“The policy outcomes are being derailed by the politics inside the building.”
That was state Senator Daniel Wolf’s assessment when he spoke to the Boston Globe shortly after the 2015 legislative session ended last week. That article emphasized how the “legislative session sputtered to an end,” and, indeed, it did. But our leaders on Beacon Hill were quick to stress the need to take a longer view. “If you look at our body of work, it has been good,” said House Speaker Robert DeLeo, presumably with a straight face.
Now back at their districts, he and others will undoubtedly spin the same narrative to their supporters at various fundraisers and local party breakfasts. And most of us in attendance will clap, clap, clap and heap praise upon them when they do. But it’s far past time for those of us who give a damn to call out this nonsense. It was a bad year for the Democratic leadership in this state, generally, and for the House leadership, in particular.
At the start of the year, as our state’s public transit system faltered, House Democrats made DeLeo Speaker For Life, abolishing the term limits that he placed on his Speakership just six years ago. In doing so, they stressed the need for experienced leadership in the House. Five weeks later, as entire rail lines remained shut down, that wonderfully experienced House Leadership scoffed at the idea actually doing something about it. Meanwhile, a host of well-connected Democratic leaders from across the state backed several half-baked versions of a Boston 2024 Olympics proposal and consumed much of the remaining local political oxygen in the process. And as that effort halted during the first half of the year, so too did activity on Beacon Hill. In fact, the Legislature took the fewest number of roll call votes during that time span in a generation!
But things went from bad to worse during these last few months, as House leadership flexed their glutes and sat on a bunch of bills which all Democrats should support. As a result, improvements to the state’s solar policy, reforms to public records law, and civil rights for transgender folks will all have to wait until 2016 (if we’re lucky; it’s a campaign year, after all). I was especially dismayed as I watched the House Leadership keep the transgender rights bill under lock in committee, even as many in the business community, a majority of our state’s Congressional delegation, and the general public all expressed support for it. Even DeLeo expressed support for it (!), albeit at the very last minute–and of course, he was noncommittal as to whether the House would take it up at all going forward. But what did the House Leadership do when Governor Baker asked for a favor, like when he wanted to allow his revenue commissioner to sit on two corporate boards? Well, that was a different legislative process entirely, as jcohn88 recently noted in this space. DeLeo and House and Joint Ways and Means Committee Chairman Brian Dempsey simply slipped in a change to the applicable law in a supplemental budget bill and hoped their fellow legislators nor anyone else would notice.
So what does the House leadership stand for? Not much in terms of Democratic policy, apparently. But it’s clear that what they care most about is power, and they use the legislative process to secure that power and exert influence over the rank-and-file. The revenue commissioner-story highlights the extent to which that legislative process is broken. It also highlights, as jcohn88 observed, the extent to which Governor Baker and the House Leadership are allies. They are, indeed, on the same team and want the same things.
Surely, we can do better than this, and we should demand that they do. Instead of the now-typical practices of back-room dealing and stone-walling on legislation, we should demand that House Leadership allow an open process that permits legislators to debate and take votes. But that also means that we should demand that rank-and-file Democrats no longer use DeLeo for cover from taking “difficult votes.” We should know where legislators actually stand when it comes to important issues.
We should, in other words, demand that our Democratic political leaders be less concerned with protecting their jobs and their power and actually lead–actually fight for the things we care about. If they’re unwilling to do that, then we should draft folks who are to run against them, starting next year.
And a iron bound pledge to support term limits, support transparency, support roll calls for every vote, support clean elections, support a progressive taxation, support transit funding, and support education funding equity.
Anyone who opposes one of those things doesn’t get our endorsement, our money or our time. Anyone who routinely opposes the majority of that agenda gets a primary challenger or a general election opponent who will support that agenda.
Back in the days of Speaker Finneran, there was CPPAX (Citizens for Participation in Political Action). Finneran made no pretense of being progressive and acquired the speakership with the help of Republican votes. One might have expected him to have been an easy target — certainly a much easier target than DeLeo who is less prominent in the news, less conservative, and occasionally on the side of the angels.
However, it was very difficult to get traction against Finneran. We don’t have a parliamentary system whereby, if you vote for the Liberal candidate in your riding, you clearly end up with Trudeau as prime minister. It’s very diffuse. There’s also the ability of the house leadership to punish disobedient members by slighting their districts. So one ends up with “beloved” representatives who vote wrong. Taking a stand against the House leadership in an election will make one’s legislative career unpleasant until the House leadership gets replaced. That day may never arrive.
I have no idea how this gets fixed.
It requires clear polarization that can’t be be missed by marginally informed voters. It would also seem to require finding viable primary opponents to a number of “beloved” Democrats.
That all would seem to require a lot of work and an organization rather more energetic than CPPAX ever was.
Two ways that Raise Up Massachusetts is getting it done are (1) by circumventing the Legislature (ballot campaign resulting in victory on earned sick time) and (2) by presenting the Legislature with a credible threat of a successful ballot campaign (resulting in a legislatively-enacted increase in the minimum wage).
Raise Up is building on those successes now – they’re a force.
*With apologies to Rodgers and Hammerstein
If the problem is a too-strong speaker then circumventing the legislature to get a particular outcome isn’t going to do anything meaningful.
