Justice Comes to Springfield...

Several days late, but who knows how many dollars short, we would like to share with you some photographs from last Tuesday's opening to the 75th annual Springfield Public Forum.  The series is the last fully free to the public lecture in the country or so its directors claim.  Famous names and faces from politics to the arts have spoken at the forum, which began after donations from various people and companies in New York decided that such voices should be made available to other parts of the country.  This year, the series kicked off with Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer.  Breyer, who was appointed by President Clinton in 1994, served as a judge on the US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit in Boston as well as on the US Sentencing Commission.  Before that he taught at Harvard Law and was a prosecutor for the Watergate committee.  Sadly, technical difficulties prevents too many photos from coming out, but here's what we've got!

Later speakers this year include Steven Squyres, lead scientist on the Mars Exploration Rover; Kavita Ramdas, Senior Advisor and Former CEO/President of the Global Fund for Women; Cory Booker, the Mayor of Newark, NJ; and finally Mark Shield and David Brooks, liberal and conservative columnists respectively.

No, we cannot resist a Campanile Shot!

From Court Street, Symphony Hall

Before the Show Began

From Symphony Hall Steps

Probably the only good picture taken while he was on stage.

Justice Breyer was on hand to take questions and later sign copies of his book.

Picture taken with Bay Path College Students

Lighting in this picture is kind of off, but it shows how majestic Symphony Hall really is!

The First Statement...

The stunning victory of tea party backed Sarah Palin look alike Christine O'Donnell over establishment candidate Republican Congressman Mike Castle dealt a blow to the Republican party's efforts to gain control of the US Senate come November.  However, the implications of the election run much deeper and may represent a problematic shift long-term for the Republican party.

The elephant in the room on this issue, is and must be O'Donnell herself.  The GOP establishment said some awful things about her during the campaign.  However, a reasonable question to bring up is how much this is a problem because she is an attractive Palin-esque woman.  Is it a problem to say these things, if they are in fact true?  Indeed, one way the Palin herself has deflected criticism is implying that attacks on her are motivated by misogyny or sexism.  Essentially, it is the Hillary Clinton argument, that you are attacking me because you think it is not my place to be out there in the world.  However, as evidenced by the Saturday Night Live sketch during the 2008 campaign, that argument only passes muster if the woman candidate has substance like Clinton, or in a less partisan vein, Lisa Murkowski, Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins, Elizabeth Dole (before the Godless thing).  Of course, none of these woman, in the eyes of some testosterone laden voters, are in a word, hot.  Maybe Debbie Wasserman Shultz, but she's a liberal so I guess that example is partisan.

However, the critiques by the GOP establishment, while mean, do appear too far off.  First of all, they were a natural, if politically predictable, reaction to O'Donnell and her Tea Party crowd's attacks on  Mike Castle.  However, when her former campaign manager comes out against her, you know there are troubles.  The portrait painted by her campaign manager and others is not a personality becoming of the United States Senate, unless we are looking for more financial malfeasance used for self-enrichment.  For the past five years, O'Donnell has essentially become a professional candidate for office.  She is accused of using her campaign funds to pay her rent and personal expenses while not paying her campaign staff.  What does this say?  Sadly, it suggest that we have here a woman either so fanatically conservative or so desperately in need of attention that she simply cannot function except as the perennial fringe candidate.  Only in a state the size of Delaware or Rhode Island with their relatively small populations and sizes could somebody like this survive the normal weeding out process.

With the national GOP establishment reluctantly behind her, her campaign website has undergone a bit of a cleansing, purging it of the endorsements by groups advocating violence.  However, she still stands by a radical conservative agenda and represents a decreasingly less covert revival of the religious right (in 2006, O'Donnell called homosexuality an identity disorder, I doubt she has had an epiphany since then).  However, she is not alone, South Carolina Jim DiMint has also given voice to the demands of the religious right.

Cleansing of the campaign website will not be enough to keep the GOP relevant.  They may very well win the battle this November, but they are still in a position to lose the war.  If the party is pulled further to the right, religion included, and purges moderate of the party, it can never be competitive long-term outside of a handful of states and congressional districts.  However, that list will not, again in the long-term, include big Republican givens like Texas, Florida, or even Arizona.  The states where Tea Party candidates are competitive this year, but not eternally, are states that are generally and solidly moderate states like Nevada, Pennsylvania, and Colorado or solid red states like Alaska.

