So far, the campaign for mayor has been remarkably civil and respectful, particularly between the seven candidates who are looking to succeed Newton Mayor Setti Warren.
But with just less than six weeks before Newton voters will narrow the field down to two, the largely unknown Geoffrey Woodward has just taken the first shot.
Here’s a quote from a postcard TAB reporter Laura Lovett says Woodward is sending to voters.
“I am the only moderate candidate for mayor that represents all the citizens of Newton. All my opponents express extremist, elitist and special interest views beholden to developers and other financial interest groups.”
Woodward also includes among his objectives cutting taxes by ten percent and keeping “city employees happy and appreciated;” two noble objectives which may perhaps be hard to execute together.
I also found it ironic that Woodward calls his opponents extremists but aligns himself with Newton Villages Alliance, which is about as extreme an organized group as we have in Newton. Sorry but that’s not “representing all of Newton.”
There is one at Large Councilor who primarily is getting $500.00 donations from Special Interests and Developers. There is a Mayoral Candidate who has gotten almost $40,000.00 from Outside of Massachusetts . So I am sure Woodward has a point.
@Joanne: If you’re going to raise these issues you may at least tell us who the councilor is and who the special interests are and share a link to it so we can see it in context.
So Woodward finally pops out of the woodwork. It’s hard to take a mayoral candidate seriously when they don’t have a website. It’s 2017.
Greg – I will help you out – Check out this Link – https://www.ocpf.us/ Go to Data, then filer reports and then put in each candidates name, then click on data which will list all the contributions that each candidate was given.
Joanne. I know how to use that data base. For months now you’ve been accusing our electeds of taking special interest money but you never say who those “special interests” are so we can’t judge if they’re legitimate conflicts or not.
If you know how to use the data base than I am confident you will figure it out the same way I did.
Greg – Give me a break. I haven’t been to OCPF for months, but it’s definitely the go-to website for accurate data – the facts. To make a Joe McCarthy type accusation about the facts is totally inappropriate. You can look at the data and come up with a different conclusion than Joanne, but to deny the information OCPF provides is factual makes no sense.
I think you misunderstood Jane. Joanne has been accusing unnamed elected leaders of taking large contributions from unnamed “special interests” for months now. Maybe it’s true, maybe not. But whenever I’ve ask her who those “special interests” are she declines to provide any names.
If Joanne says she has proof that our leaders are being bought off,she tell us who she thinks is doing the buying.
This is a disturbing article. Saying “All my opponents express extremist, elitist and special interest views” of, in particular, 3 dedicated public servants in Scott, Ruthanne, and Amy is offensive.
They have served our city well and deserve, at the least, our respect.
Greg – Go to the OCPF website and find out. I’m kind of flummoxed that you’re not tuned into it. It’s my go-to website the year before a muni election to figure out who’s running for re-election or for a new position. I’m by no means alone on this. Lots of local politicos follow it.
Hmmmm. Jane. Let me try AGAIN.
Yes anyone can look up who gave money to an elected official. So for example, I just looked up Marc Lorado (I picked someone who is not in a contested race). As chair of Land Use, he’d theoretically be a prime candidate for donations from special interests right?
But I’ve just reviewed his list of donors and didn’t recognize any of his donors as someone who has come before Land Use or might have any other business before Land Use.
Does that mean none of Lorado’s donors have business before the city? No, it only means that I don’t recognize any of his donors as having business before the city. (I know a lot of people, but I don’t know everyone.)
But Joanne insists those people ARE giving money to some of our elected officials (the maximum allowed, she claims). But she won’t tell us who those donors are, what business they have before the city or what “special interest” they represent. She doesn’t even say which of our 24 city councilors are receiving these “special interest” donations.
It may very well be that some special interests are giving money to our electeds. It happens in politics and when it does it’s troublesome.
But I don’t believe Joanne has any idea if they are and I think she should either back it up or stop blowing smoke.
