EAST LONGMEADOW, Mass. (WWLP) – The race for the First Hampden/Hampshire District Senate Seat is heating up.
Tuesday morning, Republican Debra Boronski sent 22News a news release saying she was challenging her opponent, Democrat Eric Lesser, to spend no more than 50,000 dollars campaigning.
22News went to her campaign headquarters in East Longmeadow to speak with her about this finance limit challenge. Boronski said, “My understanding is that he did not agree to the spending limit, the spending request, during the primary at Mr. Allen’s request and I have not heard from him at this point. We did send a letter on September 10th, asking for debates and asking for a spending limit of 50,000 dollars, and I have not heard from him.”
22News contacted Democrat Eric Lesser for a response. He wouldn’t meet in person, but sent a statement that read, in part: “I find my opponent’s sudden concern over campaign finance interesting, given that she has already loaned herself at least $25,000 of her personal wealth and earlier in this campaign dismissed similar campaign finance proposals as ‘grandstanding’ attempts to make ‘great press.'”
Below is the full statement from Eric Lesser, Democratic nominee for state Senate, regarding his commitment to shake up Beacon Hill and fight for the people of western Massachusetts, rather than play political games for electoral advantage:
“It’s no surprise that a Beacon Hill lobbyist like Debra Boronski would think that the way to get elected is to manipulate the rules about political contributions to her own advantage. I’m proud of the support I’ve earned from those who know me around the district and elsewhere, but my focus is how we create a better future for Western Massachusetts.”
“I find my opponent’s sudden concern over campaign finance interesting, given that she has already loaned herself at least $25,000 of her personal wealth and earlier in this campaign dismissed similar campaign finance proposals as ‘grandstanding’ attempts to ‘make great press.’ She also said that ‘creating more and better paying jobs, strengthening our education system, or making our communities safer were far more important’ than arbitrary contribution limits. Unfortunately, she seems to have reversed her position in an attempt to score political points.”