It is in states like Delaware where they will have the most trouble because even if the fringe candidates can get elected once, they are guaranteed defeat next time around.  Consider, once again, Sen. Scott Brown.  A small part of his victory was due to Tea Party support, but it was support he was careful then as now to keep at arm's length.  For now, he can straddle the right side of the line on fiscal issues, while having no choice, but to stray to the left on things like financial reform or unemployment extensions (frightening as it is to consider either anything, but bipartisan).  The GOP may be riding a tidal wave to gains, but it is also because some seats like Browns, or those of the Senators from Maine, whose defeat might be certain in a primary today, are not up for reelection.

This rightward shift is not really a sudden surge of moderates and independents running to the right or even to the GOP.  Most of these people were on board the Grand Ole Party Express, as it were, prior to November, 2008, but many had been demoralized by the wave of Obama's victory or otherwise taken for granted as a part of the Republican's tent.  Now, what they have organized is less a coup over the government at large, but just the party of which they were always a part.  Capitalizing on Democrats' lack of voter enthusiasm, moderates' fears and frustration and Republicans successful portrayal as the party of "NO," their candidates could stand to win general elections this year.

The irony, may be, however, is that they will only serve to tie up the gridlock in Washington further.  First they will discover as any starry-eyed neophyte learned, that "reforming" Washington is neither as easy or as appealing as it seems in sounds bites and 30 second ads.  Consider the hollowness of Republicans plans to reform Congress, like for example in the area of earmarks, an issue they never thought pressing when they were power only four years ago.  Second they will be even more uncompromising than many of the Republicans they replaced in primaries all but assuring an impasse with Democrats who, even under the rosiest of GOP expectations, will comfortably retain their filibuster.

The best hope that the Republicans may have, if they ever hope to have long-term viability, is to attempt to modulate the tea party element, better classified as the arch-conservative wing of the Republican party (the increasing religious undertones preclude the libertarian label).  If successful, they would have an acrimonious, but working relationship with the right structured on a realistic center, much like Democrats have with their left flank.  Even under this scenario, liberal Republicans acting as foils to conservative Democrats like Nebraska Senator Ben Nelson or Louisiana Congressman Charlie Melancon seem all but unlikely.

The country is not really running into the warm embrace of the Republican party.  Rather many Americans are frustrated and frightened by the state of their country, made possible greatly due to Republican policies, which remain insufficiently corrected.  Others, including supporters of President Obama, as evidenced by today's economic forum with the President, are "exhausted" defending him and frustrated by not seeing him do enough.  Indeed, Obama has failed to fight hard enough, holding on until it was too late, his desire to maintain that unifying post-partisan air of his campaign.  Additionally, chronic problems remain within his executive staff (not the cabinet departments, his people there are solid).  His White House staff, while qualified on the one hand, lost the message battle back when end-of-life counseling was mutilated into "death camps" and was otherwise totally unprepared to govern against the push of conservatives.  If Obama wants to make anything out of the rest of his term and have a hope for another, a shakeup is in order.

What is truly tragic, however, is that no matter how this election roles out, the loser could be the American people.  Absent a real epiphany among either side to actual negotiate to a middle, real "change" is unlikely no matter what the composition of Congress.  Republicans should contemplate either their victory or defeat in 2010 carefully.  Stung Democrats, Obama included, may get the picture and modify their message, tactics, and priorities to return in 2012.  Under such circumstances, 1994esque success in 2010 might not feel nearly as good if 2012 turns out to be as satisfying to Republicans as 1996 ended up being.

And with Our Endorsement Comes the Following...

Today is Primary Day in Massachusetts and in the Pioneer Valley that actual means choices instead of mere formality.  From US House races to the DA's race to numerous contests for seats on Beacon Hill, the 2010 election has attracted significant interest among many in both parties.  Today, WMassP&I offers its endorsements for some, but not all contests.  Some of the races in which we shall forgo judgment is due to a number of factors, including a lack of knowledge about the candidates, vapidity in the race, or simply a lack of interest on our part.  A word on the races themselves, excluding obvious races like DA or Congress, the actual state Senate and House districts will be named by their technical names, but few voters actual know these technical terms.   Tools presently available on the Secretary of the Commonwealth's website and continuing improvements on the Massachusetts'General Court's website make defining districts by location easier.

