Summary

MassDailyNews, a Massachusetts-based online journalism blog, recently published a report on Boston Mayor Michelle Wu:

Michelle Wu ran for mayor as a progressive crusader — anti-landlord, anti-dark money, anti-right-wing. But her rise? Fueled by one of the most powerful Republican landlords in America — a man who once used a racial slur during a U.S. Senate campaign, then helped her buy her house and bankroll her political career, according to documents and historical reporting reviewed by Mass Daily News.

I researched the claims and compiled an interpretation of the facts; they do not point to the conclusion hinted at throughout this article.

Background

Michelle Wu, a progressive mayor of Boston, bought her first home a decade ago with a college colleague named Elizabeth Likovich, daughter of prominent GOP donor Terry Considine. Likovich initially held a majority share of the property, but Wu bought them out at market value.

Additionally, Wu’s husband worked as a legal resident agent for an LLC with ties to Considine. The Considine family has donated nearly $10,000 to Wu throughout her career.

Considine is a controversial conservative figure who made a racially offensive remark during his Senate campaign in the 1980s, which he later apologized for, which Wu has not publicly denounced.

All transactions between the two appear to have been disclosed to the public and legal.

Fact-check: Misleading

The article in question juxtaposes a series of mostly-true claims in a way which frames the story as a quid-pro-quo. However, this does not have the makings of a scandal:

  • There is no evidence of favoritism in public policy as a result of their professional relationship
  • All financial ties appear to have been disclosed to the public
  • There has been no misuse of public funds related to this situation
  • There is no clear evidence Wu sought to conceal any of these relationships or transactions

Wu’s relationship with the Likovich and Considine families appears personal, not transactional.

In addition, this article uses charged language to insinuate conclusions it doesn’t have the information to fully make:

  • “GOP billionaire behind Wu’s rise”
  • “the press didn’t ask”: The Boston Globe did in 2021
  • Guilt-by-association with a slur spoken nearly 40 years ago

An example of the type of quid-pro-quo scandal the article alludes to can be found in the saga of Rod Blagojevich, who was impeached and convicted of trying to sell Obama’s vacant Senate seat in 2008. This was a scandal because he sold political influence for personal gain, an element which is missing from this article’s portrayal of Wu’s history.

Conclusion

While Wu’s relationship with Considine’s family may be of interest to voters, and his unfortunate missteps may be a factor for some, this article attempts to construct a narrative that ultimately lacks the factual foundation to support its implications. Though it doesn’t outright accuse Wu of anything nefarious, it uses charged language to guide readers to a heavily biased and misleading conclusion.