Tobin Using Politics to Promote Bigoted Agenda


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Why should the citizens of Rhode Island take advice on democracy and equality from a man who works for an organization modeled on medieval concepts of governance with little respect for the value of women? Of course I’m talking about Bishop Thomas Tobin and his latest statement on marriage equality:

Governor Chafee’s threat to veto a proposed referendum on same-sex marriage in Rhode Island is arbitrary and undemocratic.

Tobin made this statement in response to Governor Chafee’s suggestion yesterday that he would veto a General Assembly bill that sought to place the issue of marriage equality to a popular vote.

Looking back through the history of the United States, one is at a loss to find an instance of major civil rights reform that passed by popular vote, and the Bishop of course knows this. The Fourteenth, Fifteenth and Nineteenth Amendments to the Constitution, the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 were all legislative solutions to inequality. It is questionable as to whether or not any of these important protections for human rights would have passed if put to popular vote.

The Bishop knows this. Until this last election cycle, no state had ever passed marriage equality through the process of the popular vote. Anti-marriage equality forces used to tout this fact to argue that they had the majority of Americans on their side, (until Maine, Maryland, Washington and Minnesota in 2012.). Tobin is gambling that the Providence Diocese and the well funded NOM RI (National Organization for Marriage Rhode Island) will be able to tip the scales in a local election, further delaying full rights to LGBT persons.

Money would pour into the election from the Knights of Columbus and other LGBT hate groups with the intent of warping the vote, and even if marriage equality were to pass electorally, up to a year will have passed before such marriages will be allowed. Then of course there will be legislative options for Tobin to explore, as NOM RI fronts for the church and persuades some judge to delay certifying the results or delay the inevitable via some other legalistic sleight of hand.

Tobin is less interested in democracy than he is in abusing the system as a means to an end.

And why should Tobin be so interested in democracy? When has the Catholic Church ever embraced democracy in formulating its beliefs or actions? Arranged in the manner of a medieval government, the Pope acts as King, the Cardinals and Bishops as Dukes and Counts, and the parish priests act as noblemen and knights of the realm. No one elects their local priest, he is merely foisted upon them by the ruling hierarchy. And the local priest is always a “he.” No women are allowed within the power structure of the Roman Catholic Church, equality be damned.

When Governor Chafee suggested that he would veto legislation to place marriage equality before the voters, he was standing up for democracy. He was telling the legislature to do the job the were elected to do, not punt the issue back to the voters in a cowardly attempt to avoid taking responsibility for their decisions. Many in the General Assembly, especially those of the Senate Judiciary committee, might feel torn between their duty to their church and their duty to the citizens of Rhode Island.

They should not be.

If a legislator finds that he cannot serve the state of Rhode Island because of some deeply held religious feelings of allegiance to Bishop Tobin, then that legislator should immediately resign. Last I checked, Tobin gets one vote, just like the rest of us, because he is one person, just like the rest of us. He does not get to puppet master key politicians to enforce his anti-American, anti-Human Rights agenda anymore.

Marriage Equality is an essential and simple issue of the Human Right to marry who we love. Those who stand against this can no longer claim the moral high ground.

POTUS Weighs In On RI Marriage Equality Bill


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387
President Obama makes his case for re-election at DNC. (Photo by John McDaid)

A political heavy hitter has weighed in on marriage equality in Rhode Island – and I don’t mean Bishop Tobin. The Washington Blade, a LGBT newspaper in Washington D.C. asked President Barack Obama specifically about the Ocean State’s effort to end marriage discrimination and here’s the response White House spokesperson Shin Inouye gave The Blade:

“While the President does not weigh in on every measure being considered by the states, he believes all couples should be treated fairly and equally, with dignity and respect,” said White House spokesperson Shin Inouye. “As he has said, his personal view is that it’s wrong to prevent couples who are in loving, committed relationships, and want to marry, from doing so.”

The Blade said it was a similar response as Obama gave to a question about a marriage equality bill before the Illinois legislature, which was the first time the president weighed in on marriage rights at the state level.

Here on the home front, we reported earlier today that Episcopal Bishop Patrick Knisely is instituting procedural changes in the church to allow for same sex sacraments. The Providence Journal reports that Catholic Bishop Thomas Tobin disagrees with how Chafee would like to proceed with marriage equality; the bishop told the governor that the voters should decide the law.

Rev. Gene Dyszlewski posted to RI Future today about why he disagrees with Bishop Tobin, writing, “What is a matter of concern for me is that he seems to be asking that the Catholic understanding of marriage be enshrined into civil law in Rhode Island.  Not a good idea.”

 

New Episcopal Bishop Embraces Marriage Equality


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Rev. Nicholas Knisely, the new bishop of the Episcopal Church in Rhode Island, supports marriage equality and plans to change current local policy to allow priests here to bless same sex unions. He announced the decision in December at the Diocesan Convention just 14 days after starting his new job here in Rhode Island.

“I am going to give permission, indeed I have already done so in one case for a couple desiring a ceremony later this month,” he said, . “But my giving of this permission represents a significant change in policy for the Diocese of Rhode Island. While Bishop Wolf did vote in favor of the blessing liturgies at General Convention, she did not allow such services to take place.”

Knisely said he was going to work with a task force to “create guidelines for use by congregations in the diocese who wish to offer this pastoral office to their members.”

There are a few questions that need to be decided. How do we make the decision that a parish would like to offer this ministry? I would strongly urge, in fact I have already required, that the vestry or bishop’s committee pass a resolution expressing their support of the offering of blessings to be communicated, along with a letter from the rector or priest in charge, before the first blessing takes place. No priest is required to perform a blessing service, and the legislation enacted at General Convention was very clear that there must be no penalty for a member of the clergy who’s conscience will not allow them to do so.

A spokeswoman, Ruth Meteer for Knisely said he will be issuing a press release next week to clarify his and the church’s position. He is meeting with the dioceses’ standing committee on Tuesday, where they will discuss the church’s position on marriage equality.

She said he has received several media inquiries. Knisely met earlier in the week with Rev. Gene Dyszlewski, of the First Unitarian Church in Providence and chair of the Religious Coalition for Marriage Equality, who described their conversation as “positive.”

Earlier this week more than 100 religious leaders spoke out in support of marriage equality and Catholic Bishop Thomas Tobin reaffirmed his opposition.

William Conley Gets to Lead Marriage Equality Politics


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387
Photo courtesy of Patch.

