Race for 1st Middlesex district turns bitter


With just 13 days left before the state’s primary, the candidates for the 1st Middlesex district state senate seat are lobbing bigger accusations against each other. On Monday, the Doherty campaign released a statement against Donoghue stating that she is a hypocrite when it comes to illegal immigration.

According to the flier, Donoghue willingly accepted a case against an individual, Lilliana Rivera, who was supposedly indicted for conspiracy to create and sell alien registration receipts and social security cards. The document goes on farther to state Donoghue was fundamental to Rivera receiving a substantially reduced sentence. The effect is that Donoghue is portrayed not only as soft on illegal immigration, but someone who misleads the public.

On its face, the Doherty campaign’s assertions are alarming to say the least. Factually, the campaign’s claims against Donoghue are half-truths.

The first claim: The flier seemed to indicate that Rivera was a key player in creating the forged alien registration receipts and social security cards.

One of the statements made was that Rivera was indicted for the federal charges of conspiracy to produce and sell false alien registration receipts and social security cards. To support this claim, the flier included a copy of a federal court’s filing for the case. The filing describes, in detail, the role of each person involved in the operation. It even lays out the offenses the individuals were charged with, of which Rivera was one out of two people indicted.

The document, which the Donoghue campaign says isn’t accurate, details the specific charges that Rivera faced. Though Rivera was found to be a part of the operation, she was found to play a minimal role. Namely, Rivera’s role was to transport the fake ids from the people who created them to the people who would buy them. In regards to specific offenses, she was charged with possession and transportation of falsified documents.

This information was verified by Conor Yunits, spokesman for the Donoghue campaign. According to Yunits, Rivera was forced to transport the ids because one of the people involved abused her. “Rivera got involved because one of the people who created the ids was her boyfriend. She was in an abusive relationship with him and he forced her to transport the ids. Rivera eventually sought a restraining order against her boyfriend.”

The second claim: that Donoghue willingly accepted the case when she could have refused.

Looking at the court document alone, it makes mention that the lead attorney was Donoghue and that she was retained. In legal speak, a retained lawyer is an attorney that been paid to take a case.

Yunits explained that wasn’t true. “Eileen speaks Spanish and was often assigned to cases to where one of the parties involved didn’t speak English. Rivera didn’t know a lot of English, so Eileen was appointed to the case. She only represented Rivera and not the individuals who actually forged the documents.”

What seems particularly odd is that the listed firm Donoghue was supposed to have been working for at the time, Gallagher & Cavanaugh, didn’t exist when the case was being processed.

The third claim: that Donoghue was responsible for Rivera’s reduced sentence.

The court document shows that Rivera was charged with possession and transportation, which are outlined in 18 U.S.C. 1546 (a) and 1028 (a) (2). In reading the text of 18 U.S.C. 1546 (a), a person who knowingly possesses false alien registration receipt cards or other documents can be fined, imprisoned or both.  According to the same section, a person can’t be imprisoned for more than 10 years for this violation if the offense wasn’t committed to facilitate international terrorism or drug trafficking. A person charged with transporting such documents can’t be imprisoned for more than 15 years, according to the terms of 18 U.S.C. 1028 (b).  It is also possible to be fined under this statute. Under both sections, no one can receive a higher sentence unless the offense was completed in order to commit international terrorism or drug trafficking.

The attached document included with the flier makes no mention of either terrorism or drug trafficking in list of charges against Rivera.

Notice that both of these sections of the United States Code establish maximum sentencing limits for these offenses. With that in mind, it’s possible that Rivera was given a lesser sentence because she wasn’t a major player. Or maybe her lesser sentence has something to do with the fact that the U.S. Attorney General, as evidenced by the included court document, dropped one of the charges against Rivera.

Why Rivera got a lesser sentence is murky at best given the court document is possibly inaccurate and nearly 20 years old at this point.

“This is another attempt by the Chris Doherty campaign to smear Eileen Donoghue’s name and reputation. Eileen worked hard to ensure 6th Amendment rights for everyone when she was an attorney,” remarked Yunits.