ALL RIGHT

Republican Nomination for the 2nd Massachusetts Congressional District.

Originally, we were reluctant to issue judgment on who should win the Republican nomination for this contest.  However, after careful consideration, since it should be a surprise to no one where we will land in the general, it would be in the interests of argument to support the candidate who will offer a more substantive debate.  That substantive debate, in our view, will firm up our reasoning for making the endorsement in the general.  For those reasons, WMassP&I endorses Dr. Jay Fleitman for the Republican nominations.  Despite the rarity of any opponent of any party going up against Congressman Richard Neal, this race has gotten but the sparest notice in the media.  What has been gleaned, from the Reminder, the Republican's voter guide, Maureen Turner's "On Springfield" and Tommy Devine's blog is that there is a difference in tone between Fleitman and his opponent Tom Wesley.  Both more or less hold themselves as the anti-Neal, but Wesley's campaign holds onto this such as to turn into offense.  His "Repeal Neal" slogan may be melodious, but it suggests that all he can hold out is the same empty claims that several Republican across the country are making about returning power to the people, a form of vacuous sloganeering as old as American elections themselves.  On Springfield quotes Wesley as opposing a single payer health system, the implication being that Neal and Democrats more generally have passed such a thing.  They have not.  Republicans may have valid arguments against the universal health care, but few if any serious contenders make the claim that Wesley has.  Taken together with his personalization of the race with Neal and the assertion that his military service implies anything beyond the sacrifice that it is, Wesley has disqualified himself from offering anything substantive in his campaign.  Fleitman, by contrast can offer the professional opinion of a doctor, and not merely an ideologue.  While it is the opinion of WMassP&I that Neal remains best suited for the job, we look forward to a sincere and substantive debate.

Hampden Senate District Democratic Primary

The decision of Stephen Buoniconti to run for district attorney left his seat up for grabs and three candidates have leaped at the chance to snag this gem of a seat, which includes Agawam, West Springfield, snippets of Chicopee, and Springfield's western regions notably Forest Park, but also many of its poorest areas.  Among the Democrats is Buoniconti protege Jim Welch, who filled Buoniconti's seat when the latter ran for state Senate six years ago; Susan Dawson, the former mayor of Agawam, best known for getting into a scuffle at Max's Tavern at the Hall of Fame, but regarded as an effective administrator, and Robert Patenaude, an official for the UAW.  At first glance, Patenaude appeared interesting as a member of a largely private sector union for not having any baggage like Welch and Dawson.  However, sadly, though not surprisingly, the UAW represents few private sector employees indeed many are students at UMASS.  While avoiding judgment on public sector or scholastic unionization, Patenaude's credentials to improve labor conditions for the private sector are totally undermined.  This leaves Welch and Dawson, both of whom this blog could effectively serve the district.  WMassP&I leans toward Ms. Dawson for the following reason, however.  As Tommy Devine points out in his endorsements, Welch has done little to particularly distinguish himself even among the Western Mass delegation in general.  While he has not come under any scrutiny as his predecessor has of late, a rough analysis of Welch's campaign receipts just from January 1, shows a glut of special interest money and donations from other candidates campaign accounts, most notably one from Thomas Petrolati, who has come under heavy scrutiny in the past year.  Dawon's personal life is not at issue, and if she was a superior administrator to Cohen, the man she both defeated and later was defeated by, it is a shame she lost her election last year.  There is a broader point, too.  Before Buoniconti, Linda Melconian, a Springfield resident, held the seat for several years.  While, political corruption notwithstanding, Springfield is best represented by one of its own residents, there is value is having a circuit of candidates from the varied communities represented in a given district.  It keeps the seat from being overly provincial and its power entrenched in one community over another.  Welch is from West Springfield and his election could provide a monopoly over the seat for Westside.  Dawson is from Agawam, which has of late not had one of its own in the Senate.  For these reasons, we endorse Susan Dawson.

Second Hampden Republican Race.

