From the looks of things, Sal DiMasi’s speakership is in considerable trouble. His refusal to release records to the State Ethics Commission is causing him no end of difficulties. Also ominous is the steadfast refusal of Bob DeLeo’s camp to deny that DeLeo might mount a challenge when the legislature reconvenes in January.
“They’re considering overthrowing him,” one lawmaker said on condition of anonymity.
A spokesman for Rep. Robert DeLeo (D-Winthrop) declined comment.
The John Rogers camp, on the other hand, “heatedly denied” any intention to run for Speaker if DiMasi sticks around, but who knows if that would change should DeLeo proceed with a challenge.
According to press reports, DiMasi is citing Article XXI of the State Constitution as justification for his refusal to turn over the records. Article XXI reads:
The freedom of deliberation, speech and debate, in either house of the legislature, is so essential to the rights of the people, that it cannot be the foundation of any accusation or prosecution, action or complaint, in any other court or place whatsoever.
The speech and debate clause? Really? Somehow I don’t think the Ethics Commission is going after DiMasi for something he said on the House floor. Nor do I think it’s likely that records detailing DiMasi’s relationship with Cognos are covered by Article XXI. If Article XXI shields any internal records bearing on anything a lawmaker does that might tangentially relate to legislation, then legislators have essentially total immunity to engage in all manner of corruption, so long as they’re not caught on film stuffing cash into their bra. I doubt that the SJC will adopt that broad a view of Article XXI. Apparently, Article XXI has not been tested in court since 1808, so it should be interesting to see what they say about it, if it gets that far.
Recently, Jay had this to say on one of his favorite topics, the “Hack-Progressive Alliance,”
i.e. progressives’ toleration of a certain degree of hackery as long as the progressive goods are delivered. Not all liberals tolerate or like the alliance. But judging by some of the comments at BMG, there’s more than enough cynics on the left to keep the Hack-Progressive Alliance ticking for quite a bit longer.
We still really don’t know anything about the DiMasi/Cognos situation — and DiMasi isn’t helping matters in that respect by withholding records on what strike me as flimsy constitutional grounds. But this raises a large and important issue, progressives: how much “hackery” are you willing to tolerate? For some (including BMG’s editors, who endorsed Sonia Chang-Diaz in 2006), Dianne Wilkerson had gone too far even before the bribery stuff became public; for pretty much everyone, the bribery scandal was the last straw. But where is the line?
a Sonia Chang-Diaz.
you have asked a very good question.
<
p>Regarding the progressive blogosphere’s conclusions – if there can be said to be one – was that Wilkerson had to go, as far back as two years ago in Sonya’s first run. That’s been clear. But what’s also been clear is that the progressives on the ground in Wilkerson’s district were NOT willing to recall their support for Wilkerson until after serious wrongdoing, rather than proven unethical behavior, became evident.
<
p>I find that a bit sad, and I think we need to take people to task for that at every turn.
<
p>I agree, primary DiMasi! More and better Democrats. What is sad, is that the leadership could now take a decidedly less progressive turn if he steps down or gets taken down from the Speakership. The fact he jeopardized that makes me very, very angry.
Let us not forget that it’s not just Wilkerson’s constituents. It was the big progressive organizations as well — pre-cash in the bra, both Mass Equality and Mass Alliance (Google cache — the actual page has been deleted), as well as the Governor, were behind Wilkerson in the 2008 primary.
I am also angry with DiMasi (and the others) for giving the GOP the opportunity to paint the Democratic establishment on Beacon Hill as a modern-day Tammany Hall. I’m pretty much a straight Democratic party-line voter, but if I had had the chance, I would have voted for a Republican against my corrupt state representative, Angelo Scaccia, and my governor’s councilor, Kelly Timilty, who faked a gubernatorial endorsement and attended fewer than half of the council’s meetings–even if the Republican was bad on the issues. If the GOP can ever get its act together and put competent candidates on the ballot, they’d get a lot of votes from Democrats like me who detest dishonesty in government and would even be willing to vote for the other party to punish the hacks.
<
p>Let’s not let the Republicans become the party of good government!
<
p>TedF
I for one and sick and tired of one party rule in MA. The progressive wing never has the numbers or the balls to stand up to the hack wing of the caucus.
