However, the article could have been a blockbuster if Ailworth had followed through on a couple things. First, she should have utilized http://OpenSecrets.org to provide a comparison of lobbying/campaign donations among applications for the DOE battery funds. If she had done that for Boston Power, she would have noted how PAULTRY a sum they invested ($50K) compared to the grand winners A123 Systems (close to $1Mil. )
Secondly, I think it is remarkable that US Rep James McGovern said there was a "buzz that the [Boston Power] application was very, very strong. People within the industry and at the DOE intimated that this was a really good company with good technology." What amazes me is that anyone at DOE would speak to McGovern after the applications were submitted because I knew of several attempts by others to simply learn WHO THE APPLICANTS WERE...a request that was denied by DOE. So, if Ailworth had stirred the pot a little on the selection process, the story may have been even more interesting.
My working theory is one I don't enjoy holding and I really hope that I am wrong. The theory is that if you didn't rack up enough points (lobbying/campaign donations), you didn't get any DOE funds. So there you go, Erin, you're next article idea. Happy hunting!
The game is rigged. That's why we SHOULD ALL become libertarians and get the size of the gvt as tiny as possible. (I was a democrat before and now a libertarian)
ReplyDelete