Tim Cahill waged a farcical campaign for governor in 2010, but that barely accounts for the tragedy that may be unfolding now in Suffolk Superior Court.
The former state treasurer landed at the defendant’s table for allegedly using public money to promote the lottery while he was running as a third-party candidate seeking to topple Governor Deval Patrick. He is now about halfway through a trial expected to last six weeks.
Comments
This trial seems to be about punishment for ordinary political behavior. Ordinary political behavior in a campaign that was badly chosen and poorly run. That is a "crime" is the sense that it is a sad business; it should not send someone to jail.
The kind of tolerance of what you call "ordinary political behavior" is an attitude that allows corruption to flourish.
It's a political witch hunt...bogus, MA politics at its worst
Great story. Good luck to Mr.Cahill.
This comment has been removed.
Complete waste of time and money prosecuting him.
Thank you Adrian Walker...finally a columnist who gets what's going on here which is surprising since the Globe has ventured into gotcha reporting from most reporters and columnists...Constitutional officers have been airing TV and radio advertising starring themselves under the guise of public service announcements for decades...Atty General Martha Coakley, Sec. of State Bill Galvin (and Mike Connolly before him) and multiple governors have frequently used tax dollars to produce and place these ads especially in years leading up to an election season. What's good for the goose is good for the gander....so why is only Cahill's goose being cooked in court?
Maybe the Globe is starting to understand how they've aided and abetted the Democratic Party's takeover of this state and how that has led to the cesspool that is MA government. Typically things run better when there's balance. Hopefully the Globe's continued coverage of state corruption and mismanagement will lead to voters not voting for someone just based on the party they represent. Despite us liking to think we're one of the few high-minded states in this country, voting based on party and not the substance and ideas of a candidate doesn't show intelligence.
"voting based on party and not the substance and ideas of a candidate doesn't show intelligence."
I beg to differ. It *can* show simply a habit, but many voters know what the Democratic Party stands for vis-a-vis the Republican Party.
I agree that balance would be better, but the non-performance of Republican candidates is largely a party problem. You're apparently a Republican who can't accept that your party is out of step, so you blame it on the "stupid" voters. If you knew anything about politics around the country, you'd know that this "cesspool" is one of the less corrupt state governments. Put your brain in gear: the uncovering of corruption shows that anti-corruption efforts are working. Start worrying when no corruption is uncovered because there will always be corruption, no matter what party is in control. Remember when Joe Malone was treasurer and members of his staff were stealing the state blind? You probably don't want to be reminded. Right?
What's ignorant is going to the polls and voting for someone because you like his personality no matter what his politics or what he stands for. Or voting for a Republican whose politics is out of step with your own just so you can bring "balance" to politics. Weld was good, Romney was not.
I thought Tim Cahill was overstepping from the moment I saw the first commercial. He did misuse his position. Does it rise to criminal level and is it different from what others have done? Not necessarily. However, I do not appreciate my tax dollars being used to further one politician's ambitions. He was also arrogant about it. He deserves to squirm but, not at the expense of even more of my tax dollars.
There was only one reason and one reason only for him running and that was to be a spoiler to insure Charlie Baker could not win. Anyone who ever lost an election I don't care if it was for dogcatcher a spoiler in the race is a spoiler in the race. Why he did it who knows but I will bet my bottom dollar he never figured on being charged crininally for what he did. Hope he gets what he deserves. MJK
I seriously doubt Cahill intended to be a spoiler, but I don't what was it his head. Do you have that supernatural power?
In any case, polls indicated that no more than 2/3's of Cahill's votes would have gone to Baker. That's not surprising because Cahill was a Democrat. To win the election Baker would have required *all* Cahill's votes.
Whenever someone loses they like to blame outside forces. It's better to accept defeat and blame it on the candidate.
To make that clear, here are the actual figures:
Deval Patrick = 1,108,404
Charlie Baker = 962,848
Tim Cahill = 183,933
Without Cahill:
Deval Patrick plus 1/3 of Cahill = 1,169,715
Charlie Baker plus 2/3 of Cahill = 1,085,470
Good column Adrian. As you say, Cahill was clearly in over his head and didn't deserve his cabinet position. He should have stayed in Quincy, trading on his contacts there like any good local hack -- and now he'd probably have money rolling in from sort of low level political horse trading and his family members would all have cushy jobs in admin positions in the fire department or housing authority or something, and he'd be happily planning on cashing in his taxpayer funded pension and living out his days on the Cape. Instead he over reached, and apparently angered some politically powerful people along the way, and now they are getting their revenge. But it does seem like overkill to go after him for something that many in office have done before. Some people play the political game and win big as hacks -- others pay after they play.
