Group opposes land sales for campaigns

SHREWSBURY - State and local officials formed a united front against the auction block Monday night, when Westborough, Shrewsbury and Grafton selectmen joined representatives to declare opposition to state land in their communities being sold to fund political campaigns.

The state's Clean Elections Law remains politically charged, as lack of funding for the voter-approved law led the Supreme Judicial Court to authorize proponents to seize state property in April. Along with land in eight communities, the SJC seized about 445 acres in Westborough, Shrewsbury and Grafton identified by the Massachusetts Voters for Clean Elections as "surplus" state property to be auctioned.

"I have been a long-time supporter of clean elections, and I intended to run as a clean elections candidate," state Sen. Pamela Resor, D-Acton, who also represents Westborough, said at the Monday night press conference. "But when I heard it was going to be funded through the sale of state land, I pulled out of it because of my concern for this type of thing. I hope we will see clean elections come about in a reasonable way."

The land in the three towns is the site of the former Grafton State Hospital and was thought to have been dropped from the auction list two weeks ago, after an SJC-authorized auction of 72 acres in Lakeville generated $2.4 million.

Then last week, Democratic gubernatorial clean elections candidate Warren Tolman demanded the land be seized, said state Rep. George Peterson, R-Grafton.

"There was some question as to whether the Legislature was trying to send the parcel to the Grafton Development Corporation," Tolman press secretary Karen Grant had said July 12.

But Peterson said the Tolman campaign had only heard a rumor about the supposed move to protect the land.

"I talked to Tolman's brother," Peterson said. "It was an outrage that this campaign moved on a rumor, without even talking to any of the principals."

Last week, legislators approved a budget that includes a $3.8 million appropriation for clean elections candidates. That would be enough to finance those who were certified as of Jan. 25, including Tolman, if acting Gov. Jane Swift signs off on the money.

But for Shrewsbury Selectmen Chairman Thomas Fiore, that is a big "if," especially since the budget given to Swift includes a $300 million deficit.

"The governor could cut that funding out," Fiore said. "We received some correspondence from state Sen. (Guy) Glodis (D-Auburn, who also represents Shrewsbury) that the Senate recommended funding it. But he didn't mention in his letter that the governor had the power to veto that. So I'm not going to say, 'Oh, don't worry about the land.' "

Westborough Selectmen Vice Chairman George Barrette spoke on behalf of the board in the absence of Chairman Lydia Goldblatt. Goldblatt, who works as a full-time paid volunteer coordinator for the Romney-Healy campaign, said Friday that a conflict of interest would keep her from attending Monday's meeting.

"We've dodged a bullet temporarily," Barrette said. "We look forward to working with Shrewsbury and Grafton to make sure this never comes to fruition."

Glodis, an outspoken opponent of clean elections, called the land auction controversy "a travesty of justice." When asked later about the clean elections law, he called it "one of the most fundamentally flawed pieces of legislation ever to come before" the Senate's Election Law Committee, which he chaired from 1998 to 2001.

"It's not a campaign reform piece," he said. "It's a tax-subsidized promotion of campaigns. There is tremendous potential for corruption. There was nothing preventing a clean elections candidate from hiring his best friend or his brother and paying them with taxpayer money."

Also present was state Rep. Paul Loscocco, R-Holliston, who state Rep. Karyn Polito, R-Shrewsbury said will represent a portion of Westborough after November's elections. Due to redistricting, the town will be split three ways between Loscocco, Peterson and Polito, she said.

Polito quoted the late U.S. Speaker of the House Tip O'Neill as saying, "All politics is local."

"I was surprised that this land was targeted, because (it has so many uses) right now, coupled with the fact that our communities have future uses in mind for it," Polito said. "I don't feel the proponents did their homework when they were selecting sites for auction. I have voted consistently to fund clean elections because that is what the voters wanted. But we all know how precious this particular area is to our communities."

Other than sidewalks, roads, beaches, a couple of national parks and land for police stations army bases etc I think all public land should be sold off.

Arizona is having serious financial problems, but the state is mandated to give millions of dollars to candidates, thanks to our ignorant voters, through a citizens initiative, called "Clean Elections."
"Clean Elections," what a wonderful name, what is clean about taking money from tax payers, and redistributing it to corrupt politicians?

If the State Supreme court throws out "Clean Elections" because it goes against the state constitution, some group will spend a pile of money to get another wealth redistribution scheme with a warm fuzzy name, designed to pick the pockets of the voters on the ballot, and the suckers will vote it into law.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.