Teresa Paiva Weed gave new state Senator William Conley the worst job in the legislature. He gets to be the fall guy for marriage equality this session as the x factor on the newly constituted Senate Judiciary Committee.

Five Senators will likely support marriage equality and four won’t. Conley is holding his cards tight for the time being. If he votes against it, it dies as a tie. If he bucks the Senate President, leadership can still intervene and kill the bill in a 6 to 6 tie. This scenario would be politically ugly for Paiva Weed.

But Conley is a former East Providence city councilor, so he’s not stranger to politics. Or voting on same sex marriage politics. In April 2011, the East Providence City Council debated a resolution to endorse marriage equality legislation at the State House, according to East Providence Patch.

Councilwoman Katie Kleyla introduced a resolution supporting the passage of marriage equality legislation by the General Assembly. “This is an issue of fundamental fairness,” she said. But several speakers, including the pastor of First Baptist Church in Rumford, opposed the resolution. “I don’t think you have the right to speak for me or for the people of East Providence on this issue,” one woman said. Kleyla then asked for the resolution to be tabled, which passed 3 to 2.

The post does not indicate which way Conley voted.

Kleyla told the Providence Journal that she thinks Conley will vote against marriage equality.

Conley is a former Townie city solicitor who was elected to the council in 2010. Patch has more on him.

Unofficial Poll: Most Clergy Support Marriage Equality


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Bishop Tobin’s blog might make more headlines, but a “broad and growing coalition” representing more than 100 clergy from 13 “welcoming and affirming faith denominations” is committed to passing marriage equality.

Rev. Gene Dyszlewski, in a press release, reminded Tobin that the law will still allow his religion to practice bigotry.

“Faith organizations that do not affirm same-sex relationships will in no way be required to do so when this bill becomes law,” Dyszlewski said. “However, for those of us who do lead welcoming and affirming faiths, it will finally remove a long-standing obstacle to our pastoral care – and allow us to minister equally to all families in our community.”

Tobin, of course, thinks the proposal is “immoral and unnecessary.”

Tobin’s screed demonstrates some basic confusion over the roles of religion and government: “The natural law, the Holy Scriptures, and long-standing religious tradition are very consistent in affirming that homosexual activity is sinful, contrary to God’s plan.”

And he immediately concludes from this that marriage between couples of the same sex “should never be encouraged, ratified or ‘blessed’ by the state.”

Deriving public policy from the religious beliefs of conservative Catholic leaders is contrary to everything the United States in general and Rhode Island in particular stands for. At least Tobin put the word “blessed” into quotes, affirming that the Bishop understands that our secular government does not claim supernatural power and that any such “blessings” conferred are only metaphorical.

Near the end of his piece, he says that “If we are in fact forced to discuss the nature of matrimony in our state, it should be placed before the general public in a referendum… Let us vote!”

Those who value American principles will disagree with Tobin that human rights should be granted or taken away at the whim of the majority electorate, but a very recent and unscientific poll conducted by me sees “more than 100 clergy and 13 denominations” for marriage equality versus 1 Bishop and 1 denomination against. It seems to me that the religious question of marriage equality has already been decided by referendum.

The time for marriage equality in Rhode Island is now. Actually, the time was nine years ago, but it is not too late to catch up. Let’s hope enough state Senators understands this.

Let’s Have 2013 Be A Year For Action in Rhode Island


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387
Happy 2013, Rhode Island!

It’s hard to know, only one sunrise removed, how 2012 will be remembered in Rhode Island. In so many ways, it seems it was a year defined by inaction.

Most notably, we watched as our $75 million investment in a baseball player’s ability to launch a video game company – not surprisingly – went south. The only actions we took toward reversing the recession was rejecting new ideas, neither tinkering with the tax code or the EDC. There were no big upsets in the election. The biggest policy change was the way the legislature dismantled oversight of all public education without a lot of rhyme or reason or even a clear path forward.

With that in mind, how about we make a resolution to get something done in 2013? Here are some ideas:

Let’s restructure our tax code soup to nuts. Everyone seems to agree something needs to be done here. Ideas range from, on the left, steep increases, to, on the right, eliminating sales taxes altogether. More moderate proposals exist too: Gov. Chafee has proposed lowering and broadening sales taxes. Rep. Maria Cimini suggests tying top income tax rate reductions to unemployment, to incentive job creation. Rep. Teresa Tanzi has called for examining existing tax breaks.

Let’s make national news for the way we debate marriage equality at the State House. Let’s have spirited rallies and protests; let’s debate the merits in an open, honest and transparent manner; let’s hear from all sides and respect our cultural and political differences.

Let’s become the first state in the northeast to legalize marijuana. There is across-the-board, bipartisan support for this and virtually no real opposition or drawbacks. Guaranteed, it would generate tens of millions of dollars in brand new revenue, reduce crime and and save state resources, make it harder for kids to get drugs and create jobs in a new, green industry that would compliment existing economic strengths. Meanwhile, one or two cops and drug counselors will testify that it would make their jobs a little bit harder.

I think everyone can agree that 2013 should also be the year we put pension reform politics in the past tense. Let’s come to a compromise that saves money, sustains the system and respects retiree rights. Let’s have Angel Taveras mediate the deal and move on already.

I think we can also agree that we’ve got a pretty good opportunity to have a big picture conversation about education policy. As we reset the boards that oversee public education, et’s talk about what we want to get out of our investment in it – happy workers, high test scores, enlightened minds, employable labor, economic engines? All of the above, right? We can do that!

We can do all of this, and make Rhode Island a way better place to live and do business in as a result.

Senate Judiciary Still Likely Anti-Marriage Equality


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

While it’s certainly great news that Teresa Paiva Weed said she will allow the Senate Judiciary Committee to vote on marriage equality if and when it passes the House next month, the committee isn’t exactly the legislative equivalent of the Castro District. In fact, it’s pretty anti-equality.

Of the seven returning members, only two are solid votes for marriage equality: Democrat Donna Nesselbush and Republican Dawson Hodgson.

Democrat Erin Lynch was on the fence when I asked her toward the end of the last legislative session, but some say she has moved closer to being a firm yes. On the other hand, a contentious primary may have moved Democrat Paul Jabour farther away. Last session he told me “prefers” civil unions to marriage.

The remaining members of the committee – Democrats Maryellen Goodwin, Harold Metts and William Walaska – have all been solidly against marriage equality. And perhaps no one is more set against it than committee Chairman Michael McCaffrey.

