The Massachusetts Teachers Association released this bulletin just now:
For Immediate Release
October 27, 2016
Contact: Steve Crawford, Crawford Strategies, 857-753-4132, steve@crawfordstrategies.com
Teachers Call for SEC Investigation into Possible Pay-to-Play Scheme
BOSTON – Deeply troubled by campaign contributions from investment firms overseeing millions of dollars in teacher pension funds, the presidents of the two Massachusetts educators’ unions today are calling for an investigation by the federal Securities and Exchange Commission and state authorities into a possible pay-to-play scheme involving large donors supporting Question 2, the charter school expansion question that will be on the November ballot in Massachusetts.
A report published today by the International Business Times reveals that management of eight financial firms has contributed more than $778,000 to groups backing Question 2. Together, these financial firms manage over $1.275 billion in state money.
“This is about the integrity of our pension investments and the integrity of our elections,” said Massachusetts Teachers Association President Barbara Madeloni. “We need an investigation to find out whether these firms are wielding inappropriate influence in state government.”
“These disclosures are an indication of the degree to which forces seeking to undermine our public schools are spending huge sums to promote Question 2,” Madeloni added.
The IBT report details the ways in which the investment industry circumvents federal rules designed to restrict financial executives from giving campaign cash to governors with the power to influence state pension business. Governor Charlie Baker is a leading proponent of Question 2. Earlier this week, he held a series of private meetings in New York with financial industry executives whose names remain undisclosed.
Although federal law does not cover money donated to the governor’s policy initiatives, executives whose firms are prohibited from donating directly to Baker are still able to give to the dark money groups backing Question 2. But questions need to be answered about the propriety of these donations.
Baker appoints three members of the state pension board.
“Retirees need to know that investment decisions are being made based on their financial security, not to curry favor with Governor Baker and his pension board appointees,” said Tom Gosnell, president of the American Federation of Teachers Massachusetts.
On Monday, Governor Baker addressed the members of the conservative, pro-charter Manhattan Institute about his work on Question 2. Paul Singer, chair of the Manhattan Institute’s Board of Trustees, is a major financial backer of charter school expansion around the nation. Singer also owns Elliott Capital Advisors, one of the hedge fund companies in which the state pension board invests its money.
###
Diane Ravitch's blog 
Seriously, is there anything vital to our needs that does NOT involve the governments and bankers (hedge fund “people”)? We’re focused on education here. What about all the rest?
Well, we must inform and educate ourselves on what is going on. Don’t we? So we, as educators, in a system where “hedge funders” (aka investors aka bankers aka profiteers aka governments; yes, it’s global now…) must teach the children well. We must teach them how to educate themselves (so they will know what is going on) WITH a critical mind and problem solving skills that go along with it, and with the imagination they need for themselves, to lead their own futures.
Tall order, ehj?
The truth will truly be in the pudding.
I hope the children are watching us.
LikeLike
Once again, thank goodness for people like David Sirota and Barbara Mandolini for their moral integrity, keen insights and courage to take action!
Honestly, at this point, I think you’ve got to be living with your head in the sand to not be able to recognize the multitude of fronts where the super-rich have been seizing power and waging class warfare against the rest of us.
LikeLike
Agree with everything you wrote but, especially the opinion about David Sirota.
LikeLike
“whether these firms are wielding inappropriate influence in state government”
And then there is the counterclaim, authorized by the Supreme Court, that seems to say these firms are entitled to have a voice just like any private citizen. I hope lawyers can figure this out and develop a good case.
LikeLike
“But questions need to be answered about the propriety of these donations.”
https://www.google.com/#q=propriety
“whether these firms are wielding inappropriate influence in state government”
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/inappropriate
“…the Supreme Court, that seems to say these firms are entitled to have a voice…”
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/entitlement
Hey Laura, I also “hope” the lawyers can figure this out.
It’s up to them, isn’t it?
LikeLike
Apparently the Boston Globe won’t touch this story with a ten-foot pole.
Who owns that paper? Is that why they’re not covering this story?
LikeLike
I don’t know who owns them but Jennifer Berkshire et al., at Edushyster, have repeatedly written about how the Boston Globe is in cahoots with corporate reformers, including an analysis today about the poor argument put forth by “Boston’s opinionator-in-chief” Scot Lehigh in support of the referendum to add 12 new charter schools per year:
http://edushyster.com/come-correct/
LikeLike
Everytime Boston Globe does something sleazy, I say: “Spotlight is clearly not on the case.” It is now got to the point where I think the movie Spotlight is not about the relentless pursuit of a good journalism, but a eulogy to the state of print journalism disguised as the pursuit of journalism. Spotlight is dead and a figment of our memories, only dug up for those”remember that one thing I did” moments.
LikeLike
In a just and fair world, this expose of Sirota’s would put the metaphorical stake through the heart of Question 2. It should be the equivalent of the 2005 Access Hollywood video/audio… it should kill Question 2’s chances the way the video/audio killed Trump’s chances.
LikeLike
“… the presidents of the two Massachusetts educators’ unions today are calling for an investigation by the federal Securities and Exchange Commission and state authorities into a possible pay-to-play scheme involving large donors supporting Question 2.”
Huzzah for the Mass Teachers’ unions! Now THAT’S what folks are paying their dues for!! Let’s see some ,ore of that in NY, NJ, & lotsa other states!
LikeLike
I read a lot on the ed reform side,and I think the public needs to understand that they have ALREADY DECIDED public schools should be replaced.
