the Money, (part III)
We can sure Smell Smoke! — Common Sense
In my previous
column, I Can Sure Smell Smoke (Follow
the Money Part II), I promised
a third commentary in which I’d discuss
the way Rachel Kaprielian freely spends her contributors’ money
in non-election years.
conduct a brief review;
- In 2005,
90% of Rachel Kaprielian’s campaign money came from
people who don’t live in the district, pay taxes in the district,
or send their children to school in the district.
takes significant sums of money from PAC’s, corporate
lobbyists, and a plethora of special interests. These include lobbyists
representing “Big Tobacco”, Big Dig interests, huge pharmaceutical
conglomerates, and insurance companies.
- After eleven years in the State Legislature, Rachel finally wrote
a bill securing bladder cancer screening for fire fighters. However,
the legislation only followed a strange pattern of contributions from
someone who stood to benefit financially. Leaving some of us to conclude
that it takes money to get even the best legislation through the Massachusetts
Now it’s time to see how Rachel Kaprielian puts her contributors’ money
this some perspective, the state minimum wage effective January 1st
2007, will be $7.50 per hour. Hard working people struggling to survive
on this wage will earn $15,600. Yet in year when Rachel Kaprielian
was not facing re-election, she spent $18,911.07 “advancing her
I’m not challenging the legality of these outlays. Campaign finance
laws allow a candidate to spend money on just about anything that can
be said promotes their candidacy. But her expense report speaks
volumes about how she loves to spend other people’s money. And
let’s just say her expenditures, as you are about to see, were
of 2005, Rachel Kaprielian dipped into her gargantuan slush fund and
contributed $500 to the Watertown CPA effort. Rachel loves raising
taxes and spending other people’s money so much, she used $500
of other people’s money (90% of which came from out of the district)
supporting a tax increase, so that her special interest buddies could
have more of our money to spend!
repeat that. Not only did she campaign to raise our real estate taxes
last year, she used other people’s money from outside the
district to do it.
But here comes the real kick in the pants. Although Rachel spent a ton
of money campaigning last year, very little of it was spent in Watertown.
In fact, her second biggest expenditure in Watertown was the $500 she
spent trying to raise our taxes.
of addiction to other peoples money, ought to have it’s
own 12-step program!
also spent a combined $2,761.03 on her Internet service,
cell and land-line phone bills. Yes, a candidate needs all these things,
but in 2005 she wasn’t running for anything. The point is: the
average person pays for these types of expenses out of our own pockets.
It seems to me, that in a non-election year, a principled incumbent would
have paid for these things from their State Rep salary and then deducted
them at tax time. But Rachel was more than happy to have campaign contributors
pick up the entire tab.
Speaking of tax returns, has Rachel ever released hers? Not that she
has to, but it might prove interesting to have a look-see at her deductions.
the “honor roll” of vested contributors, Rachel’s
canon of non-election year expenditures is a long and fascinating read.
Suffice it to say; over $6,000 was spent wining, dining, and entertaining.
And you guessed it, very little in Watertown; not even $900.
this should have us asking: If Rachel doesn’t care how
or where she spends campaign contributions, can we honestly think she
cares about our taxes, fees, water rates, and insurance premiums?
Let’s be serious. How can she possibly relate to folks working
for minimum wage, those who are on fixed incomes, parents trying to put
their kids through college (illegal aliens being the only exception),
and the rest of us who don’t have a slush fund, with which to pay
our phone bills, newspaper subscriptions, and camera repair bills?
What has Rachel done in 12 years? Nothing much, but support/promote tax
increases, take contributions from vested interests, spend other people’s
money, and acquiesce to party leadership; interested only in pork and
faces serious fiscal and social issues. We need leadership. We don’t need pseudo-representation that’s more concerned
with amassing an immense slush fund than espousing our core values. It’s
time to elect people who know what it means to earn a dollar before they
columns we’ve traveled a long and winding road. On
route we’ve repeatedly seen the hazard signs: “Caution:
Special Interests at Work”, “Campaign Contributors Use Fast
Lane”, “Entering Quid-pro-quo Zone” and “Slush
Fund Under Construction”.
it’s time to draw part III to a close. But hold
on folks, there is even more to this tragic yarn of our hometown girl
losing touch with her roots. In episode IV we’ll see how Rachel
Kaprielian has hired a Washington D.C. consultant to help her reconnect
Watertown Citizens for Common Sense Government