“I think you know what my position is on this,” he told me when I asked him last session.

However, with two vacancies on Senate Judiciary, the balance of power on the committee is likely to shift back towards equality. Rhoda Perry, the progressive Democrat who retired, is likely to be replaced with her heir apparent Gayle Goldin. And Paiva Weed couldn’t find anyone more anti-equality than was Glen Shibley, who lost to Lou Raptakis.

Leadership can always vote on a committee, if it wishes, so Paiva Weed could always step in and swing the balance back against equality, but I don’t guess she will.

The Senate President might have a blind spot when it comes to marriage equality but it’s hard to not see that the politics of it have reached a tipping point.

Speaking to the Speaker


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387
State House Dome from North Main Street
State House Dome from North Main Street
The State House dome from North Main Street. (Photo by Bob Plain)

Winners in political races have it easy. They thank everyone and move forward. The Silver Medalists analyze what went wrong and fade into the shadows. Is it possible to write a post-election column as the loser and not sound self-serving, shrill or sour? I’m going to do my best.

From the beginning, this race was about the way that the legislature hasn’t been working effectively for the citizens, voters and taxpayers.

My analysis of the way the system functions is this:

  • On Election Day, 75 men and women are voted into the Rhode Island House of Representatives.
  • Shortly after that a number of them meet. They horse trade over issues and bills and power. Then they determine who will be the Speaker. You’re either on the team or you’re off.
  • In January, the 75 Reps vote on the Speaker and the Rules of the House. Currently, these rules give the Speaker the authority to set the agenda and move legislation on and off the floor at his or her discretion
  • And for the next two years, all of the Reps who are not part of the “Leadership” beg for scraps and line items. The true outsiders get nothing.

The system, as a voter in Mt. Hope said, isn’t broken. It works great for those in charge. But it doesn’t work so well for Rhode Island. We, the people, elected you to be our Representatives, not to give away your power.

The deals that representatives make are supposed to be in the best interest of the state as a whole, not the special interests and campaign donors. Payday lending rates of 260% annual interest are usurious and unjustifiable.  Votes on social issues, like Marriage Equality, ought to be held early every session rather than suppressed.

Our State’s business climate is not just dependent on tax rates, tax breaks and loan guarantees. Your business should not depend on the whim of a Speaker and the uninformed consent of the Legislature.

Our children should not be educated in a system that is overhauled in the middle of the night on a budget vote with no public debate, discussion or even planning. Children need more than institutions and buildings, they need books and materials. Students need more than testing, they need teachers who have the time and permission to teach them on their own terms.

I hope that my challenge to Gordon Fox reminds him, and every other Speaker who follows, that the power that they wield derives from the people.

You are not in charge. We are.

MERI to Frank Schubert, NOM: Bring It


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Sometimes, you just know you’re gonna get hit.

A recent New York Times story confirmed what we’ve been predicting for months: The chief strategist and leader of the national anti-equality effort has his sights fixed on Rhode Island in 2013.

“Frank Schubert, a former corporate public relations executive, ran the $40 million, come-from-behind push for Proposition 8 in California in 2008. He went on to mount successful campaigns to defeat same-sex marriage in Maine and North Carolina. Now, with marriage initiatives on the ballot in Maryland, Minnesota, Washington State and Maine, Mr. Schubert is the chief strategist in all four at once…

Mr. Schubert already has his eye on the next year or two, when he sees marriage battles brewing in Rhode Island, New Jersey and several other states.”

Frank Schubert is well-known for running some of the most divisive, misleading and hurtful campaigns this country has ever seen. And now he’s coming to our state to spend untold amounts of money pushing the anti-gay agenda of the so-called National Organization for Marriage.

So today, we’re asking equality supporters to donate just $6.00 to make Rhode Island the sixth New England state to win marriage equality. We’re not a big money organization, and maybe we never will be, but with your help we can beat back Frank Schubert’s anti-gay rhetoric.

We don’t run from bullies in Rhode Island, we stand our ground and dig in. If Frank Schubert wants to pick a fight in our backyard, MERI says “bring it.”

Progressive Politicians, Proposals Popular in Poll


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

A month before the election a new WPRI poll shows Rhode Islanders comfortably support both progressive politicians as well as progressive policy proposals.

The big news from the new poll for both politicos and progressives is that Congressman David Cicilline leapfrogged Brendan Doherty since the last WPRI poll and the liberal incumbent now leads the conservative challenger by six percentage points.

“The new survey of 250 likely voters in Rhode Island’s 1st Congressional District shows Democrat Cicilline at 44%, Republican Doherty at 38% and independent David Vogel at 6%, with 10% of voters undecided. That’s a 21-point swing since the February WPRI 12 poll, when Doherty led Cicilline 49% to 34%,” wrote Ted Nesi about Cicilline’s surge.

Pollster Joe Fleming said he was “surprised” at the size of the turnaround but I’m not. Rhode Islanders lean left and one of the candidates is and one isn’t liberal. While Doherty will continue to go negative against Cicilline, at the end of the day the incumbent isn’t nearly as toxic as is the Republican brand in the first congressional district.

Similarly, popular progressive Senator Sheldon Whitehouse holds a “commanding” lead over his “little-known” challenger Barry Hinckley. “Whitehouse leads among every subgroup of voters except Republicans,” writes Nesi. “The Democrat has a 26-point lead among women, a 26-point lead among voters ages 60 and older, and a nine-point lead among independents.”

Like the most progressive members of the congressional delegation, progressive policy proposals also fared well in the poll – most notably marriage equality.

“Same-sex marriage enjoys significant support in Rhode Island, with 56% of voters in favor of legalizing it, 36% opposed to doing so and 14% unsure,” according to WPRI. “Support is strongest among Democrats (72% in favor) and voters ages 18 to 39 (64% in favor), while opposition is highest among Republicans (59% opposed) and voters 60 and older (43% opposed).”

The overwhelming support for marriage equality could turn some State House politicians who were on the fence because they may have thought their constituents didn’t support equality.

“Every day more Rhode Islanders are raising a voice in support of marriage equality and this poll should serve as a wake up call to those politicians who continue to oppose equal rights. We look forward to working with legislators from both sides of the aisle when the General Assembly returns in January to finally make Rhode Island a state that honors the commitments and values the worth of all families,” said Ray Sullivan of Marriage Equality Rhode Island in a statement.

