After the announcement of his mistrial yesterday, former state treasurer Tim Cahill proclaimed it to be a “total vindication.” It was not. And while Attorney General Martha Coakley weighs whether to retry Cahill — a decision that should be based on her assessment of the likelihood of success — Cahill’s defenders will be tempted to take aim at the law under which he was charged, renewing their claim that he was accused of nothing more than Massachusetts politics as usual. He was not.
Cahill’s prosecution has been viewed as a test not only of his stewardship of public resources, but also of the 2009 law imposing criminal penalties on officials who use public resources for private political ends. As his gubernatorial campaign was foundering in 2010, Cahill approved an odd $1.5 million publicity campaign touting sound management at the state Lottery, which he oversaw. There were telling electronic messages between Cahill’s campaign operatives and the ad agency working on the campaign.
Comments
"Boston Mayor Thomas M. Menino famously has his name on anything and everything the city touches....l. The public should resist such practices". "Resist"? Menino and other pols put their names on any pulbic communication simply because it enhances their visibility and re-election prospects. This process is a clearly aimed campaign advantage which serves no public purpose. About the only item Menino's name isn't on is the PROPERTY TAX bill. Doesn't that, singular, "omission" tell you everything you need to know about these practices? The state should prohibit ALL office holders from publishing their names but for direct communications (letters) to individuals on specific (not general) subjects. Why? Isn't the mantra of liberals and Democrats that everything needs to be "fair"? How is it possible for it to be "fair" that incumbants can "liberally" use public resources to splash their name about on signs, in newspaper and TV ads using public property and funds in so doing when challengers have no, offsetting, opportunity? Its simple; limit the use of any elected official's name in publicly funded communications to direct (letter or email) correspondence with INDIVIDUALS. Why be timid when "fairness" can be so easily achieved?
We could start with legislation that executive branch news announcements be made by the agencies involved and not put out through the state legislator in whose district a project is approved or a grant is issued. The culture of political control is unlikely to be overturned by incumbents who generally have nothing to do with such decision, but who sew the perception of deserving credit. The New England state I moved here from did it that way. Incumbents still did OK.
"A politician who allegedly spends $1.5 million in public ad money for the stated purpose of promoting himself should be subject to prosecution. That money could better serve countless legitimate social needs." That's true except for the fact that the $1.5 million was in the Lottery's ad budget to be spent on ad placement, which is how the money was spent. While I agree with your overall point, and think that Cahill did use this money to help prop his campaign up, it's unsettling that federal prosecutors have to come in to prosecute cases of public corruption that the Globe Spotlight team uncovers on a seemingly regular basis. Where's Coakley's Ethics Commission for this corruption?
This comment has been removed.
At least he was not tried by a judge that told the jury to find him guilty. The contrast between how a Tim Cahill, and a Chuck Turner are treated in the judicial system -- and in the media -- is glaring. Some people belong. Others do not. Elie Yarden Green-Rainbow Party Cambridge