Massie’s undisclosed donors ‘honest mistake’
Dem has fought ‘secret money’
More than two months since launching his gubernatorial run, Bob Massie’s campaign has yet to disclose a single donor helping it — a void the Democrat acknowledged even as he’s criticized the practice of quietly lining up money before having to reveal its source.
As of yesterday, none of the five campaign finance reports Massie has filed include the names of those behind the $25,000 he’s raised since April.
Massie — reached Friday, the day he filed the latest report — quickly copped to what he called an “honest mistake,” saying the opaque disclosures were rooted in a misunderstanding of Office of Campaign and Political Finance rules and turnover in his still-young campaign.
“I want to do everything perfectly, but the rules are complicated enough and it’s changed,” Massie said, referring the last time he ran statewide for lieutenant governor in 1994. “But we’re now completely lined up internally and with OCPF. We’re going to do it right,” he said. “It was something we only realized last week, or right after the (Democratic) convention.” Massie said he’s since hired a finance director in Ali Smart, who worked for his brief U.S. Senate campaign in 2011, and tapped Lynda Wik, the manager of his 1994 campaign, as a volunteer to help “figure out what needs to be fixed.” He said he expects the names of donors to be listed online as early as tomorrow or Tuesday. Coincidentally, the misstep comes as Massie has built his early message on shunning what he called the “secret money primary.” In a blog post on his campaign website, he wrote about “challenging” the practice of candidates seeking out wealthy supporters before they actually launch a campaign, bundling max donations and doing all of it largely out of public view. “All of this takes places quietly, in phone calls and private meetings,” he wrote, “long before the names of the donors are released by the office of Campaign and Political Finance.” Mass i e also said he backs a “clean election” law, like that in Connecticut, Maine or Arizona, where candidates get public funds if, for example, they curtail their spending and private fundraising.
“It’d make a great deal of sense,” Massie said. “But right now I have to play by the rules.”
In the weeds
A Beacon Hill showdown is brewing over marijuana legalization, as the House and Senate stand far apart on two of the most controversial pieces of the law: how much to tax weed purchases and who should decide whether it’s sold in their town.
Only the House (at 28 percent) has floated a different number than the 12 percent voters passed, but the debate over local control on pot shops has a wide range of opinions.
Take Gov. Charlie Baker. He’s backing the House’s proposal to allow elected officials to decide whether dispensaries should be allowed in their town or city — not voters, as the Senate and advocates are pushing.
“I’m pretty philosophically aligned on that,” the Republican said. “I think having local officials do it is pretty consistent with the way we do alcohol now.”
Mayor Martin J. Walsh, meanwhile, gave lukewarm support to keeping it with voters, though he said it’s not an issue he’s taking a formal stance on and would be fine with whatever the House chooses.
“If I were pushed on it,” the former state rep said, “I would probably say the voters voted for it, so probably the voters should overturn it if they want.”
Walsh said he’s more concerned with ensuring enough revenue is captured and brushed off concerns that a high tax rate will prop up the black market.
“A lot of cities have opted out of this marijuana law, or they plan on opting out, and if Boston is going to become one of the major focuses of marijuana, of pot shops, I want to make sure we get some revenue from that,” he told the Herald. “The black market isn’t going anywhere.”