What’s actually slowing this PC down?
Pick the symptom - the matching free tool is one click away.
“Both sides of the aisle” described Microsoft’s use of politically different networks—not a bipartisan congressional coalition. In 2005–2006, as Massachusetts debated requiring government documents to use the OpenDocument Format (ODF), Microsoft had Democratic-connected lobbyists working in the state and conservative advocates challenging the policy in Washington. The dispute was about standards, procurement and control of public records, as well as Microsoft Office’s market position.
What Massachusetts’ ODF policy was about
Massachusetts’ executive-branch technology policy favored ODF, an open document standard designed to let documents be handled by multiple software products. ODF is not the same thing as open-source software: one is a file-format standard; the other describes how software is licensed and developed.
The policy raised practical and commercial questions. If agencies had to support ODF, products that could handle it would be better positioned in state procurement. That could reduce reliance on Microsoft Office as the default, while also making public records less dependent on one vendor’s software. Microsoft argued that its own Office Open XML format should also be included in the state’s technology framework. The policy debate therefore concerned interoperability and public access, but also competition for government software business. Computerworld’s December 2006 account describes the dispute and the competing positions.
Adopting a standard did not necessarily mean an immediate ban on Office or a wholesale migration. Contemporary reporting said Massachusetts expected to keep using Office in the near term: moving large numbers of employees and existing workflows could be costly and offer little immediate business value. Supporting ODF and continuing to use Office were not mutually exclusive.
Recommended Free Tools
#1 Best Overall
- The Microsoft Office 365 Bible: The Most Updated and Complete Guide to Excel, Word, PowerPoint, Outlook, OneNote, OneDrive, Teams, Access, and Publisher from Beginners to Advanced
- ABIS BOOK
Microsoft’s Massachusetts network
Brian Burke
Computerworld described Brian Burke as a former senior Clinton-administration official and Kerry/Edwards campaign worker who became Microsoft’s Northeast government-affairs director. Massachusetts’ 2005 lobbying registration lists Burke’s employment with Microsoft. The state record supports the registration and employment details.
Computerworld reported that Burke was involved with 96 pending legislative items and Version 3.5 of Massachusetts’ Enterprise Technical Reference Model. It also described him as promoting an amendment that could have shifted authority over IT standards and procurement from the state IT division to other government bodies. A contemporary summary said the proposal could have given a government task force and the secretary of state’s office approval rights over standards and procurement policies. The precise legislative outcome of that proposal is not established by the available records.
John E. “Jack” Murphy Jr.
Murphy, a former Massachusetts state representative with connections to legislative leaders, also represented Microsoft. Massachusetts lobbying records identify Microsoft Corporation as a client of Murphy and show $60,000 in compensation for the relevant 2005 registration period. The state’s record establishes the client relationship and payment. Computerworld reported that $60,000 was the largest amount paid to Murphy’s firm by any one client that year; that comparison is the publication’s reporting, not a conclusion established by the linked record alone.
These records document registered lobbying and compensation. They do not prove that Microsoft directed every action by either lobbyist, controlled lawmakers, or secured a particular legislative result.
Quick wins for a faster PC:
Fix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitchesFind Drivers →Repair Windows errors before they cause bigger problemsFix Now →ATR’s conservative advocacy—and what it establishes
Americans for Tax Reform (ATR), led by conservative activist Grover Norquist, publicly questioned Massachusetts’ ODF policy. Norquist told Computerworld that ATR sent two letters to Gov. Mitt Romney arguing that the state had not adequately assessed costs and benefits and might risk infringing intellectual-property rights by moving toward open-source software. Those were ATR’s arguments; they do not make ODF itself open-source software.
Computerworld also reported that Norquist had been a registered federal lobbyist for Microsoft and had worked as a Microsoft consultant in the mid-1990s. ATR spokesman John Kartch characterized that earlier work as strategic advice about operating in Washington. The article’s account indicates that ATR’s public position aligned with Microsoft’s interests, but alignment alone does not show that Microsoft directed ATR’s Massachusetts advocacy.
How the Abramoff-era emails fit the timeline
The Senate Finance Committee’s Democratic staff issued an October 2006 report examining Jack Abramoff’s use of tax-exempt organizations for lobbying and public-relations purposes. The committee’s activity report describes subpoenas to Preston Gates and Greenberg Traurig and a review of correspondence involving nonprofits. The Finance Committee report page and Congress.gov’s committee report describe that inquiry. It was a staff investigation, not a court finding that Microsoft illegally influenced Massachusetts’ policy.
Computerworld cited email records in which Abramoff referred to Microsoft supposedly paying Norquist $120,000 for a year, or $10,000 a month; a later email said a $60,000 check had been mailed. Microsoft executive Jack Krumholtz was included in the correspondence. These figures appear in records discussed by the Senate staff report and reported by Computerworld. They concern an earlier relationship and do not establish that Microsoft funded ATR’s 2005–2006 Massachusetts ODF campaign.
Free tools Windows power users keep installed
One-click scans. No signup required.
The competing explanations matter. Senate Democratic staff questioned relationships among Abramoff, Norquist, ATR and other nonprofits. ATR said Norquist’s Microsoft work dated to the mid-1990s and that the emails concerned that earlier consultancy. Microsoft said the exchanges were roughly a decade old and unrelated to the ODF dispute, and that it was not then an ATR sponsor or specifically working with ATR on Massachusetts lobbying. The available record does not resolve whether Microsoft coordinated ATR’s 2006 advocacy.
The other side of the standards contest
Sun Microsystems and IBM supported Massachusetts’ ODF position or opposed efforts to weaken it. Computerworld reported that Sun paid lobbyist Sean Curran’s firm $60,000 in the relevant year and that Curran circulated an email opposing a proposed amendment affecting the policy. This was therefore also a contest among technology companies over standards and market access—not simply a clash between Microsoft and state officials.
For government, the trade-offs were real: open standards could improve portability and reduce dependence on one supplier, while converting existing documents, retraining users and supporting mixed software could cost money and create compatibility problems. A standard’s practical effect would also depend on implementation, procurement rules and exceptions.
Independent reader supportYour contribution helps us test, update, and keep practical guides available for everyone.What “both sides of the aisle” means—and what it does not
The phrase refers to Microsoft’s politically diverse advocacy channels: Democratic-connected operators and lobbyists in Massachusetts, alongside conservative Washington advocacy through ATR and Norquist. It does not establish that Democrats and Republicans acted together as a unified bloc, that Burke acted for partisan reasons, or that ATR was controlled by Microsoft.
Nor does the story establish illegal conduct. The state records show registered lobbying and payment; the Senate staff report examined nonprofit relationships in the separate Abramoff matter; and Computerworld reported disputed interpretations and denials. Hiring politically connected advocates and making arguments about cost, intellectual property or compatibility are not, by themselves, proof of wrongdoing.
Why the episode matters
The Massachusetts fight shows why technical standards can become political and commercial questions. A document format influences which software can compete for public contracts, how easily agencies and residents can open records, and how costly it may be to change systems later. The episode’s lasting lesson is not that a state standard automatically removes a vendor’s products; it is that procurement choices can shape the government’s long-term dependence on technology companies—and that the interests behind advocacy should be distinguished from the evidence proving who directed it.
For a contemporaneous account of the lobbying, the ODF dispute, the cited emails and the parties’ responses, see Computerworld, December 4, 2006. A December 2006 contextual summary of the Massachusetts debate is available at Out of the Jungle.
Quick Recap
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
