Tuesday is the general election for the 4th Middlesex Senate seat. I concur with the common wisdom – Jim Marzilli is going to run away with it. Heck, even I’m voting for him, and I ran against him three years ago. Both of his opponents are trying to roll back the progress on gay rights. I may disagree with Marzilli on fiscal issues, but he’s the better choice for the job.

Before this election disappears from the public eye, it’s worth taking a look closer look at the Democratic primary. The post-primary election fund filing deadline is passed, and we can see how much was spent. The online reports are with the Office of Campaign Finance.

I noted some trends in the pre-primary filings last month. The trends continued, with a few items of note:

• Marzilli gave another $10k to his campaign, for a total of $20k in self funding.
• Natale loaned $19,800 to his campaign. He had loaned himself money for previous campaigns, and has a debt of $45k.
• Murphy continued to spend a lot of money on consultants.
• Donnelly has plenty of money to run a House campaign if he chooses.

The available funds is the candidate’s starting balance plus what they raised during the campaign.

The numbers pretty much speak for themselves, don’t they? When you win, your numbers look better. And when you lose, you wonder if you should have just mailed a check for $40 to every voter and asked them to vote for you – it would have been just as effective.

Regular readers of this blog know that I want to support Governor Deval Patrick, but I’ve frequently doubted whether he could meet the expectations of his supporters.

When he came out in support of casinos, I agreed. There is demand for gambling in Massachusetts. It’s not appropriate for the state to prevent its citizens from engaging in it. It’s dumb to not try to profit from it. It’s also reasonable to make sure that the casino business covers the costs to the hosting towns. Patrick’s plan had all that.

And then I heard about the part where Patrick wants to outlaw internet gambling. He wants to punish people with up to two years in prison and a $25,000 fine for placing a bet online from their own home. This is an awful idea in any context. It’s hypocritical when included in a bill that creates casino gambling.

If Patrick is trying to create opposition, he’s doing a good job by me. Patrick should file an amended bill without this foolish ban right away.

It’s crunch time in the election to replace Senator Havern. The primary is a week away. Yesterday was the deadline for the pre-primary campaign finance filing. It’s the first chance to see how the candidates are doing in the pocketbook. All of this information is from the Office of Campaign Finance. Unfortunately they don’t permit me to link to the individual reports; you have to search the candidates yourself and find more detail if you wish. In rank order:

Charley Murphy

Beginning Balance $37,517.29
Receipts $103,145.00
Subtotal $140,662.29
Expenditures $71,898.59
Ending Balance $68,763.70

Murphy started with the most, and raised second-most. He raised it with 553 donations averaging $180. They were almost all from Mass, and a few from out of state. 90% of the contributions are from individuals. 10% are from PACs, unions, and lobbyists. For his spending, his biggest ticket was $25,000 to Sage Consulting for database management and consulting. He has a paid staff person. He spent more than $10,000 on mailing. What’s not on this particular report is his upcoming TV ad.

Kenneth Donnelly

Beginning Balance $0.00
Receipts $108,146.84
Subtotal $108,146.84
Expenditures $71,866.40
Ending Balance $36,280.44

Donnelly isn’t an incumbent, so he has to start from zero – a real handicap. He overcame that by raising more than anyone else. He had 290 donations with an average of $360. Only 35% of his donations came from individuals. The rest came from unions and PACs, including a whopping $14,500 donation from Firefighters of Massachusetts (I was really surprised when I found out that this was legal. I can’t believe this exception to the $500 limit exists. It speaks volumes about who calls the shots in campaign finance law.). When you look closer, the firefighter unions really shelled out. Almost 100 different firefighter union local and states made donations, many from out of state. Half of the individual donation dollars came from current and retired firefighters. If Donnelly wins on Tuesday, he knows who to thank. Still, I can’t help but think that this base is too narrow, even in a 4-way primary. There are only so many firefighters in the district.

Jim Marzilli

Beginning Balance $14,612.00
Receipts $58,985.00
Subtotal $73,597.00
Expenditures $60,718.94
Ending Balance $12,878.06

Marzilli demonstrated that he can raise money when he needs to, more than he does in a House race, but he didn’t put up huge numbers. He had 375 donations for an average of $157. He donated $10,000 of his own money to the campaign. His data is totally mis-entered, so it’s hard to say for sure what the union/PAC/personal breakdown is. It appears to be all personal donations. Most of it is from in-state. For his expenditures, he spent $5000 on the VAN voter database. $37,000 has gone to printing and mailing. He also has a paid staff member.

Patrick Natale

Beginning Balance $15,955.56
Receipts $20,839.00
Subtotal $36,794.56
Expenditures $35,916.29
Ending Balance $878.27

Natale is not in the same league as the other three, but he still has a significant budget. He has 86 donations for an average of $217. 20% is from unions, and 80% from individuals. He spent $25,000 on printing and mailing. He also paid $5000 to American Fund Raising Group; given his fund raising receipts, I think he should demand a refund.

Brion Cangiamila

Beginning Balance $0.00
Receipts $1,970.00
Subtotal $1,970.00
Expenditures $2,175.11
Ending Balance ($205.11)

Yes, there is a Republican in this race. I don’t think the Democrats are worried about him at this point.

We’re nearing the end of Governor Deval Patrick’s first legislative year. The General Court’s long vacation begins on November 21, and most of the decisions have already been made. Let’s check the score.

During the election last fall, I doubted that Patrick could corral the legislature. The early returns certainly seemed to confirm my fears. The picture hasn’t improved. Very few of Patrick’s proposals have moved forward. This article quotes Patrick’s frustrations, and outlines several of his proposals that haven’t moved forward. Biotech, closing corporate loopholes, and his education plan are all immobile. The barest minimums of pension and health plan changes made it through. Casinos are up next and not moving quickly.

Truth be told, I’m glad some of those proposals have stalled. I’m not a fan of government investment in private industry. But still, we’re about to finish our first year of one-party rule. The Democrats control every statewide office and 88% of the legislature. What do they have to show for it? A budget? Anything else?

The budget is worth a paragraph all by itself. Did you know that the legislature overrode several of Patrick’s line item vetoes, spending tens of millions? Under Romney, veto overrides were routine with the lopsided Democrat majority. This year, Patrick’s vetoes got the same treatment, sometimes with Patrick getting only Republican support for his veto. I didn’t see this reported in any mainstream press stories, but you can read about it in the Beacon Hill Roll call. Check your September 27th Advocate, or any other paper that carries the Roll Call. Line items for Adult Day Care Health, Fire Services (Boston), and Workforce Development Program were all overridden this summer.

Next year is a presidential election, so the state issues are likely to be overshadowed. But three years from now, during the next state office cycle, what are we going to be talking about? Will Patrick and the legislature make peace? Will they run against each other? Will it have been three more years of no progress, painted over with smiles and party unity? Or will there actually be a list of accomplishments?

Here’s my answer. Patrick is thinking of modifying the police detail rules that cost tax payers and rate payers, but pay police officers. It’s not a big money issue, but it’s a big political issue. If he makes this change it’s a sign that the rules have changed. If the policy stays untouched, it will be a clear sign of business as usual.