It is not over-kill. Cahill's actions were a combination of 'greed,' and 'malfeasance' and he ought to be punished. Cahill cannot be compared with so called "other politicians."
Cahill intentionaly used taxpayers money in a charade to advertise his state job!!!! WHY? Now, thats the big money question: not a chance of a snowball in hell of winning!
Cahill was the "Nader" candidate . . . plain & simple.
Sounds like a politically motivated prosecution. I've got a source who told me that the prosecution's case is incredibly weak. Payback is more important than going after the real criminals and wasting money on this trial is no big deal to those petty pols who pushed for this. I guess this is what happens when you mess with Democratic machine.
What Walker apparently doesn't want to acknowledge is that there's a major difference between bragging in a campaign about how you do your job, and using state tax money to advertise what you do. Walker also ignores the huge amount of money spent in a very short time -- very different from past lottery ad campaigns. And then there were the discussions by email among Cahill's staff.
I haven't been in the courtroom to hear all the testimony and evidence, so I'll leave it to the jury to decide. Walker, though, seems to be ignorant of even recent Globe stories about the trial.
A quick trip to the keyboard, Mr. Walker. Turn out a column in less than an hour. I know research is time-consuming and often boring, but sometimes it's required.
This trial is a waste of time and taxpayer dollars!
I never actually thought it would get this far - isn't promoting the lottery the Treasurer's job? Does anyone really think that the treasurer gets votes because people buy lottery tickets with the dream of winning big?
Who is trying to make a name with this case?
But those ads didn't promote the lottery the way you're apparently thinking. They weren't an attempt to entice people to buy lottery tickets. They were promoting the lottery as a gold mine that poured money into the state's coffers and helped support small merchants. That's an important difference.
Should every office holder use state funds to run ads telling you what a wonderful job their office is doing?
I don't know Cahill but I know a selective, vindictive, politically motivated prosecution when I see one. And the fact that this synthetic charge originated from girl prosecutor Coakley's office virtually confirms my worst suspicions. If the AG's office indicted every elected official who misused taxpayer funds for political purposes, then courts would be choked with these cases, politics in Massachusetts would be cleaner, and our self-seeking AG might actually receive some credit from me for doing something to earn her public employee salary, perks, and pension. But since when did the AG's office start criminalizing conduct that deploys the usufructs of office to personal political ends?
Apparently the AG has a plethora of e-mails where Cahill and his cronies acknowledge that changing the standard type Lottery ads promoting individual games to ads that tout outstanding management of the Lottrey would help his moribund campaing. And the advertisement budget numbers show that they loaded a large poportion of the annual budget into the 2.5 months just before the election. Seems like pretty good reasons to bring charges to me.
Mr. Walkers point is what, they all do so let it go? I can't imagine that would help with the corrupion in this state. The appropriate attitude shoud be, any time they make it half easy for you, try your best to put them behind bars.
Good article Walker. Cahill's crime was he ran out of friends. The case never should have been brought. But the prosecutors like to kick people when they are down in Massachusetts. Look at what's happened to the probation people being charged with racketeering when they were involved in the time honored patronage busines. I like what you wrote because it show your years of experience and your common sense. How about writing about the Caswell Motel case. I read about it the other day. It's quite interesting.
It's amazing to me the number of posters here who seem to be defending corruption, including Adrian Walker. It's most likely people who would be attacking previous politicians for corruption. Why?
Does that mean it's okay to be a little corrupt? Who decides what's "a little" and what's not so little?
IMO, if we're serious about fighting corruption, we need to have zero tolerance, whenever and wherever it's found.
it is not splitting the cahill numbers it is two people going head to head. Baker would have won by a slim margin but would have still won. Cahill did a lot of good for woman with the yearly financial conference he held every year. He definitely abused the office he held to help him in the GOV race so his pension needs to be yanked and a few months behind bars is in order.
Walker lives in a strange urban world where it's OK to steal a little or commit felonies because you were raised poor and it's society's fault not their own.