I wasted far too much time this morning looking at campaign finance reports even though expenditures on a poll most likely would not have shown up yet. Something that did stand out, though, was the July 9 $200 donation to Mayor Warren’s campaign from Alan Schlesinger, attorney to Austin Street Partners.
Now, Schlesinger has been around Newton forever and has given money previously (including to Warren in December, which I would also question) — pretty much to candidates for statewide office. Still, for the sake of appearances, why would he give money now, when the most controversial development in quite some time — which he represents — is before the board and not at all a certainty to pass?
Really? Alan Schlesinger is giving the appearance of buying the Mayor with $200? C’mon, now.
Polls cost lots of money.
What Bill said. Alan gives $100-200 to many Democratic candidates and has for many years.
Just in case you want to know why people leave the City of Newton, it’s stuff like this. We’re not the only city and town in the universe. At a certain point, the constant questioning of your competence and integrity just isn’t worth it. This is the second time today that the mayor’s integrity has come into question (the first was just absurd) on V14. How do you expect to attract the best candidates for employment and/or elected office when this is the atmosphere that we create? That would be we the citizens of Newton. I’ve contacted many people to run for the charter commission and the answer is always the same – no way, I wouldn’t put myself though it and I wouldn’t put my family through it.
Just in case you’re wondering, Alan spends his free time coaching Little League as he has for the last 20 years.
So, Bill, if it were $1,000 it wouldn’t be ok but because it’s only $200, it’s fine?
Gail: In terms of perception, yeah, I think that $1000 might raise eyebrows. But even if the intent was impure, which I very much doubt it is, the Mayor would be immune to it.
However, I do appreciate your effort to liven up a slow, Friday evening.
Gail – What are you saying? That this mayor – or any mayor in recent history – could be bought for $200? Or $1000? David Cohen, Tom Concannon, and Ted Mann would’ve been able to say no to a developer or attorney representing a developer donating any sum of money. In a heartbeat. And so can this mayor.
I’ve heard from 3 people today who asked about something that was said about them on V14. All three said they never come here because of the inevitable attacks on character and integrity. Between a poll that was intended to deceive voters and several unfounded attacks on people’s integrity on V14, this has been a sorry day in Newton.
Really? While I appreciate all of the hard work Gail, how many other contributors could be linked to big business, banks, developers, overseas investors, etc? Should they all be suspect due to six degrees of separation? All a story like this does is force an elected official to return a donation which amounts to less than 100 flyers printed and mailed. Hardly enough to move the needle on the outcome of an election. One would assume that many of these donations occur without the direct knowledge of the recipient until a thorough review occurs. I’m sure the Mayor appreciates you saving him the time spent reviewing the donations, so that he may give the funds back to avoid public prosecution. A breakdown of the contributions given to date to the current presidential candidates would be much more interesting, as the motive and impact would make for much juicier news.
Bill, why is the Mayor immune to it?
@Tom,
I believe that Bill’s point is that the thought that a Mayor whom oversees a $362 Million Dollar Annual Budget, is not likely to be bought for $200 or $1000…
Perception matters in politics. It would have been prudent if the mayor had declined both donations.
This all seems a little ridiculous. I can’t imagine an elected official would acquiesce to anything for such a donation. And anyone with a lick of sense would know s/he would be caught.
In addition, the mayor is a partner in this proposal already so why would any donation matter?
Greg,
Is every donation formally accepted prior to appearing on a campaign finance report for every individual running for any level of office? Again, I would make an educated guess that these lists are periodically reviewed, more by higher office, and less by lower office, to ensure every donor is appropriate and above board for the campaign in question.
Of course I don’t think that this mayor — or his predecessors — can be bought for $200. That wasn’t my point.
I’m asking why Alan Schlesinger would start giving money to the mayor now. I don’t think he’s trying to buy him but I do think that becoming a financial supporter at this critical juncture creates a picture that the mayor would want to avoid.
This stream is ridiculous, an insult to Alan who has dedicated so much of his time to making Newton a better place to live. Tell me the value of unfounded insinuations like this have, I think none. But I do believe they add to the building negative opinions people have about our City. Some of the posts on this blog in the past week sounds like the diatribe we see and hear on Fox News.
And the rest of the posts here — school bus fees, the need for co-working spaces, air quality, a proposed compromise for leaf blowers and even the Ward 8 election — have zero to one comments.
And I agree Howard that this should not reflect negatively on Alan Schlesinger. But I do wish the mayor had declined his $400 (or perhaps sent it to Amy.)
@Randy: You are correct in that every donation must be formally accepted by the candidate/politician’s treasurer before it appears on an OCPF report. Regardless of office level, the burden is on an individual campaign to ensure it’s in compliance with the law. As Greg said, perception does (and should) matter in politics.
Agree. $200 is pretty much a nice token donation that could be given to lots of politicos. Probably the donation was part of Setti’s recent annual fundraiser. Maybe we would be worried if Alan were bundling thousands of dollars for the Mayor but that’s not the case.
