Wonderful State Senate Press Release

So glad the Globe's willing to print anything sent to them.

Just a summation: Some in the Senate, still throwing a temper tantrum over the Governor, decided to push a proposal that would limit contributions one can make to state parties, because (apparently) Patrick's done well with cross-fundraising.

The Globe tries to say this is all about some joint-fundraising effort called the Seventy-First Fund, but the Senate's proposal - as I understand it from the article - is far more wide sweeping than the fund itself. The 71st Fund is for people who max out both to the state party and Governor Patrick -- $500 for Patrick, $5000 for the state party. However, the Senate proposal limits all contributions to state parties in Massachusetts to $500.

Why would the Democratic Senators of Massachusetts want to do that? I suppose the fact that John Walsh, one of Patrick's closest allies, has nothing to do with it. He controls the state party and has brought quite a bit of change as a result - most for the good. He's also helped the Governor a great deal from within the State Party. Apparently, that means the State Party should be punished. That's a great idea, except for the fact that the state party's efforts are critical in electing democrats in the legislature too. It's nice to know Walsh isn't as petty as Senator Frederick Berry, the lead in pushing this proposal, because Walsh is actually out there trying to elect other Democrats - including in the legislature.

Loved John Walsh's quote, btw.

"If it applies to all parties, we support it, " said Democratic Party chairman John Walsh, who was Patrick's campaign manager.

Bluff called, Senator Berry?

--

Who wants to bet that this proposal goes no where? Makes for a great press release, but when legislators find out how many thousands it'll cost them in individual, competitive campaigns, bye-bye spiteful rule.

--

Finally, love the faux drama. This funding is controversial, dammit! Why? Because the Boston Globe said so! Question: if it's so dammed "controversial," why hasn't the paper been writing articles on it for years now? Current campaign limits are nothing new, after all. Instead, we get articles on pirates and how Craigslist is ebil. Peddling the current Beacon Hill fued - what a way for the Globe to try to prove its relevance!