Let me give it another try as well. As you know, when you make a political donation, you’re supposed to disclose your profession and employer. You should find that information on the OCPF website under the Data tab in column 6 on the candidate’s Receipts page. Not all donors provide the information, but it’s clear from the number who do that candidates make a good faith effort to gather the information.
After looking at the data, it appears that Joanne is referring to donations from a councilor’s relatives who happen to be developers with no known business connection to Newton. As I mentioned, OCPF provides accurate data about receipts and expenditures for candidates running for office, but people will come to different conclusions after reviewing the data set. After looking at it, I’d come to a different conclusion from Joanne’s.
As a rule, most Newton’s candidates for city council don’t receive large enough donations from people doing business with the city to influence either the body or an individual councilor. That’s not a perception – it’s the information provided by OCPF website. To use your example, all but 3 donations to Marc Laredo are $100 or thereabouts. Does anyone honestly believe that a councilor can be influenced in any way for $100? It’s a simply not a reasonable assumption. His 3 larger donations (though not to the limit) were from neighbors. Neighbors, friends, friends of friends, and family are the most likely donors to municipal campaigns.
You are in a position to say that you disagree with Joanne and leave it at that.
Uncle! So basically Jane you are saying it’s ok for Joanne to make blanket accusations against unnamed elected officials because the rest of us can do the research and decide if she’s right. The world has changed.
Thanks Jane – You would think that Greg with his Newspaper background would be able to figure this out. As you say the OCPF website is the place to look before an election. It is a open website – Anyone can look at it, evaluate the information they find and draw their own conclusions.
If Joanne wants us, voters, to take those illicit donations into account, then why not name names? She has apparently done the investigative work for us, doesn’t she want as many people as possible to know?
I just might do some reading comprehension lessons with a few of the posters here. 😉
I said the amount of money donated to city council candidates is not enough to influence their vote and used one example that Greg referenced to illustrate this point.
I have no knowledge that any developer who does business with Newton has donated to a city councilor’s campaign.
A developer who donates could be a cousin, old family friend, etc.
Most typically, donations to candidates for the city council come from friends, friends of friends, and family. The OCPF website bears this out.
Through the use of the term “data” about 10 times in the post, I implied that it’s best to check the data rather than engaging in blog fights.
When someone writes…
The rest of us should not have to go the campaign finance site and look up the donations for 16 at-large councilors to see if that person making the accusation (which she has been making for months) is onto something or just making it up. That’s all I’m saying and now I’m done saying it.
Greg, I agree with you completely. When someone makes an accusation, back it up with facts. Don’t tell me that I should look it up. Your accusation means nothing to me if you don’t have the conviction to back it up yourself. Either go “all in” or don’t bother: innuendo just doesn’t work with me.
Unsupported accusations stated as facts are fodder for conspiracy theories. They lead the reader inclined toward distrust to believe their suspicions. Anyone with factual information would back it up.
It has nothing to do with linking the OCPF website and everything to do with created suspicions. I fully disbelieve any unsupported accusations.
I agree with Greg here. At this point we would be fishing through the data to try to determine what Joanne is implying. Why not be specific and then people can go look it up on the OCPF to validate what is said.
Let me be clear. I think accusations should be backed up with facts and reputable evidence. But we live in a day and age when anyone can say anything about anyone and not be held accountable. I don’t think that information that could be harmful to a person’s reputation should be shared on a blog.
Another solution: if V14 has reason to believe that an accusation about a person contains inaccurate information that could be harmful to that person’s reputation, then the post should be deleted and the poster told that it will be replaced when the evidence is provided. I don’t really care how the problem is solved. I happen to be very comfortable with the OCPF website so it was a simple solution for me.
Jane, since you find the OCPF website to be a simple solution, could you share whether you found any truth to Joanne’s accusations?
Candidates for public office open themselves to having any information shared on this or any other blog. Until backup for these accusations are posted, I will continue to believe they are lies.
As for Woodward’s postcard, obviously he does not represent all citizens of Newton and his accusations made about the other candidates are meaningless.