As Election Day nears, Massachusetts candidates for governor face each other for the first time.
The debate is set for 8:00 p.m. on Tuesday, October 9, with WBZ-TV host Jon Keller as moderator.
Matt Murphy of the State House News Service talks us through the major disagreements to expect from this debate, as well as other news from Beacon Hill.
Carrie Healy, NEPR: Last week, Governor Charlie Baker spoke out against a vehicle-miles-traveled tax he says would unfairly penalize western Massachusetts residents. His Democratic rival, Jay Gonzalez, has other plans to increase taxes. What are going to be the main disagreements tomorrow?
Matt Murphy, State House News Service: I think you hit on it right there, when you're talking about taxes and revenue. This is the most likely place where Jay Gonzalez and Governor Baker are going to clash in this first debate, which should be fascinating to watch.
It’ll be a really important night for Jay Gonzalez, as he gets a chance to be on TV and get in front of voters who are still trying to feel out this race, and trying to get to know who Jay Gonzalez is.
And of course he has put forward a plan, in addition to continuing to support the millionaire's tax. This idea that was knocked off the ballot this cycle, but could come back around another four years. He has put forward a plan to generate a billion dollars in new revenue by taxing the endowments of some of the state's wealthiest private universities. The governor thinks this is a bad idea.
But this speaks to the larger issue of the governor, as you mentioned, vehicle miles traveled. I mean, he does not want to, or think, it is necessary go to taxes, and start asking people to pay more. He thinks that he can manage his way through, and still invest in the transportation system and the MBTA and other priorities.
Gonzalez, on the other hand, thinks that enough can’t be done, and can't be done fast enough… without new revenue, and he's going to be looking to raise taxes. He says he's being honest with voters about this and he wants new revenue.
The governor doesn't, and I think this is likely to be a major point of contention tomorrow night when they go in front of the cameras.
Groping allegations from a few months ago made against Baker's 24-year-old son A.J. came up again last week, when the governor spoke with MassLive, and The Republican, in Springfield. He referred questions to the U.S. Attorney, and had little else to say. Does it become politically dangerous to remain mum on the issue as Election Day nears?
I think it depends on how much people are going to continue to make an issue out of this. We all can kind of read between the lines, and maybe guess at what's happening here. The governor referring questions to U.S. Attorney; the U.S. Attorney saying that they only comment if they bring charges in a case.
Perhaps what's happening here -- and I'm just speculating and guessing; I don't know this, but -- perhaps they're not going to bring charges against A.J. Baker, and therefore no one's ever going to say anything about this.
The governor's certainly free to put an end to this, and say what he knows about the investigation, but he doesn't appear to want to do that. So it could fall to people like Gonzalez and the Democratic Party if they want to continue to make an issue of this, and push the governor to a point where he will have to say something.
Looking to another statewide race, Republican candidate for Secretary of State Anthony Amore called on the State Ethics Commission and the Attorney General's office to investigate the actions of his opponent William Galvin. Galvin's been accused of mixing politics with the official voter guide that got mailed all over the state at government expense. Can you unpack this a little bit?
This is nothing new for Galvin. Of course, he's been around for 24 years now, and is another opponent trying a similar tack. But these voter guides that the secretary sends out to all Massachusetts voters -- it's part of a constitutional requirement of his office to inform people about what's going to be on the ballot. It includes explanations of the ballot questions and what a "yes" vote means, and what a "no" vote means.
But the secretary also has some information in there about what his office has done relative to security fraud and a sort of self-promotional news using taxpayer dollars to send this out and kind of tout the efforts of his office.
And like I said, this not the first time Secretary Galvin has been challenged… before, for running television ads around election time urging people to vote, and using taxpayer dollars to do that. So Anthony Amore,of course, is asking for investigation into this. It could be looked at, but like I said, Galvin has kind of toed this line before and has always been able to skate through.
