Matt Viser's got a must-read story in today's Globe about how that $200 million tax giveaway (oh no, I don't dare call it a loophole) got put into the close-the-loopholes bill in the House.
Community activist Carl Nilsson stood outside the House chamber late one night this month and spoke with any elected representative who would stop. He asked them to vote against a last-minute corporate tax amendment, one that was heavily influenced by lobbyists and business groups.
But nothing Nilsson said would matter. Behind closed doors, the decision had already been made by a handful of influential lawmakers. By 9 p.m., the five-page, highly technical amendment carried easily on a voice vote, with little public debate.
I gotta run, so this post is kind of a placeholder … hold forth in the comments. For now, I'll just ask if Rep. Bosley or the Speaker believe that this kind of MO bolsters or diminishes public trust in the legislature.
What exactly should we think of our House of Reps?
—
Update, more commentary:
Some legislators have professed to be offended by Governors running against the legislature. Robert Travaglini once took offense at Gov-elect Patrick's contention that there was waste in the budget, in effect claiming that if it were waste, it wouldn't be there in the first place.
Well, the legislature doth protest too much. The sausage, as Scot Lehigh puts it in another amusing Bosley story, is not more savory simply because it's on a webcast. (Nor, it must be said, is the lege inherently corrupt simply because votes are taken via email.)
But currently, it's very easy for the legislature to push through things that it's actually ashamed of! If the sponsors were proud of the offshore tax break, why wasn't it fully discussed and vetted? “This tax break will really stimulate the economy in MA.” And then we can laugh at it. On the other hand, we can talk about whether the Governor's life science bill is good or bad, stimulus vs. corporate welfare, because it's all out there in the open.
I don't get any pleasure from bashing the House. I want more folks in the House to follow the examples of Jay Kaufman and Jamie Eldridge, who openly decry the closed-door shenanigans. I'd like legislators to be proud of their work, to enjoy being heroes instead of hacks.
But that means you've got to do business the right way. Legislation needs to be cleared with and vetted by the public, not just the “powerful” lobbyists and the chairmen inside the building. Get outside and get some fresh air … some sunlight.
<
p>We should think about a referendum that seeks to subject the Leg and the Gov to Freedom of information requests.
<
p>BTW, how do you know it’s a ‘tax giveaway’ if you don’t know what the amendment says?
Here, way down below, is the text of a typical dispatch from the State Ethics Commission. Now, admittedly, this seems serious because there are safety issues involved. But note that we are apparently talking only about two Red Sox tickets. My question is this: is it conceivable that Bosley, Sal, or Deval have never been given Red Sox tickets, bought a dinner, or brought to a Celtics game by Raytheon PAC (this is one of Bosely’s contributors-not Raytheon Inc, because corporate donations are illegal!), Verizon, the Judge Rotenberg Educational Center (the owner, Matthew Israel, donated to Patrick), or any other of these entities, while working on legislation that directly affects these interested parties? I find the idea that this had never occurred very hard to believe. Which makes me wonder, is the fact that the State Ethics Commission is funded at the discretion of the legislature influencing their ability to supervise legislators and the Governor? Is the FBI keeping an eye on these people? There seems to be a distressing “don’t bite the hand that feeds you” dynamic when it comes to officials who are further up the hierarchy than a selectman in the Berkshires, a contracts overseer, or what have you.
<
p>FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
<
p>April 24, 2008
<
p>Contact: Karen L. Nober, Executive Director
<
p>617?371-9500
<
p>The State Ethics Commission’s Enforcement Division Alleges Central Artery Contractor and State Plumbers and Gasfitters Inspector Violated the Conflict of Interest Law
<
p>The Massachusetts State Ethics Commission’s Enforcement Division, in three separate Orders to Show Cause issued on April 23, 2008, alleges that Central Artery contractor, P.J. Riley & Company, and its Executive Vice President Thomas E. Riley, Jr., repeatedly violated Section 3(a) of G.L. c. 268A, the state’s conflict of interest law, by giving Boston Red Sox tickets to a Commonwealth plumbing and gasfitter senior inspector, Taylor Roth, while Roth issued permits for and conducted inspections of P.J. Riley’s work. Roth is being prosecuted for violations of Sections 3(b), 23(b)(2) and 23(b)(3) of G. L. c. 268A, in connection with his receipt of the tickets. A public hearing will be scheduled within 90 days.
