Dan Winslow Explicitly Supports Pay-to-Play as Defense for Donations to Democrats

Dan Winslow seems to be digging himself a deeper hole.  Here on Red Mass Group, we’ve been discussing Dan Winslow’s numerous donations to members of the Democrat party and the Beacon Hill set (see here and here). Apparently, the State House News Service caught wind of it and raised the question to him directly. His rationalization might surprise you:

According to Office of Campaign and Political Finance reports, Winslow has given to at least a handful of Democrats since 2005, including former Senate President Robert Travaglini, Rep. John Rogers, Sen. Sonia Chang-Diaz, former Sen. Steven Baddour and a maximum $500 donation to Attorney General Martha Coakley in 2008. …

“I had donated to Martha Coakley in 2008 when she was uncontested. I had a lot of business. It was basically relationships, friends of friends and things like that,” Winslow said.

Dan Winslow is explicitly saying that he donated to Martha Coakley because he “had a lot of business” that could be helped by “relationships.” Dan Winslow is defending his donations to Democrats by endorsing the unethical pay-to-play approach that corrupts our government and empowers perpetual one-party rule. Since Winslow wholeheartedly supports pay-to-play, I bet all those special interest revolving door lobbyists can’t wait to build “basically relationships” with him and become “friends of friends,” huh?  (I think I’m saying that the more Dan Winslow talks, the less I feel like I can support the guy.)

So, which offense of Dan Winslow’s do you think is worse?  The numerous donations to Democrats or him endorsing pay-to-play?

About tenminutemajor