One poll question shows Rhode Islanders overwhelmingly supporting protecting Medicare over paying down the national debt by a 64 percent to 32 percent margin.  Another shows that while the economy and jobs is the most important issue to Rhode Islanders, with 54 percent of respondents saying so, more than twice as many (18 percent) said healthcare was the most important issue than said taxes (8 percent).

WPRI does a great job putting all their poll results into an interactive graphic that is really fun to play around with.

Later today, the TV station will release the results of poll questions pertaining to Gov. Linc Chafee, Treasurer Gina Raimondo, Providence Mayor Angel Taveras and President Obama.

Progress Report: RIPEC Report Misses Mark; Marriage Equality’s Subtle Win; TV Debate Controversy; NFL Refs


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

It’s no secret that Rhode Island needs a new strategy for economic development but RIPEC’s new report offers little in the way of real solutions to this conundrum. Instead, the business-backed lobby and advocacy group used the opportunity as a power grab for its laissez-faire agenda. We’ll post more on this later, but for now consider that RIPEC wants the DEM to be put under the charge of a proposed Secretary of Commerce. There is no way the state’s environmental efforts should be put under the charge of its business development efforts.

Had the report been a more legitimate effort to address the issue at hand perhaps Gov. Chafee would have made more time for it.

By the way, the local media should do a better job of explaining who RIPEC is and what their motivations are when reporting on this issue.

Ian Donnis makes a good point about marriage equality and the recent primary: while the big name candidates may not have won, they sent a strong message that will likely resonate with incumbents. We made the same point the day after the primary.

It seems like the League of Women Voters is getting squeezed out of the campaign debates by some local TV stations.

Speaking of which, today in 1960 Kennedy and Nixon squared off in their historic televised debate that is said to have forever changed politics in America.

Conservatives may hate the idea of banning plastic bags in Barrington, but they’d do well to study the effects such a move had in Westport, Mass. like EcoRI.org did. They report, “Four years later, residents, business owners and school officials say emphatically they wouldn’t bring back the plastic.”

Don’t forget: if you need to register to vote you can do so today in Burnside Park.

This is rich: Union-Busting GOP Governor Scott Walker Demands Return Of Unionized NFL Referees

New polls show Obama pulling ahead in swing state strongholds Florida and Ohio.

Here’s a list of the nine richest people in politics, as pulled from the recent Forbes 400 list.

Mark Binder Takes Campaign to TV


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

“Are you a credible candidate?”

I’ve heard that question again and again and again. What it’s code for is, “How much money have you raised?” (And “Do you own a car?”)

I learned during my first campaign that the press and media have a Woodward and Bernstein relationship to money. (Remember the scene from All the President’s Men where Jason Robards growls, “Follow the money!”) Money is something you can measure and count. The Board of Electors requires regular mandatory filing  of campaign contributions and expenses. So it’s easy to find out how much money someone has raised, who contributed it to their campaign, and where they spent it. This gives “the media” the illusion that they have the measure of a candidate.

It’s the reason that you hear so much about presidential fundraising. If they have more money, they must be getting more votes, right?

Bought and Paid For?

Why do people donate money to campaigns? Sometimes it’s because they believe in the candidate and her/his mission. Sometimes they want to oppose the opposition.

And sometimes they just want a favor down the road…

For example, let’s say that an important piece of legislation is coming before the House on say, Auto Body Repair. And you know that nothing gets on the floor without the Speaker’s approval.

Do you think that more than $3,000 worth of campaign contributions from people who work at Auto Body shops makes a candidate more “credible” or have they been “bought and paid for”? (See Gordon Fox’s filing for January-March, 2012)

10 News Conference

I was all excited. Last week I’d received an email from Stephanie Cunha inviting me to participate in the 10 News Conference program with my opponent, (soon-to-be-former) House Speaker Gordon Fox.

Then I got nervous. Here I was, the “challenger” going up against a 20-year politician. I did a lot of preparation and homework, and when I got to the TV station, I learned that he wasn’t coming. Instead it would be Jim Taricani and Bill Rappleye and me. For a time, I got even more nervous. Me and two journalists. I was worried that they might tag team me…

Maybe I could talk to an empty chair, I joked.

Instead it was a wonderful gift. I had a full half hour news broadcast to explain why I got into the race (38 Studios and Mr. Fox’s continued silence and refusal to take any responsibility), what else bothered me about my opponent (wimping out on Gay Marriage… not letting the Payday Lending reform come to a vote, even though 50 representatives had signed onto it… 38 Studios and Michael Corso… creating an atmosphere of fear in the State Capitol… 38 Studios), and even time for some thoughts on public education (reduce testing, decouple testing from teacher evaluations, halt the end of session midnight merger of the Board of Higher Ed and the Board of Regents…).

Finally, they asked me the question I’d been waiting for, “Are you a credible candidate? You’re going up against the Speaker of the House.”

Believe it or not, it was an upbeat and positive and jovial time.

The air date: NBC 10 on Sunday, September 16 at 11:30 a.m. to watch, and then ask yourself the question, “Is this a credible candidate?”

Or you can watch it here:

One Dem Party That Donna Perry Doesn’t Understand


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387
Logo for RI Democratic Party
Logo for RI Democratic Party
Logo of the RI Democratic Party

First, right off the bat: anyone who uses the phrase “Democrat Party” is already showing their ignorance of the Democratic Party. You should still read their arguments, but chances are, they’re going to be off-base. And that’s what Donna Perry’s column in GoLocalProv is (the URL says Julia Steiny for some reason).

Ms. Perry tries to set up a scenario of a polarized RI Democratic Party; a “traditional apparatus” Democratic Party under the command of Chairman Ed Pacheco and another “union-social liberal” Democratic party, with NEARI’s Bob Walsh as leader (because, why not, that works). Ms. Perry’s scenario breaks down almost immediately, though she muddles through to the correct conclusion arrived at by the wrong route (that Democratic Primary results “lacking a narrative,” as WPRI’s Ted Nesi put it, are likely to continue). As Ms. Perry points out, there were a number of races where unions and marriage equality supporters worked for different candidates. If Mr. Walsh is to be the head of Ms. Perry’s fictional second Democratic Party, he seems to be doing a piss-poor job of it (no offense meant, Bob, but get your fictional party in line).

Ms. Perry points to two races for Senate; Maryellen Butke vs. Gayle Goldin and Mike McCaffrey vs. Laura Pisaturo. In the interest of space, I’ll focus solely on the former.

