Peter Smulowitz vs. Richard Ross Election Update

Peter Smulowitz

Supporters of Ross and Smulowitz have been out in force today turning out the vote for their candidates. The twitterscape is alive today with messages to get out the vote.

Progressive Activists out in Force for Smulowitz

Smulowitz has been getting a huge amount of support from progressive activists. Charles Rudnick, a progressive candidate for Senate from Brookline has been out knocking on doors for Smulowitz, as has Sarah Compton, former field Director for Obama for America MA, and Harmony Wu, prominent progressive organizer for Yes We Can Needham. Smulowitz phone banks were mobbed with supporters today, and phone banks have been set up in many other towns as well, from the Sourth Shore to Northampton.

Progressive activist web site BlueMassGroup has continued its strong support for Smulowitz over the past few weeks and that continues today. And a progressive Facebook group “Turn Scott Brown’s Senate Seat Blue” has been buzzing all day. That group picked up like lightning – up to 700 members in just a few weeks.

Smulowitz has also be getting help from two progressive senators:  Sen. James Eldridge and Sen Sonia Chang-Diaz. Smulowitz campaign finance reports show they were the only two Massachusetts elected officials who contributed to Smulowitz.

Notably missing for Smulowitz today is the mainstream Democratic Party. It’s no surprise of course that Lida Harkins is not out supporting Smulowitz after refusing to endorse him in the wake of a controversial and divisive primary. Neither were any of the five Needham selectmen, including Denise Garlick and Jerry Wasserman who both have Representative races later this year.

We don’t see either financial or much logistical support for Smulowitz from the Massachusetts Democratic Party. No supportive messages from chairman John Walsh, and no supportive statements from Governor Deval Patrick. No updates on the Massachusetts Democratic Party web site in support of Smulowitz, and no twitters from them either.

Since the Democratic party didn’t get their preferred insider candidate Harkins, they have decided to just not show up for Smulowitz. It’s really like he’s been running as an independent. What is astounding about the Democratic party not supporting this race is that it will affect a national Republican message about this seat. If Smulowitz loses, national Republicans will use this as a talking point about Massachusetts going red, and as a repudiation of President Obama.

Nothing could be further from the truth. This is really about an insular Massachusetts Democratic party that cares more about supporting its incumbents than progressive politics.

The Smulowitz/Ross race is getting attention from progressive activists across the state. With Democratic party support missing, progressives have to ask themselves if the Democratic Party really is behind them on the issues.

MassGOP United Behind Ross

Ross is getting united support from across the spectrum of Massachusetts Republicans. He has been getting endorsements and support from Charlie Baker, from MassGOP, from MassGOP chairwoman Jennifer Nassour. Sen. Richard Tisei, and Gop Lt. Governor candidate has not only been supporting Ross, but maxed out his contribution. Sen. Scott Brown has been out campaigning for Ross and helping with fundraisers.

The MassGOP website has been promoting Ross, as has Republican activist web site RedMassGroup.

GateHouse Media editor Greg Reibman has been twittering about Smulowitz all day. You have to read it to see what’s side he’s on.

Turnout Light All Day, Picking Up Fast at 7pm

Poll watchers report turnout has been low all day. Turnout may end up lower in the general election than it was in the primary. Some report a light turnout in Needham. But starting at 7, with the afternoon rush home from work polls have been picking up markedly everywhere.

The Needham Times has some interesting voter reactions here and here.

In a few moments it will all be over but the counting. If Smulowitz makes it, it will be thanks to the hard work of progressive activists alone.

If you know anything that is going on with this race tonight, post it on the blog. I’ll have another update when I know more.

24 Comments

  • Debra Kozikowski
    May 12, 2010 - 4:56 pm | Permalink

    The insinuation that support for Dr. Smulowitz, after he become the nominee, was only from the far left, is not a fair characterization. I am vice chair of the Mass Dems and from western Massachusetts, most of which is hardly a hotbed of liberalism. I can only respond to your remarks from where I live.

