Letter: Why one Occupier is voting for Toomey in state rep race
This time last October, I was camped out with hundreds of other people from around New England at Occupy Boston. I chose to spend a month of my life in a tent city for the same reason that thousands of people across our country did: because I saw that our government was no longer working for the people. Like millions of Americans, I felt that my voice was no longer being heard. I felt like our government was working harder for banks and the most profitable corporations than for the rest of us. Occupy was a time to take a stand.
When I heard that my fellow occupier Mike Connolly was running for state representative, I was intrigued. It’s always been my firm belief that the ideas we put forth at Occupy could be advocated for at every level of government. The idea that an occupier was running was exciting to me, but the more I thought about the race between Connolly and Tim Toomey, the incumbent legislator from the 26th Middlesex District, the clearer the choice became.
On Nov. 6, I will be voting for Tim Toomey. Throughout his entire career, Toomey has embodied the fight for the 99 percent. He has put the working-class people of his legislative district before other interests and shows no signs of stopping.
How did I come to this conclusion? One look at Toomey’s record speaks volumes. He had an instrumental role in the creation of the Cambridge Health Alliance, a network of Community Hospitals that serve as a safety net for some of the poorest residents of the Greater Boston Area. He has been an outspoken opponent of the toxic Citizens United decision that unleashed a torrent of corporate money into our democratic process, at one point going door to door himself to get a question opposing Citizens United on the ballot. Every single year, without fail, Toomey is a stalwart defender of the voiceless, fighting for basic human services funding and taking politically courageous votes that stand up for the human rights of undocumented immigrants.
Although we could not depend on most legislators in this country to stand up for these things, for Toomey it is a simple matter of conscience. Where he truly shines, however, are the places where the work is not so obvious.
A closer look shows that Toomey has been fighting for years to make sure that the newly found prosperity of Kendall Square translates into prosperity for neighboring East Cambridge, one of the last truly working-class neighborhoods in Cambridge. His efforts have been instrumental in ensuring that development has enriched East Cambridge instead of destroying it. He has secured a $6 million open-space fund for the neighborhood from one of the most prosperous developers in the United States. This fund will be used to secure and maintain public green-space for a neighborhood that increasingly exists in the shadow of big business. As one paper put it, he is “Cambridge’s own Robin Hood,” trading in tights for a shirt and tie.
In Somerville, Toomey took a stand against Ikea to make sure public investment was not corrupted by corporate calculus. When it appeared that the legislature was going to grant a building permit extension to Ikea, which owned a parcel of land that has received millions in taxpayer-funded infrastructure improvements (and has been endlessly sitting on that parcel for more than a decade with no real plans to build), Toomey decided that enough was enough. He used his knowledge of the process to finesse a solution that kept Ikea honest. Rather than being allowed to forestall a publicly financed development at Assembly Square, Ikea was forced to either develop the property or move on because Tim Toomey had the courage to stand up to a $20 billion corporation — and the know-how to come out on top.
With so many things wrong with our government, I take great comfort and pride in the fact that Somerville and Cambridge are represented by a legislator who does things right. That’s why I will be voting for Tim Toomey this November, and it’s why I hope that you will consider voting for him, too.
Jason Potteiger, Cambridge
If you thought government was broken enough to camp out in civil disobedience then why are you advocating for the status quo?
Tim Toomey voted against clean elections and voted with Republicans to lower corporate taxes. That doesn’t seem to be in-line with the Occupy movement.
I think more likely you support Tim Toomey because you set up his blog: http://www.efs.cpf.state.ma.us/DisplayReport.aspx?reportId=144892&schedule=DisplayScheduleB
This one-sided letter that ignores Tim Toomey’s full record while not disclosing your professional relationship is the politics as usual that Occupy fought against.
I looked into the votes concerning the issues you, and the Connolly campaign, have raised. To the first, not all clean elections bills are created equal. To the second, that bill cut taxes and closed loop holes — it cut rates but corporations ended up paying more overall because of the loopholes that were closed (Source). As I pointed out in my letter that I believe government is broken many ways, but I do not feel that legislators like Tim are part of that problem. I was fortunate enough to find work from him on a small project in a past election and I am proud of that work. I am not working for Tim in this election, nor do I expect I will work for him again in the future, but as I indicated he does have my vote.
Tim Toomey is no champion of the 99% but rather, just another friend of the unjust status quo. Serious progressive activists in this district have agreed about that for years. That is why they supported strong races against Toomey by a Green and then a progressive Democrat in 2002 and 2004. If Toomey had been a true advocate for ordinary people, these campaings never would have been launched. Toomey only throws out some progressive rhetoric when he is threatened by a true 99 percenter. For example, all of his talk about opposing Citizen’s United is just a lot of hot air expelled because Mike Connolly, an actual Occupier and advocate of deep camaign finance reform, is his opponent now. In practice, Toomey opposed a public campaign finance system in Massachusetts and helped gut it ten years ago. If you vote Toomey, you are asking for the corrupt same old same old. Don’t get fooled.