Advertisements

Transparency concerns raised during first Doherty-Donoghue debate, part 2


Probably the most perplexing issue that was mentioned was transparency, which has come up repeatedly since the beginning of the race. This is one topic that isn’t as straightforward as it seems.

The disagreement started back in May when Donoghue challenged Doherty to post a list of donors on his website. Though it is hard to tell precisely when each candidate posted these lists, both campaigns seem to claiming that they posted their list first. In fact, today the Doherty campaign issued a press release applauding the Donoghue campaign for listing their donors online.

What could be of interest to the voters is not when the lists were posted, but from where the donations originated. Donoghue’s list, which can be linked to at the top of her home page, is nine pages long and appears to list over 350 donors. Of the listed donations, all which look to be individual contributions, a fair amount come from outside the district. The list that Doherty posted, which can be found on his contributions page, looks to contain over 300 individual donations. Like Donoghue, he too is receiving donations from outside the district.

In the end, this is going to be a race about nuances. Both candidates have similar stances on the issues, but their approach to the topics are somewhat different. If voters want a candidate to take a big leadership role, then the district could lead towards Donoghue. Or the district could lean more towards Doherty if voters want a highly collaborative candidate.

Transparency concerns raised during first Doherty-Donoghue debate, part 1


Tuesday’s debate between Chris Doherty and Eileen Donoghue, both Democrats from Lowell, was surprisingly fair to both candidates. Radio station WCAP, or 980 AM, allowed both Doherty and Donoghue equal time to respond to the questions though both occasionally exceeded the allotted time. This was the first of several debates that has been scheduled before the primary.

On most of the issues, both candidates gave similar, if not identical, answers to the questions they were asked. On the issue of illegal immigration, both candidates went on the record as not supporting illegal immigration. Both stated that they would enforce current laws. In regards to the recent $35 million loan that went to Lawrence, both candidates expressed support as it included safeguards to ensure that the Commonwealth was paid back.

Both candidates spoke out against allowing cities and towns raising local taxes above Proposition 2 ½ allowances. This is an important issue in light of the state reducing local aid by 4%, which means that cities and towns will need to find creative ways to solve their budget problems.

However, Doherty and Donoghue did not completely see eye to eye on every issue.

When the candidates were asked whether or not they supported Patrick’s recent CORI reform bill, Doherty said he doesn’t support the legislation, while Donoghue’s answer wasn’t as straightforward. Donoghue seems to support some, but not all, of the provisions as she claimed her response wasn’t exactly a yes or no answer.

When asked about what they would do to stimulate the economy, Donoghue stressed the importance of helping to lower health care costs for small businesses and that state regulations are tough on small businesses. Doherty talked about promoting science, technology, engineering and mathematics courses, which comprise the STEM program.

To keep reading, click here.

July political developments, part 2


With the immigration debate being a big issue, protesters took action across Massachusetts.  Opponents of Arizona law S.B. 1070 marched at the National Governors Association meeting that was held in Boston.  The Boston City council backed off of its boycott of Arizona-based businesses after receiving heat.  A poll conducted by the Boston Herald revealed that many residents were frustrated by the boycott.

July also saw the burgeoning Tea Party movement split in half.  This division came to pass after several groups within the movement were associated with outspoken critics of the president and current policy. Mass.-based chapters seem determined to carry on despite the criticism the movement has received.

July also saw the expansion of unemployment benefits.  For Massachusetts, that meant that approximately 70, 000 residents gained financial help for a few more months. The bill passed by a vote of 272-152 in the House.  Senator Brown proposed an alternative funding source for the measure but his amendment was not passed.

On the casino gambling front, state legislators that supported the bill faced firm opposition.  The problem seemed to have begun over the House’s introduction of slot machines at all of the race tracks, or “racinos”, which both Patrick and the Senate refused.  The stalemate lasted until the last possible moment when the House and Senate agreed to slot machines at only two of the racetracks.  Though that version passed just before the end of the session, its fate is not yet determined because Patrick doesn’t support the current version.