    Yes, progressive allies from Northampton were working the cell towers. But to be fair, phone banking happened in places like Easthampton and Southwick, led by Democratic State Committee members who support progressive and even a few not so progressive Democrats. We are a practical bunch and those efforts were made by good mainstream Dems on behalf of the duly nominated Dr. Smulowitz. Had Rep. Harkins been the nominee those same folks would have been doing that same work.

    A closer look would reveal multiple factors to explain the loss — I’m in no position to do an autopsy. But what I do know is that it is unfair to say Massachusetts Democratic Party members did not participate in a meaningful way.

  • Debra Kozikowski
    May 12, 2010 - 12:56 pm | Permalink

    The insinuation that support for Dr. Smulowitz, after he become the nominee, was only from the far left, is not a fair characterization. I am vice chair of the Mass Dems and from western Massachusetts, most of which is hardly a hotbed of liberalism. I can only respond to your remarks from where I live.

    Yes, progressive allies from Northampton were working the cell towers. But to be fair, phone banking happened in places like Easthampton and Southwick, led by Democratic State Committee members who support progressive and even a few not so progressive Democrats. We are a practical bunch and those efforts were made by good mainstream Dems on behalf of the duly nominated Dr. Smulowitz. Had Rep. Harkins been the nominee those same folks would have been doing that same work.

    A closer look would reveal multiple factors to explain the loss — I’m in no position to do an autopsy. But what I do know is that it is unfair to say Massachusetts Democratic Party members did not participate in a meaningful way.

  • May 12, 2010 - 10:00 pm | Permalink

    Thanks for reaching out to us to correct the record.

    I’ve heard from several people, including you in this comment, that the Democratic party did have call centers around the state and that they were able to call in rank and file supporters to call for Smulowitz.

    I’ve heard also that John Walsh was indeed out working for Smulowitz to turn out the vote.

    The Democratic party is not monolithic. It’s composed of a bunch of committees around the state and many did take action to support Smulowitz. People should know that and give you credit.

    But a lot of the high party leadership was not there. Smulowitz could have used a unity event like they did for DiDomenico and that didn’t happen. Governor Patrick and Sen. Pres. Therese Murray could have showed up for a photo op and written a letter of endorsement – but that didn’t happen either.

    This was going to be a hard race for Smulowitz even in the best of circumstances. I understand that and said so throughout my coverage. The lack of coordinated full support from the Democratic Party turned a hard race for Smulowitz into an impossible one.

    I stand by the statement that by withholding support that the party essentially handed this Senate seat to Ross.

  • May 12, 2010 - 6:00 pm | Permalink

    Thanks for reaching out to us to correct the record.

    I’ve heard from several people, including you in this comment, that the Democratic party did have call centers around the state and that they were able to call in rank and file supporters to call for Smulowitz.

    I’ve heard also that John Walsh was indeed out working for Smulowitz to turn out the vote.

    The Democratic party is not monolithic. It’s composed of a bunch of committees around the state and many did take action to support Smulowitz. People should know that and give you credit.

    But a lot of the high party leadership was not there. Smulowitz could have used a unity event like they did for DiDomenico and that didn’t happen. Governor Patrick and Sen. Pres. Therese Murray could have showed up for a photo op and written a letter of endorsement – but that didn’t happen either.

    This was going to be a hard race for Smulowitz even in the best of circumstances. I understand that and said so throughout my coverage. The lack of coordinated full support from the Democratic Party turned a hard race for Smulowitz into an impossible one.

    I stand by the statement that by withholding support that the party essentially handed this Senate seat to Ross.

  • sylvia
    May 26, 2010 - 11:21 pm | Permalink

    Have you personally seen Peters fliers? Have you heard him flip flop to numerous people as to whether he should or should not have sent them out then tell the press he stood fully behind them ? Please don’t speculate on who didn’t support Peter and why without knowing the full story- irresponsible reporting

    • May 27, 2010 - 8:42 am | Permalink

      I have seen the fliers. Someone sent them to me. I agree the wording was needlessly inflammatory, and that the image of the campaign finance report was modified. The real reports are not as easy to read.

