Therein lies the political rub. The overwhelming Democratic majorities in the Massachusetts House and Senate have over a 90% incumbency rate. Not to paint with too broad a brush, but this rate transforms many public servants into a political ruling class. The primary job of most incumbents is to remain just that – an incumbent. Because the “honey rule” of politics is to outspend any challengers, incumbents chase and attract special interest money like bees to honey. The political class likes it this way. Why change anything that keeps contenders at bay and their seats secure?
Sometimes this month the report of the Governor’s Committee will have concluded Step 1 of the Two-Step and its findings will dance onto the public stage. The Legislature will then be asked to adopt laws that eliminate, or at least reduce, the corruption that has recently fouled the air over Massachusetts. Will they do it? Will any meaningful anti-corruption laws be passed or will the Committee’s work disappear like water through sand? Stay tuned.
Nospinicus
… high for all manner of elected officials everywhere, party affiliation not withstanding? Singling them out as Democrats seems a red herring. The problem is the political class’s interaction with the system, not it’s affiliation.
Massachusetts consistently has about the worst (highest) rate of unchallenged legislative elections. It’s the Mass. culture as much as a Democrat thing. I bet Republicans would be the same way in this state. It sucks.
in Massachusetts is particularly odious because we have a one-party legislature.
I would prefer more than just two parties.
My answer – stop being afraid of primaries. It may be the case, and I for one am certainly not complaining, that people want Democratic rule. One of the responsibilities of an overwhelmingly large party is we have to police ourselves, but the constitutents have to go along too. It amazes me how much support Wilkerson held onto after such a long train of ethical, legal, and political missteps. Keep in mind, however, that much of this is already illegal and the consequences have been felt by the perpretrators. I wonder what laws really need to be made, or if it’s just a matter of enforcing existing laws.
Why stop there? Have powerful third parties, catalyzed by IRV.
I actually do agree with IRV because it will prevent 3rd party candidates from becoming spoilers, but I prefer the stability of a two-party system with vigorous primaries rather than several general-election candidates.
Like sand through the hour glass.
<
p>No matter Cognos, lobbyist scandals, loans, sweeheart deals, lucrative state contracts, mortages, vacation homes, travel, meals, gifts, golf wagers, law firm work, parking spaces, and the list goes on.
<
p>Sal will be re-elected speaker.
<
p>It’s good to be the king!
<
p>
My understanding is that the Cognos software measures worker proficiency. If this so, the software wraps another layer of bureacracy around another unnecessary government function.
<
p> Consider the personnel required to maintain, supervise and evaluate something (worker proficiency) that any worthwhile management is suppose to do as a matter of course.
is not in use in this state. The money was given back to the state. You can’t talk of additional ‘layers’ when they don’t exist. It’s revisionist mythology.
does Vitale hold?
<
p>I stopped reading there.
<
p>Waste of bandwidth.
Campaign finance manager for Sal DiMasi and (unregistered) lobbyist for ACE Ticket.
my point remains.
There might certainly be a stench, but, with respect to Marzilli, is it really corruption? Wasn’t the problem something else?
In Massachusetts, some 90-95% of politicians of any note are Democrats.
<
p>Thus, 90-95% of corrupt and criminal politicians are going to be Democrats.
<
p>Republicans like to think that this is a sign of how corrupt Democrats are. Rationalists think of it as elementary probability.
corrupt Republicans tend to operate as a check on the corruption of Democrats, and vice versa.
<
p>I still think it would be healthy for the Commonwealth to have a robust opposition party on the right.
The MA limits are ridiculously low. That’s likely the single largest cause of unopposed races and the resulting incumbency.
<
p>How is it possible for anyone to mount a campaign without their own money nowadays? If 10 friends of mine think I’d make a good rep, why shouldn’t they each be allowed to give me $10,000? I could run for office tomorrow.
<
p>I see nothing wrong with unlimited contribution levels. With full disclosure on the internet, where’s the presumed danger of “big money corruption?” As long as we know it’s Barbra Steisand or Peter Coors giving a candidate $5 million, what’s the big deal? (It’s the unrecorded on-line donations under $200, of which Obama received millions, which are troublesome. Where’s the accountability there?)
<
p>I bet if you run a regression, it’ll show a strong, positive correlation between high incumbency rates and states with strict contribution limits.