Unsurprisingly, there is great interest in the Republican race for this Longmeadow-centric district, which actual extends to Hampden, Monson and pockets of Springfield and East Longmeadow.  Traditionally a GOP House seat, Democrat Brian Ashe won in 2008 in the Democratic surge of the year.  Longmeadow lawyer Marie Angelides and East Longmeadow's Jack Villamaino (and former aide to Brian Lees) are vying for the Republican nod.  While Villamiano's experience on Beacon Hill carries some weight, WMassP&I is intrigued by the interest of newcomer Angelides.  A Valley residents for much of her life and immigration lawyer, perhaps as a Republican she could offer a more tempered approach to local controversy over illegal immigration than many on the right are inclined to offer.  We endorse Marie Angelides for Second Hampden.

Ninth Hampden Democratic Race:

The gall with which former representative Chris Asselin has returned to the political scene should shock and disgust even Springfield's jaded voters.  In 2004, amidst pending charges for public corruption, Asselin lost mightily to current incumbent Sean Curran.  After being released from the hospitality of the Bureau of Prisons, Asselin announced his return to politics.  Even in a year where people are repulsed by incumbents, it seems unlikely that voters in the ninth Hampden (a largely Springfield district with a precinct or two in Chicopee) would fall for his act of contrition.  The district includes Six Acres and parts of Pine Point and East Springfield, largely rank and file residents who exist at best partly in the hands of the machine.  Most of just everyday folks unlikely to forgive so easily.  Nonetheless, taking no chances, we endorse Sean Curran.

Treasurer Democratic Race:

Sadly, we are not sufficiently informed on this race, but it is an important one as the winner of this race will go against Republican Karyn Polito to succeed Tim Cahill.  Still, we endorse Steve Grossman.  Active in state and national politics for some time, including a stint as National Party Chair, he has the experience in public service that is requisite for what is in effect a job more of bureaucracy than of politics (even though every is political on Beacon Hill).  Vote Steve Grossman.

(All photos from candidate's campaign, legislative, or facebook pages)

The Governor Giveth: Butcher, Baker, Income Tax Breaker...

Offical Baker Campaign Portrait

For our second edition of the Governor Giveth and the Governor Taketh Away, we take a look at Charlie Baker.  Baker, an official in the administrations of Republican governors and CEO at Harvard Pilgrim Health Care, is the Republican nominee for governor this November.  He avoided a costly primary fight with seemingly perennial candidate and former board member of the now defunct Mass Turnpike Authority, Christy Mihos.  Mihos failed the garner enough support at the GOP state convention in Worcester to make it on the September ballot.

As such, Baker has had the benefit of going right into the gubernatorial battle from the beginning, campaigning against Governor Deval Patrick and Democrat turned Tea Party-esque Independent, Treasurer Tim Cahill.  For the most part, the debate has been framed around fiscal conservatism, taxes, and government corruption.  While other issues like business competitiveness, health care, and education are at the top of the list, government and how it taxes and spends has been a huge part of the conversation.

Baker's platform on government, taxes, and competitiveness go hand in hand.  In Baker's mind, not surprisingly for a Republican, cutting taxes would improve the state's economic position by attracting business.  While that argument on its face is dubious (Massachusetts has weathered the recession better than most states despite it hiking taxes), he does have the right idea about taxes in general.  There is little wisdom in raising taxes broadly in the midst of a recession especially as all it does is continue wasteful spending on the part of the legislature.

Baker does favor returning the state's sales tax to 5%, however it is only one of many such taxes cuts he supports.  While all of his tax cuts receive equal billing on his website, news reports and the candidate himself indicate that the tax on income is his most pressing concern.  Specifically, Baker would seek a reduction of the state income tax to a flat 5% from the present 5.3%.  While Baker has a point that the voters passed in a binding referendum that very reduction five years ago, like Romney and others before him, harping on this issue has gotten a little old.

State House in 2008 (WMassP&I)

The reduction appeared before voters some ten years ago and was scheduled to go into effect shortly before the recession of 2001-2.  The referendum was not wholly ignored by the legislature as the income tax prior to the referendum was 5.85%, which remains an "optional" income tax on Mass tax forms (The current rate did not, however, go into effect fully until 2004).  While the legislature may have been obligated to reduce the income tax after the economy fully recovered mid-decade, there remains the problems with voter referenda on tax issues.  Back to that in a minute.