<
p>According to the Orders to Show Cause, every year from 2004 to 2006, Thomas Riley gave to Roth two tickets to Red Sox games, with a face value of $80.00 each, while P.J. Riley had plumbing and/or gas projects at the Dewey Square Ventilation Building and other sites that were or recently had been within Roth’s jurisdiction.
<
p>Section 3(a) and 3(b) of the conflict of interest law prohibits private parties from giving, and public employees from receiving, anything of substantial value for or because of any official act performed or to be performed by such public employee. The Enforcement Division alleges that a Section 3 violation occurred each time that Thomas Riley gave and Roth received Red Sox tickets as a reward for permits that Roth had issued and/or inspections he had performed of P.J. Riley’s work and/or to influence Roth’s future performance as a senior inspector.
<
p>Section 23(b)(2) of the conflict law prohibits a public official from knowingly, or with reason to know, using his official position to secure for himself or others unwarranted privileges of substantial value, which are not properly available to similarly situated individuals. The Enforcement Division alleges that Roth used his official position as a senior inspector to secure Red Sox tickets worth $50.00 or more from Thomas Riley, while P.J. Riley had projects that were or recently had been within Roth’s jurisdiction.
<
p>Section 23(b)(3) of the conflict law prohibits a public official from knowingly, or with reason to know, acting in a manner which would cause a reasonable person, having knowledge of the relevant circumstances, to conclude that anyone can improperly influence or unduly enjoy the public employee’s favor in the performance of his official duties. The Enforcement Division alleges that Roth violated Section 23(b)(3) by issuing permits and conducting inspections of P.J. Riley’s work while receiving Red Sox tickets from Thomas Riley.
<
p> The Commission has the authority to impose civil penalties of up to $2,000 per violation.
<
p>Full text of the Order to Show Cause (5 pages) is available upon request.
<
p>To request a copy, contact Carolyn Teehan at cteehan@eth.state.ma.us or 617-371-9500.
<
p>
That’s the rule – from Sal to new newest backbencher.
<
p>Case in point – a Rep. I know had dinner with a neighbor of 30 years, who is an attorney. The neighbor bought dinner.
<
p>Somebody dropped a dime, and the Rep. was reprimanded by Ethics – the lawyer/neighbor had registered as a lobbyist, and the Rep. didn’t even know it! But, since the dinner came to over $50, it was a violation.
and innocent like the one you describe. Was the rep quietly reprimanded or fined $2,000 and publicly called out?
For me the the best thing about Matt Viser's excellent piece today was the acknowledgement of the important role that community based organizations can play in the public policy arena, even in the back rooms.
In Rome, the public watchdogs's advocacy was limited to scratching graffitti in public spaces, but thankfully Massachusetts politics is rich in smart and savvy social justice organizers like Carl Nilsson & others in the Coalition for Fair Taxation.
Coalition members spent thousands of hours educating and mobilizing their grassroots members on complicated tax policy and corporate tax avoidence practices in the last 6 months.
Then Coalition members succeeded in educating and mobilizing a critical mass of Legislative champions who got to work briefing their colleagues about complicated tax policy and corporate tax avoidence practices and, on the night of the debate, Coalition and Legislators alike were reading and trying to understand a couple of 4 page single spaced technical memos describing the AIM amendment from DOR and the business community.
Some of the Legislators were behind closed doors with Leadership and some were in the Chamber. And Carl and the Coalition for Fair Taxation were standing outside the ropes doing their best to explain why they thought the amendment encouraged tax avoidence.
Meanwhile, the Leadership was doing their job, which is to evaluate the strengths of often conflicting positions on every proposed bill and try to put together a majority position around the most acceptable solution. Sometimes, those positions around controversial issues are put together after days of public debate, but most often they are created after days of negotiations behind lots and lots of closed doors.
