Clark, Day Unleash Attacks On Each Other's Records

(Editor's note: This article was updated on Friday, Sept. 10 at 3:40 p.m. with additional information from Ari Fertig.)

With just a few days left before Tuesday's primary, when voters will decide whether Michael Day or Katherine Clark should face off as the Democratic state Senate candidate against Republican candidate Craig Spadafora, Clark has called Day a hypocrite in response to his attacks on her record.

Clark's campaign sent a mailer to voters this week that accused Day, who has campaigned on trying to change the culture of Beacon Hill, of lobbying for Alcan Aluminum Corp. and a gambling group called YouBet.com.

According to records on the federal Lobbying Disclosure Act Database, Day was listed as a lobbyist for those companies and others in 2000 while working for D.C-based firm O'Neill and Associates.

Ari Fertig, campaign manager for the Michael Day campaign, called the mailer a "laughable"stretch of the truth. Day did work for O'Neill and Associates, which handled those clients, Fertig said, but functioned as a contact person there.

"He was registered as a lobbyist, but he wasn't at all working on those projects," Fertig said. "He was one of the main people that would return phone calls and things like that. He was in law school at the time."

Day attended law school at Georgetown University from 1999 to 2002. According to the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995, a lobbyist or an employee of lobbying firm must register a lobbyist within 45 days of the firm being employed or retained by a company and make lobbying contact on behalf of that company or undertake lobbying activities that constitute at least 20 percent of the individual's time in services for that client over any three-month period.

In a follow-up e-mail, Fertig said that Day became the formal contact person for seven clients until the O'Neill firm hired an office manager.

"He registered as a lobbyist for those clients because he was responsible for filing the lobbying disclosure forms and answering any questions the public or government about them," he said.

Echoing a familiar tone for the Day campaign, Fertig characterized Clark's attack as "same tired politics that we've seen from Beacon Hill politicians time again."

When asked what could have triggered Clark's attack, Fertig said "She knows that we can actually win this election on Tuesday. That's what triggered it." He also described all of the Day campaign's mailers as "completely factual."

Clark countered that what triggered her campaign's mailer this week are four mailers sent out by the Day campaign, three specifically naming Clark and "misrepresenting my record and votes."

Her campaign responded, Clark said, because Day is "claiming the mantle of this outsider who has nothing to do with special interests and backroom deals. We thought it was important for voters to know that he's not only misrepresenting my record, but he's not accurately portraying his background either."

Day attacks Clark on ethics record

Clark's campaign provided three mailers sent out by the Day campaign that attributed to Clark a quote that reads, "I have not found a culture of corruption on Beacon Hill." Clark said that quote was taken out of context.

A cached version of Clark's website shows Clark's full quote as, "Despite some grotesque exceptions, I have not found a culture of corruption on Beacon Hill; nevertheless, I believe the Commonwealth needs to modernize and quickly and dramatically increase the transparency in how government operates and spends."

One of Day's mailers accused Clark of voting against a requirement that elected officials attend mandatory ethics training. Clark did vote against an amendment to the state's ethics reform law in March 2009 that would require mandatory ethics education and training sessions for legislators at the beginning of each two-year legislative session. That amendment was defeated on a 32-123 vote; the House unanimously approved the final bill.

However, Clark countered by pointing out she voted in favor of adding to the House rules a requirement that legislators as well as legislative employees attend an ethics law training program once during each two-year legislative session. The House journal from Feb. 11, 2009 lists Clark as voting for that requirement—listed under section 16B—in the vote approving the new House rules.

"I have voted twice calling for strong ethics reform and mandated training for legislators and, in fact, all government officials," Clark said. "My record speaks for itself."

Day's mailer points out that in January 2009, Clark voted to re-elect Sal DiMasi as Speaker of the House. DiMasi was re-elected Speaker with 135 votes out of 160, despite being under a cloud of an ethics investigation. He resigned three weeks later and, in June 2009, was indicted on corruption charges.

Clark's mailer this week counters that Day's law firm, Mintz Levin, has given over $40,000 to DiMasi and the firm gave nearly a quarter of a million dollars to politicians over the past three years, according to records filed with the state Office of Campaign and Political Finance.

The accusations from both campaigns resembles a sharper-edged version of the testiest exchange during the debate held last month, when Day spoke about legislators who "went the stepping stone route," continually running for one higher office after another, and Clark said that her experience was rooted in the community, "not in a law firm, not a lobbying firm that happens to have a D.C. office, it's within our communities."