New Hampshire Quarter (Wikipedia)

Baker may have an excellent philosophical point where the income tax is concerned, but his focus on the income tax has come at the expense of the more troublesome recent tax increase--the sales tax.  Certainly the additional 0.3% on incomes gave the legislature license to spend somewhat recklessly this past decade, the sales tax increase could not have come a worse time.  With consumption down due to the recession and the tax free Granite State only a half our from the Boston area, this increase (and its sibling the inclusion of alcohol on the list of taxable items at point of sale) proves damaging to merchants and self-defeating.

Despite this fact, Baker, while talking to WFCR Thursday and taking calls from listeners, noted the sales tax increase, but clearly made the income tax his priority.  One call from Matt, a recent UMASS graduate planning to move to Boston seemed to agree with him while discussing the income tax.  While the caller expressed a concern about entering the workforce and confronting the expense of Boston living (which as your webmaster can tell you is not easy or cheap), the reduction in income would amount to very little.  Based on the average household income in Massachusetts for 2008, a reduction in the income tax would translate into less than $200 a year.  For Matt, not knowing his income or rent (a portion of which can be deducted from Mass income tax), it will probably end up being much less than $200.

Baker on Sept. 9, 2010 (WFCR)

Another caller, Mike, complained about hikes in state college and tuition and in a burst of youthful populism firmly contended to Baker that the wealthy should pay more while the less well off pay less in taxes.  Mike's contention that the rich should pay more was a bit too populist (for state taxation anyway), but he rightly noted that the sales tax increase hits the poor more.  Baker seemed to agree that the sales tax hurt business, but seemed otherwise noncommittal and more adamant about the income tax.

Mike's point about the sales taxes (and their increases) refers to how the poor end up paying a larger percentage of their income on the tax than the wealthy usually do.  However, if that does not make Baker think twice about his tax policies, then perhaps this will.  According the state's own revenue analysis for fiscal year 2010, which ended in June, the state collected roughly $589 million more in income tax because the rate was set at 5.3% instead of only 5.  However, the sales tax increase alone accounted for $759 million.  In other words, in absolute terms, the sales tax increase has extracted a greater amount of income from taxpayers than that extra three tenths of percent in the income tax.  This is separate from the $79 million gleaned from ending the exemption on alcohol.  Taken together these modifications to the sales tax have cost taxpayers 25% more than the extra 0.3% in income tax.

Perhaps what is equally troubling about Baker's focus on the income tax to the detriment of the sales tax is how that flies in the face of Baker's pro-business agenda.  The higher income tax only affects businesses to the extent that the owners of the businesses have a higher tax liability on their personal income tax.  However, the sales tax directly affects businesses' bottom line.  The added 1.25% (or more for meals in some localities) to the sales tax is subject to the fees charged by credit card companies to process charged transactions.  The sum of those higher fees is added to businesses' expenses.  While it could be deducted from taxes, it only exempts those dollars from taxation it does not change the fact that the business does not have that money anymore.  In other words, the sales tax translates into additional raw expenses to businesses.  Those three tenths of a percent on income do not.  If Baker is really serious about improving the business climate he should rethink about his priorities.

Baker has a point when he, like many before him, notes that the legislature abrogates the will of the people when it essentially holds back a voter approved tax decrease.  However, it also points to the problem of voter approved tax issues.  Going back to Proposition 2 1/2, voters are prone to approve them if they seem reasonable.  For example, the income tax repeal in 2008 was voted down because it was too broad, but the 2000 income tax question and 1980's Proposition 2 1/2 passed.  It is entirely possible that the question to reduce the sales tax to 3% could head in the same direction.

Karyn Polito (Candidate Website)

While the same forces that organized against the income tax repeal are marshaling the troops for the sales tax, the 3.25% decrease might seem pretty nice to taxpayers especially those that remember when the tax was that low.  However, this is exactly why taxes should not go to the people except under the most dire of circumstances.  Certainly, the legislature has behaved like an out-of-control shopaholic for the past decade, but efforts by the state's anti-tax crowd like this are a bit too reactionary.  A more modest proposal would have been to simply pull the tax back to its old rate rather than wreak havoc on the state budget, which will probably be borne on the heads of municipalities rather than the legislator's pet projects.  Instead, the state's tax foes should have concocted a spending question rather than one on taxation.  Notably, however, the Republican candidate for Treasurer Karyn Polito supports the measure--and an increase to bring the tax back to its old 5%.  That assumes the legislature is not too chicken to thwart the will of the people as a would-be Governor Baker would accuse.