In Ms. Perry’s telling, Ms. Butke the marriage equality and education reform “powerhouse” is defeated by Ms. Goldin the union-chosen candidate. This faux narrative completely ignores the fact that Ms. Butke, despite gobs of cash, ran a confusing campaign that both bashed the Democratic Party and retiring Senator Rhoda Perry, and then tried proposing that Ms. Butke was the true “progressive successor” to Rhoda Perry. One mailing had Ms. Butke’s happy campaign on one side, and an attack piece on Ms. Goldin in mock Goldin colors on the other. The attack piece attempted to tie Ms. Goldin to policies she had nothing to do with, citing sources that make zero mention of Ms. Goldin; including one of Mr. Nesi’s blog posts that simply pointed out that the ultimate cost of the $75 million 38 Studios loan guarantee was closer to $112 million.

On top of this, Ms. Perry neglects to mention that Senator-elect Goldin isn’t exactly any kind of right-wing ideologue; she’s worked for an organization that wants to eliminate gender inequity and implement social justice! Oh, the horror! How could liberal Providence East Side Democratic Primary voters dare choose Ms. Goldin? In essence, there wasn’t much difference between the candidates, and Ms. Butke’s semi-negative campaigning was not effective (though she was quite energetic).

Ms. Perry has made the mistake of thinking of groups as monolithic. She’s done well in beginning to not think of the Democratic Party as monolithic. But now she’s gone and begun thinking of her fake “two Democratic Parties” as being monolithic. Or social liberal or union voters as monolithic. Just because you support marriage equality doesn’t mean you always vote for the louder marriage equality candidate. Just because you’re in a union doesn’t mean you’re going to vote the way the union tells you.

The Democratic Party in Rhode Island is not really under the control of anyone. It is a large-scale coalition of disparate groups. You can’t make blanket assumptions about any one group within that coalition. They range from various unions (unions often work against one another), environmental groups, farmers, various minority communities, LGBTQ activists, internet freedom activists, anti-poverty crusaders, pro-life activists, education reformers, corporate leaders, lawyers, neoliberals, etc., etc. Heck, even though he lost, ALEC Democrat Jon Brien is still very much part of the Democratic Party of Rhode Island.

If there is a narrative from primary night, it’s that the Democratic Party is shifting left. Unions and marriage-equality supporters didn’t really lose any ground, they only gained it, knocking off a number of their opponents. Yes, they didn’t win everything, but then, no one does. They all won under the Democratic Party banner, which should be pleasing to the Democratic Party (a displeasing result would be a large organized mass of union and/or social liberal candidate running as independents and not participating in the primary). David Cicilline absolutely crushed Anthony Gemma, which should make many Democrats smile. Going into the general election, Democrats are going to have quite an advantage, with higher turnout rates to support President Barack Obama.

So, no, Ms. Perry, as much as you, or I, might wish it, there are not three parties in Rhode Island. There’s one. It’s called the Democratic Party. It runs the state. It’s in charge. It screws up, it succeeds. How powerful is it, you might ask? Well, let’s see why I didn’t count the Republican Party as a party.

Take a look at the first television ads for Barry Hinckley and Brendan Doherty. They’re only 30 seconds each (and rather benign), so it’ll only take about a minute. Notice anything? Both candidates use the phrase “both parties” when talking about who to blame for America’s economic situation. Both fail to make use of the color red, strongly associated with Republicans, instead opting for blue (strongly associated with Democrats). And most damning of all? Neither mention their party affiliation; only Mr. Doherty shows it (barely) onscreen, I assume because of law forcing him to show that the National Republican Committee helped pay for the ad. That should tell you all you need to know about the Republican Party in Rhode Island.

Pisaturo, DaSilva Could Alter Balance of Senate


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387
Laura Pisaturo is challenging Michael McCaffrey for his seat in the state Senate.

Much has been made about the what the outcome of Tuesday’s primary could mean for gay marriage in Rhode Island.

The state Senate is the last branch of the government to stand in the way of marriage equality and there’s a lot that could happen in the Democratic primary to shift the landscape of that chamber. Laura Pisaturo, who is gay, is running against Michael McCaffrey, the chairman of the committee that has killed the bill in recent years. And a number of other Senate candidates – such as Lew Pryeor in Woonsocket, Adam Satchel in West Warwick, Gene Dyszlewski in Cranston and David Gorman in Coventry, among others – could alter the vote among the rank and file.

There’s another future issue for the state Senate that could hang in the balance of Tuesday’s primary, namely who might be the next Senate president. Current Senate President Teresa Paiva Weed covets a judicial appointment as the next step in her career and if and when she gets one, she’d no doubt like a hand-picked successor to pass the baton on to. But both the two most likely heir apparents to the gavel are both embroiled in primary battles that could change all that.

One is McCaffrey. As the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, he and Paiva Weed have been close allies in their quest to keep gay couples from enjoying the same marital rights as others. Being popular with leadership doesn’t always translate to strength in the district and Warwick may well be ready for a change. Pisaturo enjoys the support of the progressive community and she’s been working hard to get out the vote. McCaffery, who sponsored the binding arbitration bill, has the support of the NEA. Some handicappers think Pisaturo could squeak out a victory; everyone seems to agree it will be close.

The other pits popular East Providence Representative Bob DaSilva against Dan DaPonte, chairman of the Finance Committee and himself a close ally of Paiva Weed. He could also succeed her as Senate president, but not if he doesn’t survive the primary. While both candidates are well-known in East Providence, insiders say redistricting may have benefited DaSilva. And like Pisaturo, he’ll benefit from beating the streets as well as the backing of organized labor and the rest of the progressive vote.

DaSilva supports marriage equality and DaPonte doesn’t, but another stark difference between these two candidates is their economic policies. DaSilva didn’t vote for pension cuts in 2011 and DaPonte sponsored the bill that guarantees bondholders get paid before retirees and other creditors in municipal bankruptcies.

If both McCaffrey and DaPonte lose on Tuesday, which is a distinct possibility, not only could we see marriage equality become a reality in Rhode Island, but we’d also have a vastly more progressive state Senate. Maybe even more progressive than the traditionally more liberal House.

Correction: an earlier version of this story incorrectly indicated Laura Pisaturo was supported by organized labor.

Progress Report: Spending on State House Races; RI Has a Budget Surplus; Verizon Saves Your Texts, Henry Thoreau


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387
The other end of the #egriviera, the one not featured in the Projo today. (Photo by Bob Plain)

One has to like not only the name, but also the motivation, of a group backing progressive candidates for State House seats.

