With Fenway Deal in Sight, Claim of Violation of Lobbying Laws Made

With Fenway Deal in Sight, Team May Have Violated Lobbying Laws

Did not report expenditures on Radio and TV; $80,000 figure deemed inaccurate

Boston, July 25, 2000 -- As if the Red Sox did not have enough trouble trying to build a new ballpark built in the postage stamp-sized Fenway area, the Boston Herald reported that Massachusetts Secretary of State William Galvin revealed that the team may have violated state lobbying laws by failing to report all expenditures tied to their push for public funding for a ballpark.

A tentative deal between the state, city and team was concluded and the Red Sox are currently in a rush to get the specifics passed in the state legislature. These new revelations can hardly endear the club to the state’s lawmakers.

According to the Herald, team disclosed nearly $80,000 in lobbying, public relations and other expenses for the first six months of 2000 in a filing with Galvin's office on Monday. Galvin said opponents of a new ballpark raised questions yesterday, saying the team should have reported how much was spent on television ads and phone bank campaigns asking fans to call their state
legislators. Promising an immediate inquiry, Galvin said “You have to report everything that is spent in connection with lobbying. Obviously these expenses would be in connection with lobbying.”

The Red Sox disagreed with these allegations. A Red Sox spokeswoman, “while saying the team will correct any ‘technical errors’ in its filing, said the report accurately reflected what it spent.” According to the filing, the Red Sox spent $50,000 on lobbying services from political strategist John Sasso, and $10,000 on lobbying from Susan Tracy, a former state representative and friend of House Speaker Thomas M. Finneran, ironic considering how much resistance the Red Sox have encountered from Finneran himself. Further expenses were $18,000 for public relations and over $1300 on web design, mailings, and telephone charges.

The spokeswoman stressed the desire of the Red Sox to be “100 percent compliant.” “We tried to be careful to dot all the i’s and cross all the t’s.If we have made any technical errors, we will correct the filing immediately.” Jack Hall, a lobbyist who has not filed a written complaint, has stated that the filing was “incomplete.” Galvin and his staff have also noticed that there were problems with the filing, citing the omission of signatures from key team executives and other oversights. With less than a
week left for the legislation to be passed, and needing nine of the thirteen city council members’ votes, the Red Sox would be smart to make every attempt to “dot all the i’s and cross all the t’s.”

Matthew Roberts