Sadly, many politicians who push for tax cuts are using it as a means to cut other spending.  It is a brilliant idea if it actually worked.  Moreover, cuts are meaningless unless actual policy changes are made to government administration and existing law.  If Baker feels that the voters are making his job easier by passing a tax cut, he is miserably mistaken.  The legislature will be unlikely make the cuts he wants (again giving it to municipalities in the throat, which oddly provide the most pertinent services to residents like schools, police and fire) unless fate grants him a veto-sustaining Republican minority.  Not to mention, imagine he forces through a lean budget complete with voter-approved tax cuts.  Should a budget crisis leer its ugly head once more, cuts will be near impossible and tax increases a political impossibility.

Patrick in 2008 (WMassP&I)

Baker still has a lot to offer, but his income tax mantra distorts his appeal short of the anti-Deval dimension.  Rather than actually trying to save taxpayers more money, he falls into formation on the Mass GOP party line.  Given the comatose state of the Republican party in this state, it is hard to imagine Baker becoming some pawn of party bosses, but should national influence creep in, we could risk a very Romney-esque four years.  Moreover Massachusetts governors have walked away from the office quite easily of late (Deval Patrick is the first governor to have served a full term and then run for reelection since William Weld did in 1994).  What of Massachusetts residents should Baker develop a similar anxiousness?

It is too early for that, however.  While in Charles Baker voters in Massachusetts have a viable alternative to the incumbent, it may be hard for many to distinguish him from anything more than the anti-Patrick.  Should he make that distinction clear in these final weeks of the campaign, Patrick will be in big trouble.  That is if a spoiler does not make himself a human speed bump on Baker's path to the Corner Office on Beacon Hill.

It's... All About Steve...

Despite the widespread panic (or joy) that this year's midterms have elicited on the national level, 2010 is also proving to be an interesting if not particularly apocalyptic and/or providential on the local level.  A smattering of races are attracting some attention.  The lynch pin of these multiples is the cascading effect of someone announcing their retirement.  Longtime Hampden County District Attorney William Bennett announced his retirement spurring a rush of candidates, including State Senator Stephen Buoniconti.  Buoniconti's interest opened up his to a slew of candidates, including his successor in the House Tom Welch.  His seat, in turn, is also up for grabs now.

Our interest today, however is in the DA's race.  By far, it has attracted the most attention in the Pioneer Valley, and the reason is obvious.  A long time incumbent has taken himself out of the race.  The office's jurisdiction stretches from as far out as Blandford and Tollan in the Hill Towns to Monson and Holland out east.  It includes urban centers like Springfield, Chicopee, and Holyoke.  Moreover, as an executive position, it includes a great deal of power.  The level of interest the race has elicited should come as a surprise to no one.

The Hampden County District attorney, unlike a mayor, but like a state legislator or the Attorney General, is a partisan office and so the primary on Tuesday September 14 is important.  At the moment, there are six candidates for the office, but five are vying for the Democratic nomination.  Mark Mastroianni is running as an independent.  No Republican entered the race, although it is theoretically possible for a write-in candidate to assume the Republican nomination on the fourteenth.

Top left clockwise, Buoniconti, Goodhines, Kogut, Vottero, Spelman, Mastroianni(Masslive)

The candidate for the Democratic nomination include Buoniconti, James Goodhines, Michael Kogut, Stephen Spelman, and Brett Vottero.  Most are said to be former or current prosecutors in the Hampden Country District Attorney's office or elsewhere.  Following spirited debates and months of campaigning, there exists a perception that Buoniconti is in the lead.  If nothing else, Buoniconti has an overwhelming monetary advantage having carried over his money from his senate campaign.

