The Globe and Wicked Local have stories today about Republican Congressional candidate Sean Bielat’s decision not to disclose his current employer.
From Chloe Gotsis’ report:
“You are not electable in this district unless you talk about who you work for. You have a transparency problem that needs to be resolved,” said [opponent Elizabeth] Childs, a practicing psychiatrist. “There is no candidate for higher office, who was successful, who was not open.”
and this…
“Small business startups are private,” Bielat said, adding that it’s his favorite of Childs’ attacks against him. “We aren’t going to publicize the name of the business because I don’t want it associated with me. As soon as it becomes associated with Bielat for Congress it becomes a conservative platform.”
Does this matter?
If his company were in pre-launch “stealth” mode I could understand that- but I don’t agree with the line of reasoning he gave. Just makes him look evasive.
With all of the interest in Mitt Romney’s tenure at Bain Capital, I think it is naive at best to believe that what one does for a living and who pays your salary is off the table when you are seeking public office, particularly when you are running for a national office like Congressman.
Last time he ran, in his FEC filings, Sean Bielat identified his occupation as a “Candidate for Congress,” which led to some questions about his taking a $10,000 salary from his campaign funds–a fact which was not disclosed until after the election. There is nothing illegal about that, and Bielat had announced that he had taken a leave of absence from his $163,00 a year job at iRobot. But, given the timing of his disclosure, it raised a lot of questions then about a lack of “transparency”– a charge that, incidentally, he had lobbed at Congressman Barney Frank–which are being resurrected now. And it does make one wonder how he is supporting himself and his young family. So, as much as Sean Bielat may want to protect his employer, it is just a matter of time before he will probably have to disclose it.
That said, I had no idea what a “non-partisan online messaging platform” was (which is what Sean Bielat calls it on his website), so I Googled it. I came up with some interesting articles and a crowd-sourced list of political internet startups. I still have no idea what these startups do, but I suspect voters in the MA4 congressional district will want to know. And the voters have a funny way of deciding what is important in an election, not the candidates.
The press should respect this man more — he’s being squished like a bug by national contributions coming into the unknown junior Kennedy. He did a fine job against Frank — very commendable against the standard Frank tricks of why are you in my face and why did you even question my integrity? We have an improving two party system in MA, let’s give Bielet some slack or we’ll have another generation on Democrat fellons representing us. Bielet is a Democrat friend in that regard, increasing the bar
Hoss – Surely you don’t mean that Sean Bielat should be given a free pass because he’s up against a tough opponent?
@Hoss – I agree we should respect the candidate but likewise the candidate should respect the electorate. “I’m not telling” is not a reasonable answer to the perfectly reasonable question of what he does for a living and who pays his salary. I can’t think of another candidate who ever had a problem with that question.
Huh, he won’t say where he works? He’s toast!
On the other side of the race, what’s up with the people running JK3’s campaign? They had 4 sign holders at the intersection of Needham and Oak Streets yesterday. My eyesight is not the greatest, but the print on the signs was so small, I couldn’t read it. Had to ask my daughter to tell me what candidate they were supporting. That aint good!
The signs said “sharp eyed citizens for Joe Kennedy”. Bielat will clean up if he can find a big enough font for us less eagle-eyed citizens.
Gail Spector, He didn’t say he hasn’t had relations with his interns….right. He was answering about a reference about his employment background (which he may or may not have thought to make himself — there are stupid advisers, right?). Surely people you and I know say something about their employment history that on paper seems silly — like if someone said they operated their own shop in the Needham-Newton business arena . Would you ask who was employed or what the address was? Or take the person for their knowledge and contribution….if they seemed reliable?
If the person was running for public office, I’d expect a complete resume of his/her employment history.
It’s just preposterous. You want to be a public official but are private about where you come to the job for which you are applying? What is happening here?
Romney wants to be the first President to not release his tax history. This clown doesn’t even want us to know what he does for a living. PUBLIC OFFICE boys! Public!
In the words of George Will, ‘The cost of not releasing the returns are clear, Therefore, he must have calculated that there are higher costs in releasing them.’
This must also apply to Bielat. Well, it does until he comes clean.
My question on Beilat is much more basic. If his employer remains hidden, then I don’t know the source of his income. If I don’t know the source of his income, I can’t make an informed decision about the factors that could impact his political decisions. Also, he lists his job title as “Consulting CEO” of a tech company. I’ve worked in the tech sector for a while and it’s not a title I’ve seen before. Either you are the CEO and run the company, or you aren’t. Either you are in a job and make decisions, or you don’t. Either you are responsible to the shareholders/ investors, or you aren’t.
This idea of playing fast and loose with job titles doesn’t sit well with an electorate that does a job, has a positon printed on a business card and actually DOES that job.
I also did some digging in the Form D filings and didn’t see Beilat’s name. This is the Boston tech sector, it runs on VC. Usually there’s a reason if a company can’t or doesn’t raise money (see: 38 Studios). Sometimes it’s positive (the CEO funds it or customer revenue supports it) and sometimes it’s negative (not enough interest from Angels or VCs to invest the funds).
So when you have a “tech company” run by a “consulting CEO” that has no Form D filing, I begin to wonder whether it’s all just a way to funnel money to a candidate when he’s between runs. And then I wonder who is doing that funneling.
Giving the name of the company would help clear up that confusion.
Knowing Bielat’s past history as a successful businessman, this wasn’t an issue for me, especially given that it is a political site that is non-partisan. Since the far left wing loves to screw up people’s business, I don’t blame him for wanting to resist putting it forth. The point is that he wants to keep it non-partisan, something the partisan hacks in MA can’t comprehend.
I’m more concerned that Kennedy has zero experience and is soley running on his name. How pathetic are Democrats in MA that they actually back him?