This is the fourth installment of the Harvard Political Review‘s interview series with Massachusetts’ candidates for governor. Martha Coakley currently serves as the commonwealth’s attorney general.
Harvard Political Review: As attorney general, you’ve been involved in a myriad of high-profile cases: not only the abortion buffer-zone case, but also the Supreme Court case concerning the Environmental Protection Agency’s ability to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. How do you view your role as attorney general, and what is your biggest regret from your time in office?
Martha Coakley: Oh boy. We cover so much in the attorney general’s office—it’s one of the challenges and opportunities [of the office] because we do civil rights, we do cyber crime, we do consumer protection going after Wall Street. That’s been one of the biggest opportunities and successes we’ve had as well as, I think, challenging the Defense of Marriage Act.
I do not look back on the past eight years and say, “If only I could have done this or that.” No one has actually asked me that in a while. I actually am very proud of what our office has been able to do. We have great people in the office, and many of them have gone on the bench or gone to other offices. For instance, Katherine Clark, who is now a congresswoman, worked for me, as well as Jen Stark, who is now a district court judge, and Jim Ilkies, an appeals court judge.
It would’ve been better to win the buffer zone, but we knew with this court that there was a risk of some or all of that law being struck down, but we got right back to work after it, we thought about what we might do if it were struck down, and we did that.
HPR: Did that ruling surprise you? The First Circuit Court approved the law, but then the Supreme Court struck it down 9-0. Was that a great surprise to your office, or did you expect that ruling from this court?
MC: Knowing the makeup of this court and the conservative nature of it, as well as the fact that they took the case, we had some sense that it might not be exactly what we wanted. We had won in federal court on more than one occasion. We thought that we were in a pretty good position given other bills—on both the local and state levels—that had been upheld before, but certainly the granting of cert and the makeup of this court led us to believe that [the law might be struck down].
HPR: A recent poll found that half of Massachusetts voters cite the economy as their biggest concern. As governor, how would you aim to bring jobs to Massachusetts and keep the economy moving forward?
MC: I think it’s two sides of the same coin. I think we recovered a little better than many states because we have a lot of innovation, and we also have a more diversified and, I think, a healthier and more traditional base for healthcare, financial services, and even some precision manufacturing.
We must make sure we get companies here and keep them here. [We must examine] how the state can be a good partner in providing the appropriate workforce. I’ve made that a big issue in the campaign: pre-K, STEM education, making sure we have two- and four-year affordable college opportunities, and ensuring that we work with businesses to align curricula with their needs. We have a lot of innovation, but I’ve said this: Whether you’re working for Facebook or Google or National Grid, you need to know computer science … You’re on a pole that has a computer on top.
Let’s also deal with those who come to school hungry or may need glasses or have a learning disability or have a more serious mental health issue. Let’s make sure we help them and their families instead of waiting until they’ve been socially passed along and now they’re dropping out of high school or they don’t have a job or they’re getting into trouble. Let’s do better right up front and put those services where they’ll make a difference.
I’ve also talked about the regional economy: What works for Merrimac Valley may be different for New Bedford and the South Coast. But there are a lot of great plans in all of those regions to build an economy that’s sustainable on our terms.
HPR: What would be the chief goal of Governor Coakley’s first term? If you could achieve one thing, what would it be?
MC: I would like to see, as I think this economy is turning around, that we make sure we turn it around for everyone in every section of the state. In other words, Boston and Cambridge and parts thereof are doing great, but we have income inequality, and we have achievement gaps even in those two cities … If, at the end of four years, we can see our unemployment rate down, growth in our [state revenue] that is coming in, and we see that people and businesses are both coming here and staying here because they want to, that will be the measure of my accomplishment.
HPR: What do you think would be the greatest challenge of transitioning from a legal advocate role as attorney general to a policymaking role as governor?
MC: I actually think it is an advantage, and I know people talk about, “Oh, you’re [from the] A.G.’s office.” I have seen attorneys general in other states become very successful governors—Janet Napolitano, Christine Gregoire in Michigan. And so I believe that because I’ve had the exposure to a criminal justice system that isn’t doing very well on opiate addiction and mental health issues, I have seen as attorney general ways in which we can do better with some of our agencies around D.C., our Department of Children and Families, and the Department of Mental Health. I think that’s a strength … I don’t see being A.G. as a disadvantage at all; I see it as a plus.
HPR: You’ve been through three statewide campaigns in Massachusetts: two attorney general elections as well as the election for U.S. Senate. Those races have had very different outcomes. What do you think is the most important thing you’ve learned from your successes in your attorney general campaigns as well as your failures with the senate campaign?
MC: I lost my first race running for state representative in Boston. I did two successful campaigns in the biggest county in Massachusetts—a quarter of the state—for district attorney. [I also had] two successful races for attorney general … [As for the U.S. senate race], we made some mistakes in that race. A tough race, a tough loss. Short race, we jumped in without the ramp-up time in a Democratic primary where I won by 19 percent in December. By January, the anger in the country and in Massachusetts around Obamacare and the “underwear bomber” [uncovered] issues that spotlighted a lot of money from around the country, and we weren’t prepared for it.
I thought about this long and hard before getting in this race for governor. I said I want to make sure we have ramp-up time, that we have the team that can let us do the type of grassroots outreach that we’ve done in this race, and that I’ll be able to put my heart and soul into meeting people and having them see who I am, not a short race where it’s all about TV and how much money people have, but how do you get out and talk with people and meet with people. I think we’ve done that successfully. I think that we’ve done a good job and that we have a good team on all of those fronts. And I’ve learned that, look, there are a lot of things that factor into races but people expect candidates to put their heart and soul into the race. They didn’t see that in the senate race, I believe, and I intend to show it to them this time.
HPR: The HPR is a college publication. Most of our readers are millennials. What do you think is the most important reason why they should vote for you for governor?
MC: I think that many [millennials] are either in education now or just coming out of it, so realize that they’ve made the investment in education … I think for people in Massachusetts now, it’s not just about going to Wall Street and making a lot of money, it’s about the quality of life and asking, “How can I make a difference?” I’m very impressed by this generation that says, “We want relationships. We want to see our kids raised.” … That is encouraging to me, and I think that I would be the first woman governor of Massachusetts to say, “We can be prosperous and fair.”
I think what I bring and offer to this next generation, and I’m encouraged by them and I hope they’ll be encouraged by me, [is to say that] we can make Massachusetts prosperous and fair. We can have a generation of people who can do well and do good for the next generation.
This interview has been edited and condensed.
Image credit: Washington Times
© 2024 Harvard Political Review. All rights reserved.