By Tiffany Williams –
Fiscal responsibility does not stop at the doors of the State House, and political campaigns do not get a free pass simply because the money being spent is sitting in a campaign account.
The campaign-finance information presented here for State Representative James O’Day raises serious questions about both where his campaign money is coming from and what that money is being spent on. I believe the people of Worcester and West Boylston deserve direct answers backed by documentation—not political talking points, vague explanations or excuses.
Let’s look at the expenditures contained in these records.
On May 4, the campaign reports spending $1,417.30 at the Lenox Hotel in Boston, with the stated purpose listed as “lodging during budget week.”
Representative O’Day, explain it.
Budget week is legislative business. You are a sitting state representative who is compensated to perform the duties of that office. Why was your campaign committee paying more than $1,400 for lodging associated with budget week?
Was the entire stay related to permissible political or campaign activity? What dates did the charge cover? How many nights? Who stayed in the room? What was the nightly rate? Why was overnight lodging necessary? Was any portion reimbursed by another source?
Produce the hotel invoice and documentation supporting the expenditure. If there is a legitimate campaign-finance justification, the voters should be allowed to see it.
On May 21, the records show $429.76 at the UMass Club, described as a monthly payment and a meeting with colleagues. On June 22, another $100 payment to the UMass Club is described as a monthly payment.
What exactly is the campaign purchasing through these recurring payments? Is this a membership? If so, who holds the membership, what benefits come with it, and why should a campaign committee be paying for it?
Again, show the documentation and explain the campaign purpose.
On June 5, the campaign reports $322.32 at Ruth’s Chris in Boston, described as lunch with colleagues to discuss pending legislation.
That description demands an answer.
Discussing pending legislation sounds like legislative business. Why did a political campaign pay $322.32 for legislators or colleagues to have lunch while discussing legislation?
Who attended? What portion of the bill did the campaign pay? What legitimate political or campaign purpose justified charging it to the committee?
On June 1, another $196.61 was spent at The Boynton in Worcester, again described as lunch with colleagues to discuss pending legislation.
The same questions apply.
If these were legislative meetings concerning pending legislation, explain why campaign funds were used to pay for them. Produce the receipts. Identify the legitimate campaign purpose. The public should not have to guess.
On June 26, the campaign reports $115.20 for a Boston Globe subscription, described simply as a monthly newspaper payment.
Why is the campaign paying for a newspaper subscription?
Is this subscription exclusively maintained for campaign operations? Who has access to it? Why is it considered a campaign expense rather than an ordinary professional or personal expense of someone serving in public office?
On June 29, there is $184.38 for a Verizon Wireless payment, described as a monthly cell-phone payment.
Whose phone is it? Is it exclusively a campaign phone? Is it also being used for legislative or personal business? If the use is mixed, how was the campaign’s share determined?
These are basic financial-accountability questions.
There is also $786.46 at Carrie Nation Cocktail Club in Boston, identified in the document as a kickoff fundraiser. A legitimate fundraiser obviously presents a clearer campaign connection than an expense described as discussing pending legislation. Nevertheless, nearly $800 in campaign money was spent, and the committee should maintain the receipts and records establishing exactly what was purchased and its connection to the fundraiser.
Taken together, the expenditures shown on this document total $3,552.03.
That isn’t pocket change.
And when politicians ask the public to trust them, “because that’s how it’s always been done” is not an acceptable answer.
NOW FOLLOW THE CONTRIBUTIONS
The other side of this document deserves just as much attention.
Representative O’Day represents Worcester and West Boylston. Yet look at the communities represented among the contributors on this partial list.
Potomac, Maryland. Scituate. Auburndale. Boston. Whitman. Charlestown. Attleboro. Winchester. Middleton. Watertown. Victor, New York. Norwell. Lynnfield. Brewster. Milton. Harwich. Danvers. New York City.
There is nothing inherently unlawful about accepting a lawful contribution from someone outside the district. But legality isn’t the only standard voters are entitled to consider.
Representation matters. Influence matters. Access matters.
And one word appears over and over in the occupation column:
Lobbyist.
The June 3 entries alone show numerous $200 contributions from individuals identified as lobbyists, along with other contributions of $250 and $500. There is also a contribution identified as coming from the Nixon Peabody LLP PAC and another from 1199 SEIU MA PAC.
That creates questions Representative O’Day should be willing to answer openly.
What percentage of your campaign contributions comes from people who actually live in Worcester and West Boylston?
What percentage comes from registered lobbyists?
What percentage comes from PACs and organized political interests?
What percentage comes from outside your district?
And why did so many contributions from people identified here as lobbyists arrive on the exact same date—June 3, 2026?
Was there a fundraiser? Who organized it? Who attended it? Was it specifically solicited through the lobbying community? If there’s a simple explanation, provide it.
I’m not accusing anyone of buying a vote based upon a contribution list. I’m asking something politicians don’t get asked nearly enough: Who is financing your political operation, and what access does that money buy?
Those questions become particularly important when the same campaign-finance records show campaign money paying for lunches with colleagues discussing legislation.
The appearance alone deserves scrutiny.
REPRESENTATIVE O’DAY, SHOW THE RECEIPTS
This isn’t complicated.
Representative O’Day should publicly provide supporting documentation for these expenditures and explain their legitimate campaign purposes.
Show us the Lenox Hotel invoice.
Explain the $1,417.30 budget-week lodging expense.
Explain the recurring UMass Club payments.
Explain why campaign money paid for lunches described as discussions about pending legislation.
Explain the Boston Globe subscription.
Explain the cell-phone expense.
Provide the receipts.
And explain the concentration of lobbyist contributions appearing in these records.
If every expenditure was appropriate and every contribution was lawful, then producing records and answering straightforward questions should not be difficult.
Public officials should understand something very clearly: transparency is not an attack. Scrutiny is not harassment. Asking where the money came from and where it went is not partisan politics.
It is accountability.
I don’t want carefully crafted political language telling voters that everything complied with the rules. I want the evidence supporting that conclusion.
Show the documents. Show the receipts. Explain the purpose.
The burden should not be on the people of Worcester and West Boylston to prove that something was wrong before they’re allowed to ask questions. The responsibility belongs to the politician whose campaign spent the money to demonstrate why those expenditures were appropriate.
Public office is a position of trust.
Campaign accounts deserve scrutiny.
Political money deserves scrutiny.
Lobbyist money deserves scrutiny.
And when something doesn’t add up to the people being represented, elected officials should have the courage to stand before their constituents and answer for it.
Representative O’Day, the questions are on the table. Now show Worcester and West Boylston the receipts and give them the answers they deserve.