Patrick sidesteps fund-raising law with lavish party

Invitation to picnic includes $5,500 pitch

Governor Deval Patrick has scheduled a picnic fund-raiser this month at his vacation estate in the Berkshires, where he will once again exploit a method he pioneered for skirting state campaign contribution limits, a funding system the Legislature so far has declined to shut down.

Guests at the gathering at the 7,500-square-foot mansion situated on 77 acres in Richmond are being asked to contribute up to $5,500 to the governor's Seventy-First Fund. The fund - as the formal invitation to the soiree explains - divides the contributions between Patrick's campaign and the state Democratic Party.

What the invitation does not say is that the Democratic Party, in turn, uses most of its share of the money to pay off Patrick's campaign expenses. That allows Patrick to get around the state's $500 limit on individual contributions to candidates, by giving him most of the benefit of the additional $5,000, the maximum an individual can give to a political party.

Patrick's campaign aides and the Democratic Party defend the use of the Seventy-First Fund as the basis for the July 24 picnic. They said it is an appropriate strategy since campaigns and political parties are increasingly coordinating their activities.

"We will continue to use this permissible and appropriate finance tool," said Steve Crawford, spokesman for Patrick's campaign committee. As an example of how the system works, Crawford's $3,000-a-month consulting fees billed to Patrick's campaign are paid by the Democratic Party.

Patrick's political finance aides declined to release the list of those planning to attend the picnic. But if it is similar to other Seventy-First Fund events held in the past year, the names will include the Democrats' bevy of wealthy activists along with corporate executives of regulated businesses - bankers, utility operators, and healthcare executives - whose financial interests depend on the administration's actions.

Among those who donated to the Seventy-First Fund in the last several months are: casino executive Irwin M. Chafetz, who gave $1,375 and who advocated on Beacon Hill for Patrick's casino legislation; Cleve Killingsworth, chief executive of Blue Cross/Blue Shield, $5,500, whose health insurance firm is heavily regulated by the state; real estate developer Thomas M. Alperin, who gave $5,500; banker Lawrence Fish, chairman of Citizens Financial Group, who donated $1,000; and Joshua Boger, a $5,000 donor who, as chief executive of one of the best-known biotech firms in the state, Vertex Pharmaceuticals, has been a strong supporter of Patrick's life-science initiative.

Killingsworth, through a spokesman, declined to comment. Chafetz, Alperin, Fish, and Boger did not respond to requests for comment.

The Seventy-First Fund system will remain permissible for the foreseeable future. A legislative committee on Beacon Hill that is drafting changes to campaign finance rules has not included provisions to shut down such systems as the Seventy-First Fund. (The fund derives its name from Patrick's status as the 71st governor of Massachusetts.)

A key lawmaker working on the campaign finance bill said the Seventy-First Fund is a low priority, although he did not rule out a later attempt at a crackdown.

"It is not on the table because other more contentious and pertinent issues have to be cleared up," said Representative Garrett J. Bradley, a Democrat from Hingham and House chairman of the Joint Committee on Election Laws.

Among those issues are moves to raise the individual contribution limit to $750, to create stiffer penalties for legislators who fail to file reports on time, and to require more frequent reporting periods.

Bradley said he has not been pressured by the governor's operatives or party officials to allow the Seventy-First Fund to continue operating. John Walsh, Patrick's hand-picked chairman of the Democratic Party, acknowledged speaking with Bradley about how the fund worked. He said he did not urge him to back off any proposals to close the loopholes.

"I have known him a long time, but I have no interest in advocating for any of the legislative decisions he and his colleagues are making," Walsh said. Walsh and Bradley worked together in South Shore political circles.

Democratic lawmakers have been quick to make changes in the campaign finance law when previous political figures found creative ways to raise funds. For example, when Republican William F. Weld loaned $1.2 million to his campaign in the 1990 election and then paid himself back through aggressive fund-raising after he got elected, the Legislature passed a law in the early 1990s that limited what a campaign committee can repay the candidate to $200,000.

Advocates for reducing the influence of money on politics decried Patrick's system as a circumvention of state campaign finance laws. "It is a questionable practice to pour unlimited amounts, even through a party, into any race or to any individual candidate," said Pamela Wilmot, executive director of Common Cause Massachusetts.

Common Cause initially did not join other advocates in opposition to the practice when a Globe story first described it in January, but the influential group has since changed its position and wants the practice curtailed. It has proposed a $3,000 limit on what a party can receive from any donor, whether directly or through a pass-through fund such as the Seventy-First. Advocates said the practice is also troubling because Patrick based his 2006 campaign on his status as an outsider, running against special-influence politics.

The Globe story in January said that, using proceeds from the Seventy-First Fund, the Democratic Party in 2007 paid $339,000 of the governor's campaign-related expenses, including bills for a media consultant and banquet halls.

The governor has raised $237,710 in the first six months of this year for the Seventy-First Fund. Almost one-third was distributed to his own campaign in $500 increments from donors. The rest went to the Democratic Party. The amount the party is spending on his behalf does not have to be disclosed until the end of the year, according to Walsh.