With the three-way Democratic primary race for state auditor moving into the final weeks of campaigning, Worcester County Sheriff Guy W. Glodis is criticizing acceptance of public campaign funds by his opponents, calling it “welfare for politicians.”
Meanwhile one of his opponents is calling for debates.
Mr. Glodis, who is financing his campaign with donations piled up over several years while sheriff, said he thinks it is wrong for his opponents, Suzanne Bump and Michael Lake, to accept public funding.
Public funding for campaigns for statewide office is provided through the voluntary check-off on state tax returns that directs $1 of a filer’s taxes to the state campaign finance fund. This year $1.5 million is available for distribution to opposed candidates.
According to the Massachusetts Office of Campaign and Political Finance, the Bump campaign has received $100,560 so far and the Lake campaign has gotten $58,484.
Those amounts are based on matching privately-raised campaign funds by each of the candidates. Mr. Glodis did not agree to spending limits, as required to be eligible for public funds.
In the Republican primary contest for auditor, Mary Z. Connaughton, who also opted to accept public financing for the primary, has received $87,968, while her opponent, Kamal Jain, has declined public financing.
Ian Sample, campaign manager for Mr. Lake, said he was surprised Mr. Glodis wanted to raise the issue of campaign financing in light of the sheriff’s recent citation for failure to comply with campaign finance rules. In February, the OCPF cited the sheriff for distributing a campaign mailing that included a four-page County Sheriff Annual News Bulletin that was improperly paid for by the Worcester County Civil Process Office.
Mr. Sample defended the use of public campaign funds. “The public financing system is designed to keep special interests out of politics. It is even more important in the auditor’s office,” he said. “We need an independent auditor free of special interests,” he said.
Ms. Bump said public campaign financing is needed by some candidates, considering the time and costs involved in running for statewide office.
“Massachusetts taxpayers have decided they want to open up statewide office to candidates who cannot self-finance, or as Sheriff Glodis has, used the power of one political office to finance a run for another office,” Ms. Bump said. “I am not a career politician. I haven’t run for office since 1992. Yet I possess experience and skills in governing that are worthy of public support. I am glad that fund is there to allow candidates like me to compete for public office.”
But Mr. Glodis insisted something was wrong with accepting public campaign financing.
“Giving candidates hundreds of thousands of dollars to run tax-subsidized campaigns seems fraudulent and questionable in these economic times,” he said. “I haven’t accepted public financing. I just don’t believe in welfare for politicians. I never supported it in the Legislature. I just don’t think it’s right for taxpayers to have to financially support candidates that they may or may not support.”
He said the money would be better spent on police, firefighters, teachers and local aid.
Mr. Sample said the sheriff has wasted taxpayers’ money in his jail operations, pointing to a state audit that this year criticized his use of $181,326 spent on free staff meals over a 14-month period. The audit found the practice did not conform to state law prohibiting provision of meals to employees at less than cost. Mr. Glodis defended the practice, saying it would have been more costly to negotiate a union contract change to eliminate the meal benefit.
“The sheriff wants to talk about wasting taxpayers’ money, but he has some issues around that himself,” Mr. Sample said.
Meanwhile, the Lake campaign yesterday wrote to the other two candidates, asking them to agree to debates prior to the Sept. 14 primary.
“I believe the people have a right to see the candidates engage in open debate,” Mr. Lake said. “It is critical that we give the voters a clear and defined understanding of where we stand on the issues.”
John J. Monahan can be contacted at jmonahan@telegram.com