Just as the legislature was wrapping up its current session, both the House and the Senate passed measures in favor of a national popular vote.  As a result, Massachusetts is now part of a “pact” with five other states to give all of their votes to the candidate that wins the national popular vote.  A major sticking point, according to opponents, is that it ignores the stated amendment process contained within the U.S. Constitution.

July political developments, part 1


The month of July started with president approval ratings holding steady at 46% for the first few weeks.  By the second half of the month, President Obama’s ratings dropped down one percentage point.  His disapproval ratings fluctuated throughout the month and ended at 47%, which was two percentage points higher than at the beginning of July.

According to Gallup editor Frank Newport, Obama’s 6th quarter ratings stood at 47.3%, which is on par with previous president’s ratings at the same point in their administration.  In fact, Clinton’s (D) approval ratings for the 6th quarter were 46.1%, Reagan’s (R) was 44.2% and Ford’s (R) was 43.2%.  Historically speaking, most presidents lose popularity the longer they are in office with a handful of exceptions.  The most notable include JFK (D), Eisenhower (R) and Johnson (D).  So much for the supposed “Obama paradox” which stated that President Obama was loosing popularity despite the legislation that was passed.

In Massachusetts, Obama’s approval ratings seems to be around 56%.  This number seems to show a correlation between Democrats and Independents support of Obama and the local voting population.  What this means is that the Bay state has one of the highest populations of independent voters in the country.

Congress fared worse than President Obama given that it’s ratings hit an all time record low.  Though recent controversies might have probably played a role in these figures, chances are that this could be more due to political trends.  Midterms elections are usually somewhat painful for the party in power, irrespective of whether it’s the Republicans or Democrats.

To keep reading, click here.

5th Congressional district candidate discusses immigration, part 2


It sounds like you believe that this is an issue for states to handle. Is that correct?

Yes.  Illegal immigration is an issue that should be left to the states because they are the ones being directly affected.  The federal government shouldn’t force the states to enact specific policies.  I support the deportation of illegal immigrants, which is something that I’ve said on my website.  However, I don’t believe that the states should be mandated to deport illegal immigrants.

What sort of provisions would you endorse if you are elected?

I would encourage Massachusetts to enforce the federal laws already in place.  I think that the local authorities should be allowed to report illegal immigrants if they choose.  That’s why we have the police—they’re here to enforce the law.  The states should work together to fix immigration since it’s an issue that affects them.

Shapiro is running against three other candidates for the Republican nomination.  To find out more about him, visit his website www.shapiro4congress.org.  The state primary is on Tuesday, September 14th and the general election is on Tuesday, November 2nd.

5th Congressional district discusses immigration, part 1


Robert Shapiro (R-Andover), who is a candidate in the race for the 5th Congressional District, is just as moved by the immigration debate as the rest of us.  The invalidation of key parts of S.B. 1070 has stoked passions on both sides of the immigration debate, and more people are making themselves heard.  In light of this latest development, Shapiro agreed to discuss the ruling yesterday.

A few days ago, U.S. District judge Susan Bolton struck down the most controversial provisions of the Arizona immigration law. What is your response to the ruling?

Arizona has a right to take to take action because illegal immigration endangers states.  People that come into this country illegally have access to our public services.  Public services were created for the benefit of legal citizens, not for illegal immigrants.  It’s not fair to everyone that is here legally to have to support people that are here illegally.

Do you agree with the judge’s decision to strike down parts of the law?

The Arizona law enforced federal regulations that were already in place.  Arizona was merely doing what was asked by the federal government.

What makes you say that states have a right to pass immigration legislation?

Like I said, illegal immigration harms states because illegal immigrants can use public services.  A state can’t support itself economically if the services its paying for are being used by people that don’t have legal access.  That’s why, if elected, I would support measures to close loopholes that currently allow illegal immigrants to use public services, many of which are supported by federal funds.  People shouldn’t be rewarded for breaking our laws.

To read the rest of Shapiro’s interview, read 5th Congressional district candidate, part 2.