Bottom line: Leadership cannot avoid conflict they must confront problems, resolve them, and sometimes (read usually) take the blame for them. What sets Legislative Leadership apart from their peers in the private sector running $30 billion companies, is they must do all of this in public view, and are therefore accountable.
And that's all the opening that citizen groups need, whether they working for the Coalition for Fair Taxation or AIM.
No doubt it is absolutely vital that we have folks like Mr. Nilsson and the Coalition watching this stuff. Without them, progressive causes would often be DOA and the bright sunshine of truth and justice would not often penetrate the Golden Dome. These groups are democracy in action.
<
p>But as far as what this says about the legislature, I am not so sure your pretty positive read on their behavior stacks up entirely. While I am sure that there are many issues in which the vast majority of legislators are consulted on and have a voice, there a plenty of issues in which that is not the case.
<
p>Plenty of times up there a controversial matter is tacked on to a bill without having been discussed with the bulk of legislators, without having had a hearing, without having been brought up in caucus, without the vast majority of legislators understanding it let alone reading it carefully. Then its voice voted through, usually at nighttime on a quick clerk’s read and speedy gavel.
<
p>Then the next day or so later a journalist unearths this gem and makes it a story and from there legislators start to backtrack. They all have plausible deniability that they didn’t support it given it was a voice vote and many had no clue what it contained anyway. After the usual stories about closed door shenanigans and late night sessions, the matter usually fades before conference and is effectively dead. Usually but not always. In the end, such episodes may not change policy much, but they do undermine trust in the legislature (if not legislators themselves, many of whom will remain popular in their districts despite).
<
p>Now you can argue that an important role of legislative leadership is arbitrating the varied interests of its members to get to a majority position and to effectively control the flow of legislation in an orderly manner. I agree those are key functions, otherwise the legislature would devolve into chaos. But, there are many occasions when leadership uses its massive power (over staff resources, over debate in the chamber, and over the flow of legislation) to slip things through that many members are frankly clueless about and often are fearful to question.
<
p>What is funny about Matt Viser’s article is how predictable such stories are. Its good he wrote it, but it isn’t really news given that this type of story get’s written almost every year around budget time. It would be news if the legislature actually became a more democratic institution, more balanced in its power relations between leadership and membership. Now that would be news.
You say above
Yes it can be news but it requires a reporter and editor who (as you describe yourself on this site)
Then you will get a long story about Legislative leadership fashioning a controversial policy solution behind closed doors after listening and reading to days of testimony from ordinary citizens and experts and convening hours and hours of briefing meetings and caucuses with leadership team members and rank and file a colleagues.
Those stories have appeared before — praising current Leadership building an internal consensus around health care, capital punishment, gay marriage and other issues before they brought the issue up for a vote.
We all want strong Leadership to do their leadership thing for our side don't we? Well if you work it well enough from the outside it they will and we praise them for exerting leadership. If they don't ……….do we complain that they didn't stay behind closed doors long enough?
DiMasi and his allies need to be pushed aside. It is time for a revolution by the back bench reps to create a sytem that is transparent and honest.
I don’t believe real reform is possible as long as DiMasi is Speaker. He’s more interested in undermining the Patrick Administration than in finding real solutions to the Commonwealth’s fiscal difficulties. It’s up to the progressives in the House to mount pressure for change. Otherwise maneuvers like the late-night Bosley Admendment will continue to be standard fare.
… so who’s better? Rogers, Mariano, or DeLeo?
<
p>I’ll take Sal, warts and all. Perhaps the key is to empower the progressive caucus with raw numbers and persuasion, and create a political environment outside the House that makes reps nervous.
Here's a friendly further amendment
support the progressive caucus with a smart savvy political organization outside the House and Senate with the capacity to
1. organize and mobilize and district based network of informed constituents willing and able to share good information about the issues they care about with their own legislative delegation, at the at the right time (before the hearing or the debate or the vote)
2. request and track their legislators' specific actions and activities including committee polls with appropriate messages of thanks or dismay.
