Connolly or Walsh: Who Is The Bigger People’s Pledge Hypocrite?

This is Boston’s biggest issue? Seriously?

The people of Boston surely have many weighty things to consider in choosing their next mayor, but none more consequential than independent campaign expenditures.

No, wait, I phrased that incorrectly; what I meant is OH MY GOD CAN YOU TWO SHUT UP ABOUT THE PEOPLE’S PLEDGE?

John Connolly called a press conference and issued a release today to challenge Marty Walsh to sign a People’s Pledge. Walsh quickly released a statement and held a press conference to point out that Connolly was for accepting outside campaign expenditures before he was against it. Connolly’s campaign quickly fired off a statement that Walsh was for a People’s Pledge before he was against it (a reference to this video I posted in July). I am awaiting the retaliatory claim that whereas representative Walsh is surely rubber, councilor Connolly is demonstrably glue.

Voters, incidentally, certainly didn’t seem to care much on Tuesday about candidates’ fealty to the Pledge. First and third place went to candidates who openly rejected the Pledge and accepted, if not encouraged, supportive organizations to spend money on their behalf. Second place went to someone who, as noted above, was keen on outside support up until the moment when he feared it might upset the status quo that had him coasting toward a final spot without any help.

By contrast, the two candidates who made the most hay of rejecting the Pledge, Rob Consalvo and Dan Conley, didn’t seem to get any boost from displaying their clean hands.

I get the politics at work here. I also get that this is happening so soon because those outside groups can start pummeling the airwaves now, while the actual campaigns have to raise a new pot of gold first, $500 at a time. (I also get that Connolly is using the spectre of Walsh’s big-money IEs to prompt his supporters to give; his campaign sent out a money plea with this argument somewhere in the middle of today’s back-and-forth.)

But come on. We’ve got better things to talk about, don’t we?

  • Lisa Henderson

    Wow, chill out. No one is saying this is Boston’s biggest issue – you are. I think they’re getting this out of the way, so they can get on to the other issues in future debates and conversations.

  • Rob

    Burying the lede here, David. Biggest story here is it gives Walsh an opening to start changing the narrative on Connolly from “teacher” to “lawyer” and also “flip-flopper.” This is something Walsh must do in order to win. I can’t see why Connolly gave him this obvious opening, unless Connolly is truly concerned about getting outgunned by outside union money, but even still.

  • Daniel Farnkoff

    Maybe these two won partly because they rejected “the pledge”, and were thus able to outspend and out-organize opponents with their questionable funds and ill-gotten allies? The point of the pledge was to level the playing field- if it was rejected by some, all that means is that the playing field was not in fact leveled and thus, those who you would expect to benefit from outside money, did in fact benefit. Not sure this says anything new about the voters except “money talks, after all.”