      All the statements I have heard from Peter on the issue are consistent:

      1. He regrets the use of certain language and the edited report image.
      2. He stands by the basic facts in the fliers.

      Lida is greatly beloved by many people in Needham that she has helped over the years. But the state’s finances are a mess because a great many legislators, including Lida, have been selling out the state to special interests – including most recently the story that has come out about patronage jobs at the probation department.

      I’m sorry – but Lida was in leadership for years and could have done something about it. She could have worked to rein in the Speaker’s power – but she didn’t. She could have supported the clean elections law that would would have limited lobbyist influence – but she didn’t. She could have refused to take their money – but she did.

      To me those are the real issues – not the particular wording of a candidate’s flier. Peter was right to bring up the issue of Lida’s campaign finance and close ties to previous speakers. Enough voters in Needham agreed with him on the issue to vote her out. I’m glad. I think they made the right choice.

      I was disappointed that Peter didn’t go far enough in talking about Lida’s campaign finance problems. She took more money from lobbyists than almost anyone else – including from casino and tobacco lobbyists.

      I don’t live in Needham – but my town is affected. We’re laying off teachers here this year because of state budget cuts while budgets for patronage laden departments like Probation continue to get budget increases.

      As a result I’ve had to move my kids to a better school system at great personal cost.

      In a Democracy the people get the government they deserve. The voters have no one to blame but themselves for this mess. For years we have voted people like Lida in while she sells us out.

      Supporters of Lida in Needham were successful in marginalizing Peter and now you are represented by Republican Richard Ross. I don’t really have a strong opinion about Ross vs. Smulowitz. Both of them took no money from lobbyists and from my perspective are clean. But divisions among Democrats in Needham have ensured a win by Ross. Peter won’t be running in the Fall and Ross now won’t face a Democratic opponent for 2 and a half years at least. Needham will now probably be in a Republican district for many years.

  • sylvia
    May 26, 2010 - 7:21 pm | Permalink

    Have you personally seen Peters fliers? Have you heard him flip flop to numerous people as to whether he should or should not have sent them out then tell the press he stood fully behind them ? Please don’t speculate on who didn’t support Peter and why without knowing the full story- irresponsible reporting

    • May 27, 2010 - 4:42 am | Permalink

      I have seen the fliers. Someone sent them to me. I agree the wording was needlessly inflammatory, and that the image of the campaign finance report was modified. The real reports are not as easy to read.

      All the statements I have heard from Peter on the issue are consistent:

      1. He regrets the use of certain language and the edited report image.
      2. He stands by the basic facts in the fliers.

      Lida is greatly beloved by many people in Needham that she has helped over the years. But the state’s finances are a mess because a great many legislators, including Lida, have been selling out the state to special interests – including most recently the story that has come out about patronage jobs at the probation department.

      I’m sorry – but Lida was in leadership for years and could have done something about it. She could have worked to rein in the Speaker’s power – but she didn’t. She could have supported the clean elections law that would would have limited lobbyist influence – but she didn’t. She could have refused to take their money – but she did.

      To me those are the real issues – not the particular wording of a candidate’s flier. Peter was right to bring up the issue of Lida’s campaign finance and close ties to previous speakers. Enough voters in Needham agreed with him on the issue to vote her out. I’m glad. I think they made the right choice.

      I was disappointed that Peter didn’t go far enough in talking about Lida’s campaign finance problems. She took more money from lobbyists than almost anyone else – including from casino and tobacco lobbyists.

      I don’t live in Needham – but my town is affected. We’re laying off teachers here this year because of state budget cuts while budgets for patronage laden departments like Probation continue to get budget increases.

      As a result I’ve had to move my kids to a better school system at great personal cost.

      In a Democracy the people get the government they deserve. The voters have no one to blame but themselves for this mess. For years we have voted people like Lida in while she sells us out.