If the notion of checks and balances has any traction whatsoever the way to combat an overweening Speaker of the House is to throw your support behind either the Senate President or the Governor in an effort to bring the office of Speaker of the House back into line. Creating a whole new, more palatable, line to run parallel to the existing, albeit distasteful, line is counter-productive at best, chaotic at worse…
If there’s a problem, attack the problem.
In our system the whole point of initiative is to go around the legislature when it isn’t doing what we want. I’ve never been the biggest fan of direct democracy, but as long as those rules are in place we can use them to our advantage.
I see no evidence that any current or past governor or Senate President would have the slightest influence over Mr. DeLeo. It was Mr. DeLeo who influenced Mr. Patrick on casinos, not vice-versa.
It seems to me that these ballot initiatives can be accompanied by a direct and focused electoral strategy to identify and replace those representatives who created this travesty and who now allow it to continue.
As we’ve observed here before, the House will be a far more effective legislative actor if it has a narrower Democratic majority that represents the DEMOCRATIC wing of Massachusetts Democrats, and if the new GOP seats are held by moderate Republicans who vote as they do know, but do so as Republicans.
A strong and aggressive anti-corruption campaign by Ms. Healey, perhaps working together with the US Attorney’s office, would provide additional benefits. Like it or not, patronage and corruption is a significant part of Mr. DeLeo’s day-to-day political power. An AG’s office that reflected the intolerance of Massachusetts voters of that patronage and corruption would go a long way towards reversing its dominance.
I view the contemplated ballot initiatives as complements of, not replacements for, actions directly targeting the sources of our current dysfunction.
of (mostly low-income) workers who didn’t have any earned sick time before this year but have it now probably feel differently.
…You wrote, and with a concomitant apology to both Rodgers and Hammerstein, a clear How do you solve a problem like DeLeo? * Claiming earned sick time is not just moving the goalposts, but playing an entirely different sport in a whole new arena.
Fixing something for somebody is fine and all. But you said the problem was DeLeo. Your ‘solution’ while I’m sure it makes you feel good, isn’t a solution to that problem…
I agree, but if the patient is bleeding you treat the wound first and then worry about the antibiotics to proscribe to kill the infection. Our working class is bleeding dry from the high cost of living and an unjust and unfair tax burden. Both of these initiatives will do much to relieve this bleeding if they pass.
That said, it is absolutely disgraceful that we have to go over the heads of a Democratic supermajority to enact these changes. I’ve seen similar referendum happen to block the radical right wing Governors and legislatures out here in the Midwest, but the fact that we need them to block our own people and not just Baker is sad. For all I know Baker might even be better than DeLeo on these questions, he certainly was on the EITC.
… then a band aid is the solution. If the problem is a speaker who is too strong, then the only solution is to weaken the speaker (or concomitantly strengthen the checks and balances in the system).
If the too-strong speaker is making people bleed…., then he’s always going to be creating new patients in need of band-aids or worse. The time and effort spent stitching up his victims is simply time he has to make other victims. That’s a race you cannot win.
rumor has it that my conservative Republican state rep in the 9th Essex District, Donald Wong,: Lynn (Wd.1,Pcts.1,2), Saugus ( Pcts. 1,2,4-9), Wakefield (Pcts. 1-3,7) may be challenged by a progressive Democrat next November.
Stay tuned !
Fred Rich LaRiccia
Founder, P.O.W.E.R. ( Progressives Organizing Wakefield to Elect Reformers )
I think it would be an excellent idea.
There are 3 special elections for the House with primaries on February 2nd:9th Plymouth: to fill vacancy caused by the resignation of Michael D. Brady (now Senator)3rd Worcester: to fill vacancy caused by the resignation of Stephen L. DiNatale (now Mayor-elect of Fitchburg)12th Essex: to fill vacancy caused by the resignation of Leah Cole
BMG has been a good source (sometimes the only source) of info on special elections. Do we have opportunities to elect progressives in any of these seats?
My understanding was that Bob Hedlund was favored to win the Mayoralty of Weymouth. Did that come to pass?
He will take his new office Jan 4 and resign his old one the same day. Presumably there is a special sometime after that?
…is the primary will be timed to coincide with the presidential primary and the general a few weeks thereafter, BUT the candidates will have to simultaneously be gathering signatures to get onto the September regular-cycle primary ballot. I wish we could amend the state constitution to say that any seat filled by special election less than a year before the regular election does not have to be voted on again until NEXT regular cycle (in other words whoever wins this Senate seat need not seek re-election until 2018).
They are doubtless trying to find a date that will work best to undercut any Republican candidate.
But I doubt they will standardize this process anytime soon. Playing around with the process to replace Teddy Kennedy’s vacancy led us directly to Sen. Scott Brown.
I’m pretty sure there is a legally proscribed window of number of days following the effective date of the resignation.
….is the next general election. Seat empty for 18 mo is better than the ‘wrong’ person winning
The legislature here reminds me of that in New Jersey (although the Dem supermajority here is bigger). The corrupt and conservative “Christiecrats” that dominate the legislature loved Chris Christie because he gave them an excuse for not doing things that might rankle the donors. Please the party bosses, not the base.
My fear is that 2018 could end up akin to 2013 in New Jersey, where Democrats are afraid to run against the governor and when one does, s/he gets ignored by the national party and sabotaged by the state one.