Senator Stephen Buonicontin has been a fixture in West Springfield and later Springfield politics for some time.  Following admission to the bar after graduating from Western New England College School of Law, he worked in the District Attorney's office like many of his rivals.  In addition he was elected to numerous positions in West Springfield city government.  Ten years ago, he was elected to the Massachusetts House representing primarily West Springfield, but also pockets of Springfield and Chicopee.  In 2004, he succeeded Linda Melconian in the Massachusetts Senate, representing a district that encompassed West Springfield, Agawam, half of Springfield and part of Chicopee.  In that time, he no doubt built a network of supporters throughout his district and beyond.

Buoniconti in 2010 (Springfield Library)

That Buoniconti would seek the seat does not come as a surprise.  The ambitious prosecutor turned legislator is among the more visible of the area's senators, has cosponsored much legislation, and has risen rather quickly within the Senate's ranks.  He serves on many high-profile committees and his office, in one of the State House's wings is perched just above the building's main visitor entrance.  Although state senators' offices are often better than those of representatives, Buoniconti's--at least since 2006 not even a full term into his election--were always decent.

However, in a state where politicians often stay put for some time and primary challenges near-sacrilege, ambition is at the mercy of others' inertia.  Speculation has existed for years that Buoniconti would leap at the retirement of either Representatives Olver or Neal (West Springfield, Buoniconti's place of residence is in Olver's district, but technically, the US Constitution only requires a Congressman live in the state in which his district exists, not the district itself).

Stewart in 2009 (Wikipedia)

The easy response to this career is to slam Buoniconti for ambition and blazing a path to a future as an eternal politician.  However, under even the most idealistic of notions about public service, those who aspire to higher office cannot simply walk on stage from nowhere.  The exceptions tend to be independently wealthy figures who make a big to-do about being "outsiders" (who learn how quickly you become an insider and how much better it is to behave as one).  There is a reasonable concern about candidates who have held office using campaign money, but Buoniconti's money advantage does not a victory make.   Ask a Democrat running for reelection about else anywhere in this country.  As for raw ambition, that itself is not a vice.  Rather it is a cop out for opponents of any individual unable to muster a better argument against the latter's success.  Certainly it does not stop at politics.  Consider somebody like Martha Stewart.  Even before her bout with insider trading and prison, she was marked by foes and ill-wishers as an ambitious bitch.

Buoniconti has recently gotten some bad press, which has called into question his suitability for office.  Earlier in the race, Buoniconti was criticized for accepting donation from felons, including those convicted of tax evasion and gambling--felonies, but not violent ones.  Accusations have flown from candidate to candidate about receiving donations from defense attorneys.  That, too, is preposterous, since it is almost certain that the members of the Hampden County Bar Association are among the most likely to donate to candidates in just about any political campaign.  Buoniconti has been criticized for having a law practice with Daniel Kelly, a former Springfield City Councilor, whose own client list supposedly includes members of organized crime.  That connection is tenuous at best.  Given the pesky right of the accused to retain counsel and the level of crime in, well any Northeastern city, it is certain that almost ANY lawyer, especially criminal ones have had intimate dealings with those that have represented, well...criminals!

FBI HQ Washington, DC. (Wikipedia)

For what it is worth, one individual on the comment section (the great peanut gallery of opinion) of an article on the DA race, complained how the corruption of the state is due to bought politicians like DA.  In a state that at times chokes on its own corruption, only a little blame can be laid at the feet of district attorneys.  Since the cities and towns with the counties within Massachusetts operate autonomously from prosecutors' offices, it seems unlikely that police would and could legitimately investigate actual corruption only to have it buried by a district attorney.  Although a DA can direct the relevant police force to investigate something, if public corruption investigations are not coming to fruition it is likely that local or state police or unable (or unwilling) to sniff out the crime.  Realistically only the Attorney General could muster the authority to force an investigation.  If we have anybody to blame it may be corrupt FBI agents who defend their ethnically similar friends over the citizens of the United States (including Massachusetts) at large.