      Supporters of Lida in Needham were successful in marginalizing Peter and now you are represented by Republican Richard Ross. I don’t really have a strong opinion about Ross vs. Smulowitz. Both of them took no money from lobbyists and from my perspective are clean. But divisions among Democrats in Needham have ensured a win by Ross. Peter won’t be running in the Fall and Ross now won’t face a Democratic opponent for 2 and a half years at least. Needham will now probably be in a Republican district for many years.

  • sylvia
    May 27, 2010 - 5:09 pm | Permalink

    Has Lida benefitted personally from any patronage laden departments? It is clear to everyone you are no fan of Lidas and that is your right. If you want to have credence with your readers and continue to tout your independence you need to reevaluate your one sidedness. PETER NEVER TOOK ANY MONEY FROM LOBBYISTS? MOST of Peters money came from medical people not only from outside his district but outside the state – is that not a special interest?
    Your commentary on blaming Lida for Peter not getting support from Needham Democrats is out of line. There were many reasons democrats didn’t support Peter and to pin it all on Lida is irresponsible reporting. Some people could not support him because of his lack of experience. He had never balanced a budget before. In these tough economic times is it wise to have a senator who knows nothing about how a budget works? It sounds like you are knowlegable about how the school budget works since you have school age children. One of Peters major goals was to make smaller class sizes. To many people this showed how out of touch he is. You must realize how decreasing class sizes and hiring more teachers to do so during these fiscal times is impossible. Some Needham Democrats and voters found him too far to the left, some found him to be arrogant, some would not support a candidate (democratic or republican) who campaigns negatively (which Peter chose to do in both the primary and final). There were people who could not support him because of his fliers and him attacking a fellow democrat in the slanderous way he did. To imply Lida controlled all of these voters is just dead wrong.
    Bottom line is you despise Lida and that is fine that you choose to do so. She will be out in January. Just don’t claim to be independent when you clearly are not.

    • May 27, 2010 - 6:29 pm | Permalink

      When I started covering this race I came into it with an open mind. The first thing I did was look at the OCPF reports for the three candidates. I disclosed any patterns I found including that Peter received a large portion of his money from doctors BIDMC. But what I found in Lida’s report was very troubling.

      She takes tons of lobbyist money – more than almost anyone. That’s just a fact.

      Doctors from BIDMC are not lobbyists. Sure they have their own interests and voters should weigh that and I said as much. But its very different than taking money from casino lobbyists and then changing your vote on casinos. Its different than taking money from tobacco lobbyists.

      It was also troubling how she spends her campaign money. Most of it spent in restaurants and retail stores. That’s not a normal pattern. People need to know that.

      I’m sure there were many factors in the decision for voters choosing Ross over Smulowitz. It was always going to be a tough race for him as a young inexperienced challenger. I said so.

      But it’s also improper for the chairwoman of the Needham Democratic Town Committee not to support the Democratic candidate. If Lida in good conscience could not support the party candidate then she should have resigned. The NDTC’s job is to support Democratic candidates. In that position she is supposed to be supporting the choice of Needham Democrats – not her own personal choice. Needham Democrats chose Smulowitz. She should have respected that.

      That improper action alone I think was enough to ensure a victory for Ross. Maybe Peter would not have won even if Lida has acted properly. But she did act improperly and to the detriment of Needham Democrats.

      This blog is not straight news and it doesn’t claim to be. The very top of the blog has two words: news and opinion. There are lots of opinions clearly stated. If you go into the about page it says right there what I support and what the objectives of this blog are. You can agree or not – but there is no secret agenda here.

      I don’t claim to be neutral in regards to candidates. I’m independent in regards to party. I’ll support Democrats, Republicans, Greens – anyone who will be independent and represent the voters over special interests.

      I have clear preferences for candidates who don’t take lobbyist money, don’t get involved in patronage, and work to improve the Democratic process. Lida hasn’t done that. She was in leadership for many many years and voted consistently with leadership while they put in place the rules that lead to centralizing the speaker’s power, created the speaker pro-tem position, repealed the clean elections law, and put in place the rules that are being abused in the probation department today.

