To read Joan Vennochi’s column in today’s Globe, you’d think that the folks objecting to the Ethics Commission’s conclusion that Dan Wolf cannot both own 23% of Cape Air and hold public office are all progressive Democrats just like Dan Wolf.
[I]n an unusual development, some powerful progressive voices are speaking up for [Wolf] and against the Ethics Commission.
Governor Deval Patrick and Senate President Therese Murray, as well as other Beacon Hill Democrats, bemoaned the commission’s opinion, while worrying that decisions like that keep entrepreneurs like Wolf from running for office.
The head of Common Cause of Massachusetts — supposedly the state’s ethics watchdog — called upon the commission to find a way to let Wolf off the hook….
It’s hard to imagine the state’s leading liberals, with help from political soul mates like Common Cause, going to bat for a Republican facing a similar scenario. But let’s give the state’s liberal establishment the benefit of the doubt. If Democrats believe the law, as written, is too onerous and keeps too many good people from public office, they should change it.
What Vennochi doesn’t mention is that the public objections to the Ethics Commission’s ruling have been bipartisan; indeed, some of the most prominent voices objecting to it have been Republican. The Globe earlier quoted Rep. Dan Winslow (R-Norfolk) as saying that he hopes Wolf challenges the ruling in court, adding that “‘[t]here’s no opportunity for favoritism; there’s no opportunity for corruption, it seems.’” And Senator Bob Hedlund (R-Weymouth) declared on Twitter that “this ruling isn’t right” (while also noting the obvious fact that he wasn’t planning on voting for Wolf). Non-elected Republicans have also chimed in: after I wrote that I thought the Commission’s ruling was wrong and Wolf should challenge it, our friend Rob Eno at Red Mass Group noted that “[i]t is not often that I agree with my good friends over at Blue Mass Group. On the issue of the Ethics Committee ruling on Dan Wolf’s eligibility to run for public office I certainly do agree. It is preposterous to me that someone that owns a business that pays the state money for a service can’t run or hold office.”
Vennochi has previously made clear her view that the Commission was right to do what it did, and that’s fine; reasonable people can disagree. But she shouldn’t omit the fact that those criticizing the ruling come from both sides of the aisle. In fact, not only has objection to the ruling been bipartisan, but I’m hard-pressed to think of anyone who has publicly declared the ruling to be a good thing. It’s not just the folks who think Dan Wolf might make a good Governor that don’t like the ruling. It’s just about everyone.