According to WPRI’s Ted Nesi: “People for Rhode Island’s Future spent $26,500 this week to support six pro-gay-marriage candidates (David Gorman, Gene Dyszlewski, Lewis Pryeor, Adam Satchell, Laura Pisaturo and Roberto DaSilva) and oppose six others on the ballot (Lou Raptakis, Frank Lombardi, Marc Cote, Michael Pinga, Michael McCaffrey and Dan DaPonte).”

Fight Back RI, a local group working for marriage equality, also endorsed some legislative candidates recently.

Meanwhile, Nesi goes on to report that 50CAN, a national PAC that supports the corporate charter school model for public education, is also spending money supporting local candidates. “50CAN Action Fund said it spent $44,902 on Aug. 30 supporting four candidates in next week’s primary: DaPonte, Jon Brien, Maura Kelly and Mia Ackerman,” Nesi writes. “The group’s Rhode Island chapter endorsed all of them except DaPonte.”

Rhode Island should be concerned that RI-CAN, the major proponent of the big box charter school model in the state, is supporting Brien. He’s one of the most conservative members of the General Assembly who is already a direct conduit for corporate America into our political system through his involvement with ALEC.

And spending money is only one of the ways in which the corporate charter school agenda is trying to influence local politics. Ed Fitzpatrick looks at the race for Senate District 3, which pits former RI-CAN executive director Maryellen Butke against Gayle Goldin, who works for the Women’s Fund of Rhode Island.

Here’s one of the biggest problems with our political process: many pretend that the state is broke but it isn’t. In fact, it turns out Rhode Island enjoys a $115 million surplus in its budget this year.

Yet still, the state is cutting services that help those hardest hit by the recession.

Such contradictions are just one of the many reasons we should discount blowhards like Harriet Loyd of RISC … especially when she uses inflammatory rhetoric like trying to “eradicate” incumbents.

Speaking of nonsense from GoLocal, there is so much that is offensive about this story and the way it is presented, I hardly know where to start. How about with the stock photo of the bloody knife? GoLocal could write the same story about any weekend night on the East Greenwich waterfront, but I think it’s safe to say it wouldn’t.

Verizon is keeping a copy of the texts you send, and if asked they’ll share them with law enforcement.

Bill Clinton’s line of the night at the DNC: “We believe ‘we’re all in this together’ is a better philosophy than ‘you’re on your own.'”

Elizabeth Warren had a pretty good one too when she explained how corporations are not, in fact, people.

On this day in 1847, Henry David Thoreau leaves Walden after two years of living deliberately and moves in with Ralph Waldo Emerson.

ACLU: Same Sex Couples Say ‘I Don’t’ to Civil Union Law


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Only 68 Rhode Islanders have applied for civil union licenses since the state passed a law allowing same sex couples to obtain these relationship licenses in lieu of full marriage equality in 2011, according to numbers the RI ACLU said it got from the Department of Health.

When a similar law was passed in Hawaii, 106 same sex couples applied for civil union licenses, and in Deleware 85 applied in the first month, according to the ACLU.

From the ACLU press release:

There are a number of explanations for why Rhode Island’s statute has been shunned so thoroughly by couples. A major reason was the adoption of an extremely broad “religious” exemption in the law, known as the “Corvese Amendment,” that significantly undercuts the law’s purpose. The amendment essentially allows any religiously affiliated institutions or employees of those institutions to disregard the validity of a couple’s civil union. In addition, four of the five other New England states authorize same-sex marriage, highlighting the second-class status of civil unions for Rhode Islanders.

House Speaker Gordon Fox said he intends to get a marriage equality bill passed through the House during the next session but it’s still unclear if a same sex marriage bill would pass in the Senate.

Marriage Equality Battle Now Squarely in Senate


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Politics is unlike baseball in that sometimes it makes sense to take your eye off the ball. That’s because sometimes the real action isn’t where the players are focusing. It was in that spirit that Phoenix editor David Scharfenberg wrote his excellent piece on the marriage equality debate at the State House.

“When same-sex marriage legislation died in the General Assembly last summer without so much as a vote, attention focused on openly gay Speaker of the House Gordon Fox. Had he done enough?,” he wrote. “But if that’s part of the story, it is only part. The truth is Rhode Island’s same-sex marriage fight is centered not in the House, but in the Senate.”

It’s true. State House sources tell me that the House already has the votes to pass marriage equality and electoral soothsayers expect that chamber will pick up even more votes. However, Scharfenberg reports that the Senate seems locked down the other way. But he breaks down the Senate races that could help swing the balance of power in that chamber:

There are some electoral battles concerning marriage equality on the Senate side too.

We’ve already highlighted Laura Pisaturo’s challenge to Sen. Michael McCaffrey. She’s a lawyer and a lesbian in a longtime committed relationship and he’s the chairman of the judiciary committee and one of the biggest road blocks to gay marriage on Smith Hill.

Scharfenberg did too and he also found some others:

Two-term Democratic Senator Michael Pinga of West Warwick, a gay marriage opponent who won a close primary fight in 2010, is facing energetic same-sex nuptials supporter Adam Satchell in the primary.

Republican Senator Bethany Moura, a same-sex marriage opponent who represents Cumberland and Lincoln, faces a likely rematch with Democrat Ryan Pearson, a gay nuptials proponent she edged by just 343 votes last time.

And freshman Senator Glenford Shibley, a Coventry Republican opposed to gay nuptials, will have to run his first re-election campaign during a presidential tilt sure to drive Democrats to the polls in large numbers.

Then he finished his piece by bringing the attention to the most critical player in Rhode Island’s debate over marriage equality: Senate President Teresa Paiva Weed.

The focus, until now, has been on Speaker Fox and the legacy he’d like to leave. But the real question is: what kind of legacy does Paiva Weed want to build?

Does she want to be remembered as the principled defender of traditional marriage or as a leader who stepped aside, despite her own reservations, to let history make its jagged march to progress?

In Search of the Cleaner Campaign Contribution


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Several years ago, when I ran my first political campaign against Patrick Kennedy, the first thing the reporter from the Providence Journal asked was, “How much money have you raised?”

I asked him why he wanted to know, and he told me the truth: You can measure fundraising. You can count the dollars. It dates back, he told me, to Watergate, when Ben Bradlee told Woodward and Bernstein to “follow the money.”