      She was lockstep with that agenda as far as I can see. There are consequences to that – and this year Harkins paid for them. It is my fervent hope that she is not the only one.

  • sylvia
    May 27, 2010 - 1:09 pm | Permalink

    Has Lida benefitted personally from any patronage laden departments? It is clear to everyone you are no fan of Lidas and that is your right. If you want to have credence with your readers and continue to tout your independence you need to reevaluate your one sidedness. PETER NEVER TOOK ANY MONEY FROM LOBBYISTS? MOST of Peters money came from medical people not only from outside his district but outside the state – is that not a special interest?
    Your commentary on blaming Lida for Peter not getting support from Needham Democrats is out of line. There were many reasons democrats didn’t support Peter and to pin it all on Lida is irresponsible reporting. Some people could not support him because of his lack of experience. He had never balanced a budget before. In these tough economic times is it wise to have a senator who knows nothing about how a budget works? It sounds like you are knowlegable about how the school budget works since you have school age children. One of Peters major goals was to make smaller class sizes. To many people this showed how out of touch he is. You must realize how decreasing class sizes and hiring more teachers to do so during these fiscal times is impossible. Some Needham Democrats and voters found him too far to the left, some found him to be arrogant, some would not support a candidate (democratic or republican) who campaigns negatively (which Peter chose to do in both the primary and final). There were people who could not support him because of his fliers and him attacking a fellow democrat in the slanderous way he did. To imply Lida controlled all of these voters is just dead wrong.
    Bottom line is you despise Lida and that is fine that you choose to do so. She will be out in January. Just don’t claim to be independent when you clearly are not.

    • May 27, 2010 - 2:29 pm | Permalink

      When I started covering this race I came into it with an open mind. The first thing I did was look at the OCPF reports for the three candidates. I disclosed any patterns I found including that Peter received a large portion of his money from doctors BIDMC. But what I found in Lida’s report was very troubling.

      She takes tons of lobbyist money – more than almost anyone. That’s just a fact.

      Doctors from BIDMC are not lobbyists. Sure they have their own interests and voters should weigh that and I said as much. But its very different than taking money from casino lobbyists and then changing your vote on casinos. Its different than taking money from tobacco lobbyists.

      It was also troubling how she spends her campaign money. Most of it spent in restaurants and retail stores. That’s not a normal pattern. People need to know that.

      I’m sure there were many factors in the decision for voters choosing Ross over Smulowitz. It was always going to be a tough race for him as a young inexperienced challenger. I said so.

      But it’s also improper for the chairwoman of the Needham Democratic Town Committee not to support the Democratic candidate. If Lida in good conscience could not support the party candidate then she should have resigned. The NDTC’s job is to support Democratic candidates. In that position she is supposed to be supporting the choice of Needham Democrats – not her own personal choice. Needham Democrats chose Smulowitz. She should have respected that.

      That improper action alone I think was enough to ensure a victory for Ross. Maybe Peter would not have won even if Lida has acted properly. But she did act improperly and to the detriment of Needham Democrats.

      This blog is not straight news and it doesn’t claim to be. The very top of the blog has two words: news and opinion. There are lots of opinions clearly stated. If you go into the about page it says right there what I support and what the objectives of this blog are. You can agree or not – but there is no secret agenda here.

      I don’t claim to be neutral in regards to candidates. I’m independent in regards to party. I’ll support Democrats, Republicans, Greens – anyone who will be independent and represent the voters over special interests.

      I have clear preferences for candidates who don’t take lobbyist money, don’t get involved in patronage, and work to improve the Democratic process. Lida hasn’t done that. She was in leadership for many many years and voted consistently with leadership while they put in place the rules that lead to centralizing the speaker’s power, created the speaker pro-tem position, repealed the clean elections law, and put in place the rules that are being abused in the probation department today.

