Boston mayoral candidate John Connolly has pushed opponent Marty Walsh to sign a People’s Pledge to keep third-party money out of the race. But – no surprise – the local dailies present Connolly’s initiative in very different terms.
From today’s Boston Globe editorial page:
Marty Walsh should join Connolly in rejecting super PACs
MARTY WALSH has more to lose by refusing to disavow super PAC support in the mayor’s race than he seems to realize. With every dollar of third-party spending that oozes into Boston to elect the Dorchester state representative, Walsh wastes an opportunity to stick up for clean elections and dispel doubts about his own independence. His opponent has agreed to a pledge to discourage spending by super PACs and other independent expenditure groups, and Walsh owes it to the city to do the same.
Walsh has called the pledge . . . a gimmick. He points out that John R. Connolly, his opponent in the mayoral final election, flip-flopped before signing on. Connolly did reverse himself. But at least he landed in the right place, spurning the help of an outside group that was prepared to spend $500,000 on his behalf. Walsh has also flip-flopped, but in the wrong direction; he earlier indicated he’d sign the agreement.
Crosstown at the Boston Herald it’s a whole nother story, one not so understanding about Connolly’s conversion.
City Councilor John R. Connolly yesterday renewed his call for a so-called “people’s pledge” in the mayoral race, saying he wants to “level the playing field” by barring the windfall of union cash flowing in to state Rep. Martin J. Walsh’s coffers . . .
The “people’s pledge” was proposed by Councilor Rob Consalvo during the preliminary but Connolly, who at the time had an education reform group ready to back him, dismissed it as a “gimmick.” He later said he would sign it, if other candidates agreed, but that never happened.
Not gonna happen this time either.