<
p>Frankly Wolfe, Brownsberger, and many other fine progressives don’t deserve our support if they keep electing hacks like Finneran and DiMasi. If socially moderate, fiscally conservative Republicans with serious grassroots organizations who reached out to disaffected Dems and independents really made a run of things they could really cause some damage. Same with primary challenges.
I’ve been waiting years to see it. I don’t think it’s going to happen.
<
p>it’s obvious their argument of “we need balance to the one-party rule” isn’t really helping them much. I mean, have they gained ANY seats in the last 6 years?
<
p>Probably mostly a result of the candidates they run, really. See my previous post.
<
p>Whatever, not my job to help them. Personally, I’m going to just keep working to elect more and better Democrats until we have enough to do some real damage. Given our track record compared to the Repub’s, I’ll give our changes on succeeding much better odds.
… anyone else. During primaries they get behind their preferred choice and during the election they vote for the least among the evils.
The Second Suffolk can certainly be considered a “progressive” district, with Jamaica Plain, South End, Roxbury, Back Bay, Fenway, Mission Hill, Mattapan, et al, and a number of great local progressives did support SCD’s campaign. If you’re talking about elected officials though, you’re definitely right there.
There are many serious issues here. The least of which is that someone should not use the legislative speach and debate clause to shield themselves from alleged wrongdoing.
<
p>There is a need for some housekeeping on Beacon Hill. Good goverment advocates should never turn a blind eye!
<
p>Time will tell.
<
p>
I hope people at the State House know how to speak up. I think that’s what we elect them to go there and do for us!
<
p>
I am concerned that DiMasi’s troubles may lead to passage of casino gambling in Massachusetts. Haven’t Rogers and/or DeLeo supported expanding gambling in the past? If DiMasi goes, will casino gambling become a reality in Massachusetts and shouldn’t those of us who are opposed to casino gambling be concerned about that?
and why I am so angry at DiMasi.
<
p>If he did nothing wrong, cooperate with the damn investigation. The only reason I can see to invoking this obscure protection that isn’t relevant, is because there’s something to hide. And that will be the perception of the citizens of MA. Something we really do not need right now. Dammit.
So we should turn a blind eye to possible corruption?
Read into people’s comments much?
<
p>He’s saying we should be concerned (and ready) to deal with this.
The Boston City Council is trying to use this same Speech and Debate Clause argument to except themselves from the Open Meeting Law.
<
p>We need a true progressive at the State House to introduce legislation to not allow the Legislature to exempt itself from the Open Meeting Law, and to strengthen the current Open Meeting Law.
<
p>The Boston City Council was able to take our Open Meeting Law which says a hearing will be held in 10 days and stretch out the legal process for 3.5 years before essentially pleading guilty to all charges.
<
p>As someone who supported Sonia Chang-Diaz in both campaigns, I too, was disgusted with the support of elected officials for the Senator from my District.
<
p>I believe that having good laws that ensure transparency, and that are easily enforced, with real penalties is the most important thing to put in place. Electing “good” people that agree with our positions but who go about things in the wrong way is just setting ourselves up for disappointment down the road.
There is no long-term future in supporting a dishonest politician just because they vote your way, in my opinion. Thus, as far as BMG is concerned, I don’t think there is any hack-progressive alliance. Down with the hacks!
<
p>As far as DiMasi specifically is concerned, obviously he should cooperate with the ethics investigation. I mean, WTF?, if he’s done nothing wrong, then let him disclose. If he has done something wrong, then let him disclose. He wanted to be the top dog, great!, but there are responsibilities that come with that position, and one of them is not allowing your private concerns to trump your ability to do a good job. As soon as he decided not to cooperate with the investigation, I think he put his personal interests ahead of those of the people: it is now very clearly impacting his ability to do his job.
I used “WTF” in the title of my post on the subject…
<
p>”Thus, as far as BMG is concerned, I don’t think there is any hack-progressive alliance.”
<
p>I think that’s been the general consensus on the blogs, other than a few supporter-commenters, that is, and this blog is open to anyone willing to comment. But for credible posters or front pagers, there’s definitely agreement on this. So much so, I REALLY don’t think it’s fair of Jay to say:
<
p>
<
p>Jay can bite me.
But I’d actually argue that there’s been some degree of a “hack-progressive alliance”. How else to explain the f’ing mess up on Beacon Hill? We’re faced with dealing with a sordid mess of rampant dishonesty and money-grubbing behavior that obviously has taken years to evolve to this extent. And let’s keep in mind (groan) that we’re just at the beginning of learning the nitty-gritty details about most of it.