Spelman at a Campaign Event, (Candidate website)

What has arisen as the most potent shot at Buoniconti's DA campaign is the recent revelation that he received over $100,000 over four years as a legal consultant to the Hampden County Retirement board.  The income was not reported on his ethics filings, but he claims to have done the work in his capacity as a private attorney.  Despite these facts, made public by an individual angered by Buoniconti's denial of her pension request, Buoniconti's campaign is unlikely to suffer.  While opponent Goodhines called for Buoniconti to drop out, Spelman more realistically affirmed his call that Buoniconti release his tax returns, a concession to which Buoniconti has agreed.  The senator's failure to report the income as a public sector moneys was foolish, but not definitively unethical.  Even if the Ethics Commission had allegedly said he need not report the money, the goal of ethics is not only to avoid impropriety, but the appearance of impropriety.  On the latter count for Buoniconti: Fail.

Contributions from felons, professional relationships with legal counsel to mob, and legal consulting fees to public agencies are not the more troubling accusations leveled at Buoniconti.  Rather record show that he has received donations from the banking and insurance industries.  Buoniconti sits on the committees that governs them.  This could be more controversial if it were also unusual.  It may not make voters and certainly idealists too happy, but industries frequently shower money on the legislators that sit on the committees that affect said industries.  To some it is a chicken and the egg problem, but it is also an unfortunate symptom of a system reliant on private contributions.  For the record, the various arms of the insurance industry donates to almost everybody in Massachusetts.  Check out the Office of Campaign and Political Finance if you doubt it.

Historic Hampden County Courthouse (Wikipedia)

So what are we left with?  To read the comments on Masslive, the image of Buoniconti is one of a cynical, self-serving, career politicians, with little more than disdain for his constituents.  However, the anonymity of the comments section lends itself to those too cowardly or too overcome by anger to openly write a letter to the editor if not in the Republican, than in the Valley Advocate or Reminder.  Many others might express such views, but lose their credibility when one complains for example, should Buoniconti win the DA's race it will be another reason to move out of Springfield.  The poster "josdylan" may not realize that to make such a move worth it, a disgruntled voter would need to relocate to either near Northampton or into Connecticut.  Everybody in Hampton County votes for DA, not just those among Springfield's meager voter turnout.

Is Stephen Buoniconti what the cacophony of Masslive commentators condemn him to be?  The actual image is a little less clear.  While one could slam him for his closeness to the insurance industry, he has called for better efforts to investigate auto insurance claims fraud, most notably in the cities, which would benefit industry and ratepayer alike (assuming the insurance industry brings down urban rates appropriately).  If he were really as cold and indifferent as portrayed, bad constituents relations would have killed him sooner rather than later.

Although it may be a backhanded assessment, Buoniconti's record is no worse than that of anybody else.  The people who contribute to his campaign are typical of any politician in the Greater Springfield area, whether for office within or representing the city itself or any of its suburbs.  He has cosponsored legislation to address inequities in car repair and to end emergency housing in hotels (that program has since been ended) and has been an advocate for Springfield generally.

Martha Coakley, Mass Attorney General (Wikipedia)

This blog is unlikely to endorse anybody for the Democratic primary for district attorney or possibly anybody for DA in the general either.  As much attention as this race has gleaned, the office, while important, is somewhat limited in its purview if not in the size of its jurisdiction.  Unlike the state Attorney General, the DA is not an advocate in civil action on behalf of the people.  His only real tool is prosecution and therefore most potent threat is hard time, which can, depending on the crime, offer its own dilemmas over the social, economic, and political issues regarding prisons.  Certainly the DA decides, which cases are strong enough to pursue and how to prioritize the office's limited and legislatively appropriate resources.

Much of the attention this race is receiving is no doubt due to the attention crime receive in the cities and how their suburbs react.  Labels like war zone and debatable professional associations have colored the race, but it all really comes down to crime and how we address the feeling that it is escalating.  Whether or not it is (nationally this recession has not seen the typical rise in crime), voters cannot afford to be overcome by that fear, lest they forget other, perhaps more pressing issues, which the District Attorney has no power to remedy.

WNEC Seal

In the end, this conversation is not "all about Steve."  It is about the people of Hampden County, but what are they really interested in?  Like any election do they know what they are buying and realize the candidates' limits?  Only 8 days separates voters from narrowing the field to two candidates.  It would be foolish to call Buoniconti's victory a fait accompli, but indisputably he has the advantage.  A candidates forum will be held tonight, Sept 7, at Western New England College.  It could be the last word the candidates will have, taken together, until the general election campaign.