I politely but strongly disagree with Congressman John Olver, a true progressive in the Congress, when he suggests that Richard Neal is a good fit for the new First District.

Because we all know that Rep. Neal is not, in fact, "a strong supporter of everything the district cares about," particularly when it comes to proposals to fix our broken, money-drenched democracy.

Instead, Rep. Neal plays the status-quo game of raising big money from corporate PACs and their Washington lobbyists. And western Massachusetts voters know that you can’t truly fight against the forces undermining economic fairness when you fund your campaigns exclusively with their money.

Additionally, there is a stark contrast between Rep. Olver's progressive priorities and the silence of Rep. Neal on so many vital issues.

Rep. Olver is a member of the Congressional Progressive Caucus. Rep. Neal is not.

Rep. Olver is a co-sponsor of the Fair Elections Now Act to provide for public financing of House and Senate elections. Rep. Neal is not.

Rep. Olver is a co-sponsor of H.R. 676, a bill to create a single-payer, Medicare for All program to provide quality health care services to all. Rep. Neal is not.

Last year, Rep. Neal even voted against the progressive People’s Budget, a blueprint for rebalancing the tax code, cutting military spending, balancing the budget within a decade, and creating millions of new jobs -- particularly for young people. At that rare moment when Democrats in Congress could cast a vote in favor of bold, progressive change, and put their name to a progressive vision for our future, Rep. Neal voted no.

I have great respect for the distinguished career and progressive values of John Olver. But I disagree with him on some matters, and, not surprisingly, this is one of them.