<
p>That this disgraceful and infuriating mess exists in our “progressive” state of Massachusetts is evidence enough for me that a progressive-hack alliance has existed for some time. A very sad fact of our broken politics. We can take some solace knowing that the rocks are being turned over–at long last–and that we’re beginning to see what and who scurries out.
Yes, it’s easy to see how this type of stance by Speaker DiMasi plays in in the court of public opinion, but I haven’t seen one person on this post explain exactly what it means legally. From the newspaper accounts of the argument that I’ve read, this is a common practice and meant to protect the integrity of the legislative process -not just floor debate.
<
p>From yesterday’s Globe:
<
p>”It is designed to foster free and open debate,” said Daniel B. Winslow, a former district court judge who served as legal counsel to Governor Mitt Romney. “The people’s representatives must be free to perform the duties of their offices without fear of civil or criminal consequences.”
<
p>Harvey Silverglate, one of Boston best known civil rights lawyer, said the concept behind the constitutional provision is deeply rooted in Anglo-Saxon law.
<
p>”This has been very well respected privilege for centuries,” he said. “It dates back to the English common law days. These battles are not new.”
<
p>My dad is a state rep in Iowa and told me that this makes sense to him because legislators are expected to develop the best public policy possible and if you’re not protecting what’s said in deliberations – house floor or otherwise – you risk curbing the forethrightness (if that’s a word) of anyone who comes in to discuss an issue, whether they are legislators, businesses, or citizens.
<
p>Sorry for the long post…I read this blog often because for the most part the comments on here are well thought out. But I have to disagree with the strong negative sentiments about Speaker DiMasi. In general, he has been a leader that has taken strong stances for seriously progressive and important issues. I would particularly note his adamant support for gay marriage – we’ve all now seen the results of the lack of that type of leadership in California – and his environmental and energy initiatives are so liberal and ahead of the curve that many represent the cutting edge in entire country. As advocates, I don’t think that we can be home run hitters all the time. Meaning, we should stop screaming about people that are 90% with us and instead work with them on that 10%. If collaboratively, we pick up an extra 5%, isn’t that better than stubbornly standing on a principle (that, as I said earlier, seems to be confusing people) and watching our 90% partner be replaced with someone we either know nothing about or someone that is only at 50%.
these arguments, if he hasn’t committed any crimes? From what I have read about his activities, I’ve come to suspect that Speaker DiMasi has used the speaker’s office for his own financial gain, and has accepted illegal gifts. He can prove me and everyone else wrong by cooperating- why won’t he?
If the law is there to protect the deliberative and open nature of policy discussions, by protecting those discussions, it doesn’t make sense to make any exceptions to that rule because it has the effect of setting a precedent that could inhibit the Legislature from developing the best possible policies without participants (legislators, businesses, citizens, etc.) being concerned that what they say in meetings is not confidential. Secondly, even if he did release files to the ethics commission, none of us would see them at least until the inquiry was over with, and even then, I believe, those files are sealed. Now, the ethics commission has proven that it’s a little leaky, so we might have a shot a piece of it on a napkin or something.
<
p>To your second comment, in all fairness, it would be helpful for you to cite a specific example of where DiMasi has actually been found to have used his influence for personal financial gain…and not just innuendo from the Herald. It doesn’t seem to me that there’s much of a case to be made for any of these allegations. I guess time will tell. But the Cognos story has been the same regurgitation for months, seriously, there’s nothing new in last week’s story compared to the story when it first broke. Plus, I still find it suspect that there continue to be no quotes or comments from the administration on the Cognos contract despite the fact that it was an Administration contract, issued with a standard RFP process. Cognos put in a competitive bid and won the contract. If there’s something fishy going on with the competitive bid process, that should be a question for Governor Patrick’s administration, not Speaker DiMasi. And I’m a big Deval fan, worked on his campaign, drank the koolaid, the whole nine. Anyway, I digress. I guess it’s just frustrating that the story is playing out the way it is. If he did something illegal, then by all means, he should be held accountable. But he hasn’t been found guilty of anything and it just seems to me that there’s more to the story than what’s reported in the press.
re “specific example of where DiMasi has actually been found to have used his influence for personal financial gain”.
<
p>Multiple media sources reported on those.
Wasn’t it reported that he was cleared of this ethics charge FILED by REPUBLICANS!!!