PS: My “Agree” was for Jane, Howard, Bill and others rather than the commenter (all due respect afforded) directly above me!
It may come as a great surprise to people who work in the private sector, but public employees do actual work – like oversee the building school buildings, the renovation of fire houses, the repair streets (all summer long), the negotiation of contracts, etc..
The perceptions that you talk about are commonly referred to as gossip. By the nature of the position, all public employees, elected or appointed, put up with gossip about them – gossip that questions their competence and their integrity, often on a daily basis.
But sometimes it goes too far. When any reasonable person understands that a particular donation isn’t going to affect the outcome of any decision, then you cross a line. When you imply that a private citizen is basically looking for a payoff from the city without any reason or evidence to back up your insinuation, you’ve crossed a line.
Shawn writes: “Agree. $200 is pretty much a nice token donation that could be given to lots of politicos.”
Looking forward to a donation from Shawn!! : )
@Amy you’re right and I guess I should have put “for a developer or lawyer!”. I mean these days you can max out in MA at $1,000. And I will gladly donate to your campaign if anyone gives you any trouble.
I give Amy trouble at least twice a year. How much is that worth?
@Greg: A LOT!!!
: )
Let me make sure I understand what people — Howard,Jane, Bill, Shawn, etc. — are saying here: It is ok for people who are involved with development projects in the city to donate money to the campaigns of politicians who influence the outcome of those development projects. Is that correct?
If I am understanding you all correctly, is the reason it is ok because the amount of the donation is small, relatively? Or is it because my suggestion that it is not ok could make the donator, who is a very nice person, feel bad?
If it is ok because of the amount, where do you draw the line?
What we should be looking at is the character of the donor and in this case Alan has impeccable integrity. If buying approval of a development proposal was his motive we would see a lot more donations to the BOA who make the final decision. If people have solid proof that any donation is buying influence it should be made public but casting out unfair accusations is unfair to all the people who make the sacrifice to run for public office.
$200 was probably just on the lower end of a ticket to a fundraiser. Even if it was a straight donation. It’s small dollars. More like a polite, supportive contribution. If you want to look for smoke, this isn’t the place. If it was bundling or a clear effort to funnel large amounts, then it could be a problem. This is not that. Moving on……..
Donald Trump made his fortune in real estate development. In the past 26 years, he has donated $584,850 to Democrats, and $961,140 to the GOP. When you drill down into the individual contributions and how they tied to his business dealings, now that’s a news story. Furthurmore, Trump openly admits that his campaign donations were based on maintaining sound relations because it was good for business.
Are you comparing Alan Schlesinger to Donald Trump?
It would be interesting to be able to compare the net worth of Donald Trump and his ‘contributions ‘ to the that /those of Scot Oran . Obviously Mr Schlesinger is not the developer here. But it’s all about dollars and their ability to buy good will and influence to / from those in power. Mr Schlesinger is defending / representing clientele who currently have interests in a number of proposed developments in Newton. It’s not just his Donations alone that are currying favor here.
I’ll try saying this differently. I’m not questioning Alan Schlesinger’s integrity. I know he’s a good guy. I also know that $200 isn’t going to buy anyone.
I’m questioning an environment where people who do business with the city are donating money to the politicians who influence the decisions that will affect their business. Perhaps it feels like an obligation to businesspeople. But that would be an argument against it, not for it.
One more point: Scott Oran donated $250 to the Setti Warren campaign and it was returned. Why should a $200 donation from Oran’s attorney be treated differently? Is someone going to tell me that $50 makes a difference?
Not at all Howard. Just pointing out that this case is so insignificant in the grand scheme of things.
I actually agree with Gail and Greg on this one. The amount donated isn’t the issue. The value of $200 may be a lot to someone who is hungry or can’t scrape up enough money to pay their rent for September.
I wish the participants of this blog were as equally passionate about the proposed JCPOA before Congress. This will have a longer lasting impact on American life than any deal with Austin St Partners made by the City of Newton.
Gail, I was wondering how long ago Scott Oran’s donation was made and how much time there was between the donation being made and being returned.
Also the page you posted shows donations in July, August and in prior years. Do you know if any of Alan Schlesinger’s donations have been returned?
I have “evolved” on what I think about the donations, large, small, made regularly or once and agree with your and others’ point. The regular but erratic donations being made by a developer’s attorney, regardless of who it is, do skew perception. I think a donation to an elected official should be returned ASAP from anyone associated with developments in Newton. I don’t like the huge role money plays in elections and persuasion with national or state officials; why would I like it on the local level? We need to start somewhere to rid politics of money’s control; we should start at the local level.
@Marti: Scott Oran made a $250 contribution to the Setti Warren campaign on Sept. 25, 2012. It was refunded on March 27, 2014. I don’t remember the circumstances under which it was returned.
@Marti: Very well said!
Thanks Gail.