      She was lockstep with that agenda as far as I can see. There are consequences to that – and this year Harkins paid for them. It is my fervent hope that she is not the only one.

  • sylvia
    May 27, 2010 - 7:41 pm | Permalink

    Please tell me what rule you are citing that if you are chairperson of the town democratic party and you don’t publicly endorse the democratic candidate you must resign. It was commendable that she did not publicly endorse the candidate who was more qualified for the job. Many Needham Democrats would have been outraged if she endorsed a candidate who engaged in Peters type of tea party politics.
    So you have a problem with Lida and the lobbyist money she has received. That is fine. You went overkill on this throughout your site. We get how you feel. It is just ridiculous that you then have no major problem with where all of Peters money came from. It doesn’t concern you that medical professionals from AROUND THE COUNTRY have contributed to his campaign? There is no hidden agenda there? You just obviously had an agenda all along and there is no way you came into this race with an open mind. Does it say something about a candidates integrity when they sign into a meeting they are an elected representative for and then walk out the door without attending the meeting? You don’t care about those types of character issues obviously. I don’t know what type of hidden relationship you have with Harmony and Peter and obviously will never know, but many people realize your personal agenda. Also you can point out your issues with lobbyist money and that is fine, but you are really doing a disservice to your readers by not pointing out positive things candidates have done for the state too. Lida has been instrumental in special ed laws, school building assistance, elderly assistance and the passage of gay marriage in massachusetts among many other things.

    • May 27, 2010 - 9:37 pm | Permalink

      Any candidate is invited to reach out to this site and tell us about their accomplishments. If we find issues we don’t like – such as lobbyist money – we will still post any positive information they want to share with people and let the public make a decision on balance.

      I don’t live in Needham, I don’t know any of the people involved in the Needham race personally. And I don’t speak for anyone but myself.

      I definitely called out issues with Lida -but I don’t think I was particularly pro-Smulowitz over Ross.

      There is no organized lobbying effort by BIDMC doctors to influence policy. I’m sure they supported Peter’s proposals to reform malpractice. But this was not an organized lobbying effort. For example those doctors don’t have an organized plan to give money to multiple candidates. For that matter, people interested in lobbying don’t generally fund challengers – especially brand new candidates who have never held political office. There isn’t any specific doctors bill in the legislature that they want to affect.

      Casino interests are very different. They have an organized effort. They give money to many legislators – almost all incumbents. There is a bill before the legislature that they want to affect.

      And if the NDTC is not supposed to promote Democratic candidates in Needham then I don’t know what its purpose is.

  • sylvia
    May 27, 2010 - 3:41 pm | Permalink

    Please tell me what rule you are citing that if you are chairperson of the town democratic party and you don’t publicly endorse the democratic candidate you must resign. It was commendable that she did not publicly endorse the candidate who was more qualified for the job. Many Needham Democrats would have been outraged if she endorsed a candidate who engaged in Peters type of tea party politics.
    So you have a problem with Lida and the lobbyist money she has received. That is fine. You went overkill on this throughout your site. We get how you feel. It is just ridiculous that you then have no major problem with where all of Peters money came from. It doesn’t concern you that medical professionals from AROUND THE COUNTRY have contributed to his campaign? There is no hidden agenda there? You just obviously had an agenda all along and there is no way you came into this race with an open mind. Does it say something about a candidates integrity when they sign into a meeting they are an elected representative for and then walk out the door without attending the meeting? You don’t care about those types of character issues obviously. I don’t know what type of hidden relationship you have with Harmony and Peter and obviously will never know, but many people realize your personal agenda. Also you can point out your issues with lobbyist money and that is fine, but you are really doing a disservice to your readers by not pointing out positive things candidates have done for the state too. Lida has been instrumental in special ed laws, school building assistance, elderly assistance and the passage of gay marriage in massachusetts among many other things.

    • May 27, 2010 - 5:37 pm | Permalink

      Any candidate is invited to reach out to this site and tell us about their accomplishments. If we find issues we don’t like – such as lobbyist money – we will still post any positive information they want to share with people and let the public make a decision on balance.