I think Toomey has been talking about Citizens United since before Connolly announced his candidacy. I’m still waiting to hear about Connolly’s plan for “reform” by the way. And if it’s “nobody spends any money,” that’s even worse than the status quo because then only people with the time for activism are the ones represented. In this case, time = wealth.
And by the way, “Clean Elections” public financing laws have been shown to have no real effect on competitiveness or turnover. Good review of the research available here: http://www.ij.org/about/public-funding-for-political-campaigns
It’s like making the argument that we should publicly finance abstinence-only sex-ed. It works in theory but not in practice.
These studies found little evidence as well:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/440150
http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/440225
So, sortasean, working for one of the biggest corporate tax cheaters in the United States as does Connolly “doesn’t seem to be in-line with the Occupy movement”, but I guess its OK for Connolly but not for the person who wrote this letter. Can you say “hypocrisy”!
innerbeltway: Under the status quo, elected officials at all levels are under tremendous pressure to raise money for their campaigns. Public financing removes this pressure and allows elected officials to focus on what they were elected to do.
If public financing has little effect on elections, then why do we put up with a system where politicians spend their time seeking out and placating donors?
Either way, Tim Toomey didn’t vote against clean elections in 2003 because of the research — he voted that way because that’s what Tom Finneran wanted. I’m sure Toomey was also frightened by the 38% of the vote received by his 2002 opponent — third-party, publicly-funded candidate Paul Lachelier.
This is an issue I care about, and that’s part of why I’m working to get Mike Connolly elected. (Although I’ve never been paid by his campaign.)
Jason’s wicked smart, and we usually agree on these issues. As another fellow occupier, I am supporting Mike Connolly in this election however. Toomey has had his chance, and while these accomplishments are nice, he’s still part of the status-quo, business as usual political incumbency sitting comfortably on Beacon HIll. Toomey’s had a few accomplishments, but think of what else could have been accomplished, he’s had plenty of time. There have been major issues he’s let slide over the past decade, the MBTA is a good example. Look at how much inaction cost us. Tim also isn’t the progressive I’m looking for, he’s been anti-choice and pro death penalty, and while he’s flip-flopped on social issues towards more progressive views, these things seem so obvious to me that the fact that he even thought otherwise shows how he’s inherently out of touch with progressive culture and values. Mike Connolly represents an important change, a wake-up call to “politics as usual” types, and a new hope for Cambridge and Somerville.
Jason’s my friend and I respect his opinion, but I do think his personal/professional relationship with Toomey and people working for him is clouding his judgement about who’s best for this district.
I love you bro, don’t be mad, but I’m calling it like I see it. And I see Tim Toomey as an old man who’s had his chance.
No Money Mike has not approved this message :)
SplendidSpoon
Don’t know if you heard Connolly on WRKO radio show this morning but take a listen. What a train wreck. Couldn’t defend his positions. Kept on falling back on the “I haven’t had time to learn about that issue” defense.
But since you’re into silly name calling, I’ll see your “Toomey’s and old man” comment and raise you with a “Connolly’s an incompetent dolt”.
I listened to the show. Connolly hardly comes off as has been suggested. He got in some good points about the need to get money out of politics, which actually were well appreciated by the hosts. They also agreed about how bad it looks that Toomey has a second political job and one of the worst attendance records in State House.
Connolly may have been somewhat taken aback by how often the hosts cut him off, the insulting and extreme language they used to describe Toomey (as “a cockroach” and ” a loser”), how right wing they and the callers were, and how tangential some of issues raised were(e.g., about books and sex change operations for prisoners). But who wouldn’t find that unsettling, except other extreme right wingers and likeminded shock jock fans?
The last commentator’s characterization of Connolly sounds like more of the same insulting, immature type of language you typically hear on WRKO. In fact, Connolly has become increasingly popular in this district precisely because a growing number of people here want to be represented by a thoughtful, well informed, genuine advocate for progressive policies for a change.
So let’s allow the voters to hear how “thoughtful, well informed, genuine advocate for progressive policies for a change” he is.
http://audio.wrko.com/a/65280181/mike-connolly-a-progressive-independent-candidate-for-state-representative-in-the-26th-middlesex-district-of-cambridge-and-somerville.htm
Jason, I appreciate your point of view, but we disagree.
First, it is laughable to regard Tim Toomey as Robin Hood. He’s a classic machine politician, a hack. He does what keeps him in office, and his Constituent Service is the type of corruption of the public domain for private gain — both of the politician and those favored by the poltician, that completely undermines democracy. Really, citizens should not need to rely upon favors granted by elected officials in a properly functioning government. This is the path of graft and corruption, and perhaps the most prevalent graft in our current electoral paradigm is campaign finance. You know the saying, “Ya get the government you pay for.” And the one who pays is the one who gets. It is by no means overstatement to label this graft and corruption.
Second, Jason, you illustrate the point: Mr. Toomey’s support derives principally from the favors he grants, at public expense, to private individuals. That’s what Constituent Service is all about.
Thanks for your candor and your comments, Jason. I wish you well.