At the time, Patrick Kennedy already had millions in the bank. So, I ignored the reporter, and got about 25% of the primary vote on a budget of less than $500. When the Federal Election Commission called to check on why I hadn’t filed any paperwork, I joked that I’d received more votes per dollar spent for National Office since 1864.

But if you’re a ‘serious’ candidate, conventional wisdom says, you need to raise and spend money.

The media still considers fundraising to be one of the best advance measurements of a campaign’s success. Before any votes are cast, the oracles of our society only have a few ways of predicting the future. They can throw the bones (political polls) or read the spoor (report on campaign finances). Of the two, campaign finances are, by and large, more reliable, because they have to be filed publicly, reporting who gave what and when, and where the money was spent.

(This, of course, assumes that you don’t accidentally forget to report in-kind contributions of beer and shrimp from corporations who are owned by tax credit brokers—as my adversary did…)

Last week, the Providence Journal ran a front page article with this headline:

Heavy investment in 2nd District

The piece was all about Michael Riley’s campaign against James Langevin.  According to the Journal, “…in at least one area — an ability to invest in his own campaign — Riley stands apart from the five others seeking Langevin’s seat.”

So far, Riley has “invested” more than $360,000 in his campaign. At first pass, I thought that this was a horrible and cynical headline, but the more I thought about it, the truer it seemed.

You see, candidates are allowed to “loan” money to their campaigns, and then repay themselves from the funds they raise. In fact, when I went into the State Board of Elections, for training on how to enter my own contribution to my campaign, I was advised to enter it as a loan, so I could be reimbursed later. “You don’t want to put in your money as a contribution,” I was told, “otherwise you can’t get it back.”

So, if Riley—or any other candidate—does a good job of fundraising, he or she will probably break even, or come out ahead by either winning the office or getting the publicity generated by the campaign.

I’ve since corrected this, marking my “loan” as repaid, and accepting a “contribution” from myself. I don’t think it’s fair to ask people to give more money than I’m willing to give. (Tip of the hat to Ken Block’s Op Ed, R.I.’s incumbent protection must go)

A Hope Chest, not a War Chest

I will spend the money you donate to the campaign on the campaign, and not accept any money with strings.

My goal is to spend the least amount of money possible to win. Personally, I’d rather not do any campaign fund raising. I’d rather ask you to convince ten or twenty of your voting neighbors to vote for me, and call it a day.

I don’t want a $250,000 “War Chest” to get a job that pays less than $15,000 a year. A small “Hope Chest” will do quite well, thank you.

The point of raising money for a political campaign is to get the word out. Days after I filed my candidacy I started getting letters and postcards from printers and tee shirt makers. I have received inquires from newspapers and magazines fishing for ads.

There are already some hard costs. The website and URL cost a little bit of money.  We bought some refreshments on the Fourth of July. Our current campaign flier is simple: blue cardstock with black type, printed locally at minimal cost. It says, “I’m running a grass roots neighborhood campaign, and I’d like your vote…” And we ordered some bumper stickers. (Let me know if you want one.)

My plan has been to knock on doors – but there are a lot of doors, even in our small neighborhood, and I have to earn a living and take care of my family too.

But then I drive around and start seeing the lawn signs…

So, yes, I’d like you to contribute to my campaign. I’ll spend the money on printing and advertising, on pizza for campaign volunteers, mailings and such.

At the end of the campaign, whatever is left over won’t be kept in a “War Chest” for future campaigns. We’re going to donate it to the following charities: The Friends of Rochambeau Library, Mt. Hope Learning Center, MLK PTO, and The Institute for the Study and Practice of Nonviolence.

To make a contribution, please visit the http://markbinder.org/contribute/

Footnote: Can you fund raise without creating a web of obligation or broken promises?

I don’t know. I’m going to try. I’m running to try and make things work better for our entire state and end the cycle of real and perceived corruption.

Here’s why I’m donating to my own campaign, along with some caveats…

  • Giving money to an inspiring candidate feels good.
    But… The inspiring candidate could fall short of his promise, leaving you disappointed and dissatisfied.
  • Contributing to a candidate is a way to push the causes and political agendas you support. For example, you might donate to a candidate who you believe will vote for Choice or Marriage Equality.
    But… If your candidate isn’t the Speaker of the House, he might not be able get an important bill to the floor. Or, if he is the Speaker, he might not call for a vote on something like Marriage Equality.
  • The current office holder has disappointed you or made you angry, so you’ll fund his opponent as a way of demonstrating your disapproval and discontent.
    But… If you back the challenger and the incumbent wins, then you might experience political retribution.
  • You can “invest” in a candidate with the hope that she or he will help improve your business. Personally as a professional author and storyteller, aside from the $14,000 annual salary I don’t see this happening for me. However, if you run an auto body repair shop, you might give support a candidate who supports a particular agenda. Or your friendly candidate might take a meeting with an ex-sports star in your office to discuss a multimillion-dollar loan guarantee.
    But… Your candidate might just be honest and ethical and not make political decisions influenced by your “investment.”

So far, I’ve donated $200 to my campaign. That’s money I’m not getting back in loans. Won’t you join me?

To make a contribution, please visit the http://markbinder.org/contribute/

Progressive vs. Old School


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387
Mark Binder is running against Gordon Fox.

Bob Plain asked me to keep the focus of this blog on the progressive aspects of my campaign. (And thanks, Bob, for standing up for the rights of the free press — particularly in an election.) I’ll do my best, but the writer in me also thinks that the strange things you need to do as a politician are interesting to all readers—not just progressives.

So, I’ll be doing a bit of both.

Disclosure: Yes, I’m running for office, so everything I write will probably be self-serving and “designed” to get me elected. Take it all with a grain of salt. (Or sodium substitute.)

If you want a more personal essay, I wrote about my experiences campaigning on July 4 on the Campaign site.

Grassroots vs. Entrenched

Whenever I introduce myself and say that I’m running for Representative to the RI House from District 4 there is a long pause and people ask, “Isn’t that Gordon Fox’s District? He’s the entrenched speaker of the House. He’ll have all sorts of people supporting him.”

I smile and (like a good politician) reply, “There are 10,000 voters who live in this district. I’m one of them.”

Then they ask me, “Are you insane?”

This is usually followed by a long explanation that my opponent is entrenched, has the support of everybody, hundreds of thousands of dollars in the bank, and how unworkable and dirty Rhode Island politics can be.

