch, William Delahunt and John Tierney bucked leadership by voting against the legislation.
All 10 of Massachusetts’ House members are Democrats.
“They’re the ones that made an issue of her family,” Frank, D-Mass., said Tuesday in a telephone interview with The Associated Press.
Republicans stressed Palin’s conservative family values in announcing her selection as John McCain’s running mate on Friday. Frank says the recent disclosure about her daughter blunts conservative claims that liberalism harms family life.
“Apparently she’s a great favorite with the conservative social movement,” Frank said. “They have said that it’s liberalism and liberals who have undermined families — same-sex marriage has been a problem, they don’t want gay people to adopt … This helps undercut those arguments.”
Not so, Congressman. Growing up with conservative values in the home does not 100% shield you from liberalism, and vice versa. You can’t walk down the street, go on the internet, or turn on the television to see how liberalism has undermined family values. Parents can only do so much to impart their values on to their children. Let’s face it, it is impossible for parents to safeguard children from values that do not align with their own, short of keeping them locked up in a dungeon somewhere with no outside contact.
Revelations about Palin’s 17-year-old daughter’s out-of-wedlock pregnancy and other family troubles reflect the stresses and strains of modern everyday life more than anything else, said Frank.
“Well, hers is a family in great turmoil,” added Frank. “She fired the state police commissioner because he wouldn’t fire her sister’s ex-husband. She has a daughter who became pregnant. That’s not her fault.”
I don’t understand why her family is “in great turmoil” for simply having to deal with the stresses and strains of modern everyday life. Many families deal with these issues, and some many times worse. But you are correct, Congressman. It’s not her fault. You can fairly go after the actions of Sarah Palin, but when it comes to her children, or any politicians children, listen to your messiah, “children are especially off limits.” Let’s keep it that way, for the children of a politicians regardless of what party they are. If Palin’s children are fair game, then all politicians’ children are fair game, and I don’t think we want to go down that road, Congressman.
Congressman John Tierney, D-Mass. along with other members of the New England Congressional Delegation sent a letter to Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, urging her to increase funding for the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program to $9 billion in legislation this summer, perhaps a second economic recovery package.
“The residents of northeastern Massachusetts should not have to choose between food and heat. The amount of money we are asking for, to ensure a safe winter for our residents, is the equivalent to what we spend in just three weeks in Iraq. President Bush and his big oil accomplices don’t balk at spending that money; so, I would hope that they would not balk at this life-saving request either,” said Tierney at a press conference. Although the President has actually proposed significant cuts in emergency fuel programs, Tierney believes the changing circumstances will lead to a change in the White House position.
To ease the burden of rising heating costs, Tierney believes it will be necessary to more than triple current funding. More than 6 million New England households rely on assistance to heat their homes, thus the current volatility in the oil market is highly concerning. In Massachusetts more than 177,212 applications for LIHEAP funding were received by the commonwealth’s Department of Housing and Community Development this past winter alone.
If the Democrats in Congress didn’t block offshore oil drilling and drilling in ANWR, this wouldn’t be an issue.
In these days of government penny-pinching, nonstop override requests and an overall sagging economy, nothing really angers the masses like a good, old-fashioned double-dipping hack.
And it turns out that a member of the Bay State congressional delegation is doing exactly that.
Not only is U.S. Rep. John Olver (D-Amherst) raking in a $165,000-a-year salary in Congress, he also takes home a $27,000 annual state pension, records show.
Olver, who has been in Congress since 1991, is a former state representative and senator who served 22 years on Beacon Hill. Before that he was a chemistry professor at the University of Massachusetts-Amherst. His wife, Rose, is a professor at Amherst College.
State GOP spokesman Barney Keller said of Olver: “It’s fine if Congressman Olver wants to Double-Dip with a waffle cone, but it shouldn’t be O.K. for him to do it with taxpayer dollars.”
Olver, 72, did not return calls.
Nathan Bech, candidate for Congress running against Olver, said “if Olver wants to collect his pension, he should at least have the common decency to retire.”
U.S. Representative John W. Olver (D-Amherst) misidentified the author of the famous phrase “you keep your friends close but your enemies closer” in a February speech on Iran. Olver attributed the quote to the late British prime minister Sir Winston Churchill. The saying actually originated with fictional movie character Vito Coreleone, the mobster patriarch of Mario Puzo’s “The Godfather” series. Puzo did not publish his first book until 1969, four years after Churchill’s death. The film that made the saying famous was not produced until 1972. Puzo has said in interviews that the quote was loosely inspired by the writings of Chinese warrior Tsun Tzu. Olver’s statement was captured on a video obtained by his opponent’s campaign.
Olver’s statement elicited a strong response from challenger Nathan Bech (R-West Springfield). “It seems John Olver owes Marlon Brando and Robert DeNiro some credit for his foreign policy position. As someone who has fought alongside our Afghan and Iraqi allies, I have a problem with keeping our terrorist enemies closer than our real friends — the Iranian people. Iran has a brutal regime that suppresses women, minorities and the press while killing American troops. Iranian-backed militias have killed religious leaders, peace activists, and Iraqi soldiers on Iraqi soil. Not only that, but their religious intolerance leads them to question the Holocaust and finance terrorism around the world. To describe that at the level of a movie quote is beneath a member of the U.S. Congress”, said Bech.
…and yet, it’s such a common attitude of Democrats in congress.