      I don’t live in Needham, I don’t know any of the people involved in the Needham race personally. And I don’t speak for anyone but myself.

      I definitely called out issues with Lida -but I don’t think I was particularly pro-Smulowitz over Ross.

      There is no organized lobbying effort by BIDMC doctors to influence policy. I’m sure they supported Peter’s proposals to reform malpractice. But this was not an organized lobbying effort. For example those doctors don’t have an organized plan to give money to multiple candidates. For that matter, people interested in lobbying don’t generally fund challengers – especially brand new candidates who have never held political office. There isn’t any specific doctors bill in the legislature that they want to affect.

      Casino interests are very different. They have an organized effort. They give money to many legislators – almost all incumbents. There is a bill before the legislature that they want to affect.

      And if the NDTC is not supposed to promote Democratic candidates in Needham then I don’t know what its purpose is.

  • sylvia
    May 28, 2010 - 12:28 pm | Permalink

    Let me just say this – reading your insight on doctors around THE COUNTRY giving to a campaign as not being a lobbying effort is comical and sad at how EXTREMELY NAIVE you are. You obviously have a lot to learn and now I completely understand why everyone thinks you are a one sided ,irresponsible blogger who has ties with Peter Smulowitz among other people.

    • May 28, 2010 - 12:59 pm | Permalink

      Campaign finance documents are public so that anyone can look and make up their own mind about what is or isn’t undue influence. If you want to make a case that Peter Smulowitz donors were a lobbying effort by doctors nation-wide to influence legislation in MA – then make your case and post it here. Who are the donors, how are they organized, what bill are they trying to pass.

      I made a similar case about the casinos/slots. I’ve got a pretty detailed story on Tim Cahill and the companies trying to bring slot machines to Massachusetts. It explains the organized lobbying effort to pass a gambling bill with slots.

      We have open comments so that anyone can make their case to our readers.

  • sylvia
    May 28, 2010 - 8:28 am | Permalink

    Let me just say this – reading your insight on doctors around THE COUNTRY giving to a campaign as not being a lobbying effort is comical and sad at how EXTREMELY NAIVE you are. You obviously have a lot to learn and now I completely understand why everyone thinks you are a one sided ,irresponsible blogger who has ties with Peter Smulowitz among other people.

    • May 28, 2010 - 8:59 am | Permalink

      Campaign finance documents are public so that anyone can look and make up their own mind about what is or isn’t undue influence. If you want to make a case that Peter Smulowitz donors were a lobbying effort by doctors nation-wide to influence legislation in MA – then make your case and post it here. Who are the donors, how are they organized, what bill are they trying to pass.

      I made a similar case about the casinos/slots. I’ve got a pretty detailed story on Tim Cahill and the companies trying to bring slot machines to Massachusetts. It explains the organized lobbying effort to pass a gambling bill with slots.

      We have open comments so that anyone can make their case to our readers.

  • sylvia
    May 28, 2010 - 2:12 pm | Permalink

    That is exactly my point – why do YOU have no interest in doing it with Peter? Need I say more?

    • May 28, 2010 - 2:47 pm | Permalink

      Because I don’t agree with you. I don’t think there is a conspiracy of doctors behind Smulowitz. I looked into it. It’s the first thing I did in regards to Peter.

      But if you see such a conspiracy, investigate it, write an article and we can post it.

  • sylvia
    May 28, 2010 - 10:12 am | Permalink

    That is exactly my point – why do YOU have no interest in doing it with Peter? Need I say more?

    • May 28, 2010 - 10:47 am | Permalink

      Because I don’t agree with you. I don’t think there is a conspiracy of doctors behind Smulowitz. I looked into it. It’s the first thing I did in regards to Peter.

      But if you see such a conspiracy, investigate it, write an article and we can post it.

  • Leave a Reply to Debra Kozikowski Cancel reply

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

    You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>