That's how you make them nervous.
It takes a well resourced organization with committed passionate members to build such power, but it has been done around specific single issues.
With all respect, can it be done by a network of progressive bloggers?
Just asking
You have an idea of how to organize and arrange such a thing, Judy … and I have to say this is an area about which I possess little competence, confidence or experience. So tell us how it goes.
promoting my textbooks on how to build powerful lobbying networks for now and urge anybody who wants to be part of a progressive well organized effort to educate the House, the Senate, and yes indeed, the Governor himself, about the best ways to minimize corporate tax avoidance is to contact the Coalition for Fair Taxation through Carl Nilsson himself at Carl@n2nma.org.
<
p>The Coalition is doing a top notch job of organizing a very broad and diverse group of progressive organizations who are each mobilizing their local membership into timely action.
<
p>And so John Regan at the Associated Industries of Massachusetts.
<
p>I’d be interested to hear how many BMG members have responded to alerts from either organization.
Judy – I think a blog like this one can gurantee that most representatives here from several of their constituents. of course my rep and senator know how I feel about the Bosley Two Step that eviscerates the financial benefit to the general fund from closing the corporate loop hole by which companies report profits in – or out – of Massachusetts.
<
p>To prove that point, I would love to see some of those who read and participate in BMG to post as to whether:
<
p>1. They know who their representative and senator ARE and communicate with them often [to show they pay attention and care about issues]
<
p>2. They contacted their reps and senators about the Municipal Partnership Act originally, and about the Bosley-initiated two step [as in one step forward, two steps back].
<
p>I am actually in Gettysburg this weekend – one of the places that brings out the best in me and assists in recharging my batteries, but I think I will none the less do a short post with poll on this.
<
p>As you know, though I am not a professional and have never received five cents or even reimbursement for parking – I do know how to get letters into newspapers and into legislator’s inboxes when I care enough about the issues, and take enough time away from my work [self employment has its own harse economic reality] and family.
<
p>While makig legislators aware that their constituents are watching and care about a particular issue or issues CAN be done and is meaningful, it does take time and effort to mobilize from someone!
they need to be in mortal fear of losing their seats in order to do the right thing for their true constituents? Are they all so utterly without character or conscience? I never voted for Sal, but I feel like he runs the state. Killing any change to the corporate tax code was a stated goal of his from day one of Patrick’s administration, and this latest maneuver seems like it will accomplish just that, notwithstanding DiMasi’s recent “changes of heart” and so forth. He has utterly rejected every proposal to reduce the reliance of cities and towns on the residential property tax, out of either pure spite or obsequiousness to local Big Business interests, the Rich, and Out-of-state corporations like Verizon, depending on the proposal. I think the Legislature, as epitomized by DiMasi, hate Deval Patrick, for reasons that I will not speculate on here for fear of being thrown off the site. I think a lot of them hated that he got elected in the first place. DiMasu, frankly, has never struck me as anything more than a Pro-choice republican, much like Romney once pretended to be.
after hours of conversations among leadership, both proponents and opponents in the Speakers office, in informal caucuses among Members in the Chamber and outside the Chamber with reps from the Coalition for Fair Taxation and Associated Industries of Massachusetts, and other huge companies with offices overseas. Lots of conversations that night trying to figure out the implications of that amendment. Some behind closed doors, some not. Some Not much MSM around, with the exception of course of the trusty State House News Service.
<
p>And to answer your question directly, I think we can be sure the Speaker made an informed decision about the amendment. And because he’s not the kind of guy who is afraid of changing his mind when he gets new information, its never too late to send more in.
least a $100 donation from yours truly. Any takers? Anyone? Bueller??
Just out of curiosity, what other towns are included in DiMasi’s home district, besides “the North End”?
Gov Patrick has a bully pulpit, he should use it by public statements and actions.
It’s still possible that that the Senate can undo the damage wrought by the Bosley Amendment. They’ll have to stick to their guns in conference committee.