This is new definition of “public” in ed reform:
“Ironically, it is the debate about another institution—public education—that is leading to all this turmoil. Our definition of public education is evolving: the goals —equitable, excellent, and publically accountable tuition-free schooling—are becoming more important than who has traditionally run school”
That could include any possible type of school, as long as it is publicly funded and at all regulated- for-profit, private, religious, whatever.
Any contractor. This IS privatization. There’s not a bit of difference. It’s a publicly-funded regulated (lightly or heavily-doesn’t matter) contractor system. That’s exactly what privatization is.
Part of the reason they’re so impatient with what they perceive as roadblocks to the Grand Plan is they have made this decision already.
It explains a lot to me. It explains the complete lack of interest in existing public schools – if they’ve already defined the new model it’s just a matter of slowly increasing market share in nearly ANY privatized, “choice” system and “winding down” the old model.
When the California charter association said at their convention that they envision a system where public schools comprise 5% of the total, they meant it. That’s why they said it.
I have a really simple request- ed reformers should run on this. They should run on replacing public schools and their new definition of “public” because it’s deceptive not to run on it. Obama and Baker never ran on it because they know it would be unpopular. That’s not fair to voters.
http://educationnext.org/can-civil-rights-institutions-keep-up-as-public-education-evolves/?platform=hootsuite
LikeLike
“Good schools of any model – not a moratorium on charters – are the way to fight poverty, to lift kids up on the path to success, and give them opportunities to develop their future potential.”
If this were true we would see ed reform lobbyists, funders and politicians supporting public schools. But we don’t see that. In fact, public schools get the shaft over and over and over in ed reform schemes.
They all recite this “agnostic” claim but nothing they do backs it up.
I don’t know why they just won’t say “we push for charter and voucher systems” because that is in fact true. I don’t know- is that not a politically viable thing to admit in a country where 90% of kids attend public schools? Is it fair to tell voters you “support public schools” and NOT tell them “oh, by they way, we redefined ‘public’ to mean any contractor” Seems like a big omission to me.
LikeLike
As proof of this contradiction, Peter “Curmudgucation” Greene pointed out how Peter Cunningham — founder/lead editor of the school privatization org Education Post — posted contradictory claim. First, Cunningham said one thing in and article, and then something different a few days later in a tweet:
http://curmudgucation.blogspot.com/2016/08/ma-swift-boating-of-public-schools.html
PETER “Curmudgucation” GREENE:
“So when a long-time charter booster like Peter Cunningham, former spokesmouth for Arne Duncan’s Department of Education and current word-ronin for well-heeled reform investors, writes something like
” ‘First of all, charter schools are public schools. Arguing that charters take money from traditional schools is like arguing that a younger sibling takes parental attention away from an older sibling.’
” He knows he’s shoveling baloney.
“It was far more honest when he tweeted:
https://twitter.com/PCunningham57/status/763112569372631041?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw
LikeLike
The so-called reformers emanating from the world of hedge funds and private equity are in their minds trying to rescind the laws of physics, by creating a (sinister) perpetual motion machine, in which teacher pension fund fees are recycled through the companies (for mostly inferior returns, btw) and then redistributed to so-called reform groups, whose “success” (meaning the replacement of public education) will then ultimately further enrich the companies.
However, what they might consider a perpetual motion machine, is in fact little more than old-fashioned parasitism, which if it continues will ultimately kill the host.
LikeLike
“Although federal law does not cover money donated to the governor’s policy initiatives, executives whose firms are prohibited from donating directly to Baker are still able to give to the dark money groups backing Question 2. But questions need to be answered about the propriety of these donations.”
Does this remind anyone else of Bill De Blasio’s Campaign for One New York? Legal, but barely.
“The New York City Campaign Finance Board on Wednesday issued a blunt critique of a nonprofit closely linked to Mayor Bill de Blasio that has used unlimited donations to advance his political agenda, denouncing the group’s behavior while clearing it and the mayor of any campaign finance violations. . . .
Yet the board appeared to find much that was troublesome, if not illegal, in the behavior of the group, the Campaign for One New York, which has amassed millions of dollars in donations to push for City Hall initiatives, including universal prekindergarten and an affordable housing policy.
In a statement at a public meeting, the board said that the nonprofit’s fund-raising “plainly raises serious policy and perception issues,” exposing the limitations of the city’s current campaign finance laws, which strictly curb or ban contributions to political candidates to “reduce the appearance that influence can be bought or sold.”
Calling on the City Council to pass legislation to tighten limits on contributions to nonprofits that are tied to specific politicians, the board added that “it defies common sense that limits that work so well during the campaign should be set aside once the candidate has assumed elected office.”
The heavy skepticism that saturated the board’s report reflected the dismay of government watchdogs, who have characterized the Campaign for One New York’s license to operate outside of campaign finance limits as a major intrusion of money into politics — an expansion of “pay-to-play culture,” as Dick Dadey, the executive director of Citizens Union, put it on Wednesday.
More than 95 percent of the funds raised by the Campaign for One New York, which shut down in March amid increasing scrutiny of its finances, would have been banned under the city’s normal campaign finance laws for political candidates, the board found.
Most of the gifts far outstripped the $4,950 cap on individual donations to candidates, including a $350,000 donation from the American Federation of Teachers and $500,000 in two contributions from 1199 S.E.I.U. United Healthcare Workers East. These were just three among at least a dozen six-figure contributions.
Other gifts came from companies or people who did business with the city, including a $100,000 contribution from Two Trees Management Company, a real estate developer that had negotiated with the de Blasio administration over redeveloping the Domino Sugar Factory site in Brooklyn.”
LikeLike