While optometrists are PO’d at House Speaker Sal DiMasi for stalling a bill because of campaign donations from opthalamologists, somehow, we are supposed to believe Rep. Daniel Bosley that special interest cash has had no influence whatsover on DiMasi.
DiMasi and Speaker Pro Tempore Thomas M. Petrolati (D-Ludlow) hauled in $42,000 in special interest cash from dozens of ophthalmologists last year looking to block the bill that would allow optometrists to prescribe eye medicine.
Massachusetts is the only state in the country where only ophthalmologists can prescribe medicine for ailments like glaucoma - even though optometrists are authorized to diagnose the disease.
Rep. Daniel E. Bosley (D-North Adams), who wrote an impassioned letter to DiMasi asking them to pass the long-stalled bill, said today he doesn’t believe the speaker was influenced by the cash.
“That doesn’t play into it. People get all sorts of contributions from people who may or may not like your stand on this,” Bosley said. “I talked to the speaker, and he’s been very supportive. He’s not one of the people against this.”
Sorry, but anyone who attempts to say that $42,000 in campaign donations has zero influence on Speaker DiMasi and Speaker Pro Tempore Petrolati, must really think the citizens of the Commonwealth are stupid.
Tags: Daniel Bosley, Salvatore DiMasi, Thomas Petrolati
August 1st, 2008
House Speaker Salvatore DiMasi is trying to force a vote on the out-of-state gay marriage bill, which is leaving some democrats feeling a bit shafted.
“He has no concern for the members,” said one legislator, who requested anonymity. “This is stuff we should be dealing with in the first year (of the session). It’s a lose-lose for anyone facing a challenger.”
Another irate Democrat compared DiMasi unfavorably to his predecessor, former House Speaker Thomas Finneran, saying the controversial vote could alienate support for the embattled North End Democrat.
“Finneran always did things to protect the membership,” the lawmaker said, “and he (DiMasi) has only worked to protect himself.”
Even pols who support the repeal of the 1913 ban on out-of-state residents from marrying here are concerned about the political timing, which renews the roiling gay marriage debate and provides opponents with fresh fodder only months before voters decide who to send to Beacon Hill.
How bizarre. It’s bad timing only because it brings back the gay marriage debate? While this certainly isn’t great timing for gay marriage supporters and supporters of the repeal, I would suggest that it’s bad timing because it takes time from the legislature to worry about problems within the borders of the Commonwealth rather than trying to advance the gay marriage lobby. We have the rising costs of health care and energy and the Legislature is going to take time to worry about whether or not out-of-state gay couples can get married in Massachusetts? Please… this is a complete waste of their time.
Meanwhile, the state Senate has voted in favor of raising taxes on all cell phones, and voted against requiring convicted child rapists to register with the Sex Offender Registry Board for life, against 10-year mandatory minimum sentences for the first offense of rape of a child by force, and against prohibiting convicted sex offenders from operating ice cream trucks. Is our biggest problem right now whether or not out-of-state gay couples can get married here? I don’t think so.
Let’s worry about our own problems first before worrying about the problems of people that don’t live in the Commonwealth.
Bad political timing? It’s only bad political timing if you believe supporting the repeal could have adverse effects on your re-election.
Tags: Gay Marriage, Salvatore DiMasi
July 22nd, 2008