To which I reply, “Then you certainly ought to vote for me.”

A few days ago, I got an email from a constituent:

Your candidacy is already making a difference, as Fox wants to win back his marriage equality constituents.

Answering Mr. Fox on 38 Studios

Gordon Fox doesn’t know. He just doesn’t know. (“I don’t know,” he says, on Fox news, June 7.) I’m no sure why he doesn’t know, but he doesn’t.

The basic idea behind the 38 Studios deal was this wager

  • If we win, we get 400 high paying jobs in Rhode Island that cost the taxpayer a cent
  • If we lose, we lose millions upon millions of dollars and all the jobs.

Because of this candidacy, Gordon Fox has increased his communications with the press about the 38 Studios disaster. (Listen on RIPR. Read in the Providence Journal NOTE: The printed edition of the story differs dramatically from the online version. An interesting shift in history being rewritten as it happens.)

The salient points are this: Mr. Fox trusted that the EDC was going to keep track of things, and didn’t have any checks or balances in place to protect the state of Rhode Island.

Did they? Back in June, Mr. Fox said, “I don’t know.”

I understand that public officials have to trust the people who are working for the citizens of the state. That said, I am fed up with our government giving away tax payer dollars with no concrete backend or long-term payoff.

Some tax breaks benefit… Some not so much.

Do tax reduction incentives and credits bring in business? Sure. Do these reductions and incentives create loyalty? Absolutely not.

The Film and TV credits provided jobs and got movies made and dollars spent here. But movies are by nature short term projects. The Historic Tax credits (by and large) got buildings reconstructed and rebuilt infrastructure that is still standing, regardless of the economic health of the corporation.

Time and again we’ve cut taxes, given credits and breaks and seen projects collapse without benefiting the state, or companies flee Rhode Island when these benefits are done and they’ve made their profits.

Repeat after me: major corporations are loyal to their shareholders, not the citizens of Rhode Island.

Update

For a while, I got caught with the rhetoric that Rhode Island was offering “Loan Guarantees” and it wasn’t going to cost us anything. I was wrong. We, the taxpayers, sold bonds and have to pay them back. Kudos to Gina Raimondo for insisting we own up to the debt.

With unemployment up and the economy down, how are we going to pay them back?

Revamping Education vs. Power… at the 11th hour

One of the key issues in my campaign is a very simple shift in the way this State deals with public education.

I believe that the use of high stakes testing to determine school financing and teacher evaluations is a misdirected travesty. It’s bad for the students, bad for the teachers and good for the testing companies and consultants.

Here’s an equation. An “A student” and a non-English speaking student take a test. One scores 100%. The other gets a zero. The average? 50%, which means that school is failing. Never mind the teachers, potential of the students to learn more  or the curriculum…

Yes, I know there is a ton of federal money tied into this, but how much money would we save if we weren’t spending our time on testing, test prep, test evaluation and test intimidation? More important, how much more would students learn if they weren’t losing class time to testing?

The other week I was listening to NPR, and Diane Ravitch, the former head of education under George H. W. Bush, said something that clicked. I’m going to paraphrase:

Testing kills innovation and creativity. You don’t teach a kid to love and play baseball by testing them on it. You don’t start by teaching them the rules, then give them a test. Then next year, you make them memorize the history of the game to World War II (including the Negro Leagues) . Then give them a test. Next year it’s Post War baseball. Then a test. Then you have options. You can study the statistics of baseball (with tests) or the chemistry and biology of baseball (with tests on testing). Then, to celebrate, they’ll take you to a ball game.

Legislative bodies can pass laws, repeal laws, change laws, or leave things alone. When it comes to testing, I recommend that we back off. Let the schools and teachers use tests to understand what the students need to learn — so that they can teach those students, not as proof one way or another that something is failing or succeeding.

What did Mr. Fox do about education?

In addition to approving full-steam ahead testing, Mr. Fox and the gang decided on a different approach. They thought that a mashup of the Board of Higher Education (the colleges and university) and the Board of Regents (K-12) would save money and be… better. Never mind that pretty much everyone in those departments was opposed. Never mind that the public didn’t know about it. The whole process was taking too long, so they decided to just jam it into the budget at the last minute, and tell everyone, tough. (R.I. House passes plan to merge education boards, Providence Journal.)

Will it work?

Answering Mr. Fox on Marriage Equality

Recently, Gordon Fox promised that if he’s re-elected, he will run for Speaker of the House, and if he wins that, he will push for an immediate vote legalizing same-sex marriage in Rhode Island.

Yaay! Whoo hoo! (About time.)

As a supporter of marriage equality, I applaud my opponent and am glad that regardless of whomever wins this election the Rep from District 4 will cast a vote for this important piece of law.

Why didn’t Mr. Fox  push it through using all the power at his disposal as the Speaker of the House? “I don’t know.”

Personally, I wish that years ago, when we had the chance to be the first state in the Union to legalize same-sex marriage, we’d done so. If we had,  Rhode Island would have gotten all the tourist dollars from same-sex couples wishing to get married in our beautiful state.

Speaker Fox Says He Will Push for Marriage Equality


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

House Speaker Gordon Fox says he will push for marriage equality in the next legislative session, according to Ted Nesi of WPRI.

“It’s one of those issues that I need to come back, we need to address, and I intend if I’m elected speaker to address it early,” Fox said during a taping of Newsmakers today.

Fox, who is gay, enraged the progressive community when he didn’t allow same sex marriage to come to a vote on the House floor in 2011. He has said it was a very difficult decision given his personal stake in the matter. Insiders say Fox didn’t call the vote because he knew it wouldn’t pass in the Senate, and many House members didn’t want to be put on record if the bill wasn’t going to pass.

Regardless, with his announcement today, he seems to have mended some of the fences he broke with the progressive community.

“We appreciate Speaker Fox’s commitment to finally calling a vote on marriage equality and look forward to working with him to pass this important civil rights legislation early in the next session,” said Ray Sullivan of Marriage Equality of Rhode Island. “Under Speaker Fox and Gov. Chafee’s leadership, all eyes will turn to the Senate, where there is a wide coalition working to ensure that a pro-equality majority is elected.”

Senate President Teresa Paiva-Weed does not support marriage equality for Rhode Island, and there is substantial resistance to the idea outside of her in the Senate. Here’s the story we wrote about marriage equality in the Senate in early June.

And here’s my video from 2011 of Fox talking about why he didn’t push for marriage equality:


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387