Public financing. I know a lot of progressives see this as the holy grail. I’ve never been a huge fan, but regardless, we can’t afford it right now. The money simply is not there, so there’s not really much point in debating the merits.
Banning lobbyist contributions. Do you really think that these donations, which remember are limited to $200, are that much of a problem? Can $200 really buy that much influence? And even if you think it can, the Supreme Court has created significant constitutional obstacles to extremely low campaign contribution limits. I think it’s legally dubious, and it’s a band-aid at best.
Instant runoff voting, etc.. IRV and other ballot reforms would be great, but they are not going to solve the incumbency problem by themselves.
But, consider the power of that charitable donation.
<
p>I guarantee you that youth sports throughout Massachusetts would enjoy a windfall if this idea ever came to pass.
What better political move than to shower money on Little League?
<
p>Hell, my right-wing State Rep, Vinnie DeMacedo already sponsors a team.
<
p>Thank god my son isn’t on it.
I think politically shrewd donations are to be expected, but this also brings up the possibility of a quid-pro-quo for PACs that are attached to a 501c3.
<
p>A more interesting idea: Any leftover money in your account gets donated to the other political party. Let’s really give these candidates an incentive to spend every penny. There’s your stimulus right there. đŸ˜‰
Of course I mean the same rather than opposite parties. I’ve also wondered about the unused resources of unsuccessful primary candidates automatically being turned over to that party’s nominee. Independent candidates could still choose a non-profit.
…for public funding?
The UMASS endowment. There. It’s small money in a large pot, it benefits the entire state, and it’s not going to have a big influence in year-to-year budgeting.
I don’t hate this idea, but it worries me that legislators will have to spend even more time fundraising. Does that then mean that they are even more dependent on those that can raise fast cash for them? Would such a move increase the power of parties, bundlers, business interests, unions, pressure groups, lobbyists, etc?
<
p>I’m not sure that the reason for the high rate of uncontested elections is just because candidates are sitting on piles of money. Are local elections (aside from Boston, of course) more contested than state elections in the absence of an open seat? In my experience they are not, but I haven’t seen any real data. Certainly a town or city official is not sitting on the kind of money that a state legislator might be.
<
p>Also, I’m reminded of this quote from a recent Commonwealth article:
Now, having contested elections is important to a healthy democracy (perhaps the definition of a healthy democracy). Maybe the risk of increased interest group influence is worth the benefit of fewer uncontested elections. However, we can’t be sure we’re likely to get that benefit if it’s not just the money that’s keeping challengers away.
Otherwise it risks being repealed by the legislature.
You define the problem and then pose the solution as though your definition of the problem is somehow determinative.
<
p>It is not a problem that legislators are returned to office by their constituents. The arrogance that spews from you because the voters won’t elect who you want them to elect is palpable.
<
p>There is no incumbent who is not vulnerable to a thoughtful and well-executed challenge. But, when the voters decide to reject that thoughtful and well-executed challenge, we should not diminish the effort by blaming the rules. Get up off your ass like Sonia Chiang-Diaz and do it again. Stop whining and spend some time focussing on issues that actually mean something to ordinary people. This is such a waste.
<
p>We have a Democratic legislature that is extraordinarily progressive on the issues that matter to people in their daily lives. The voters have put those Democrats in office in large part because they reject Republican ideas, or lack of ideas.
<
p>Progressives can have short memories. While the Republicans controlled the Governor’s office, these same Democratic incumbents were the ones who protected progressive program after progressive program, protected muncipalities from draconian local aid cuts.
<
p>Why any progressive is wasting their breath looking at the legislature as being anything but a net plus for progressive values is, to me, a crisis of imagination and me tooism. Use your mind, your bully pulpit, and your energies to focus on something that will mean food on the table for someone in need, a health care system that can sustain universal coverage, a tax system that more fairly distributes the burden. Your notion of good government progressivism just feeds the image of progressives as dilettantes.
<
p>
Well, this is just too hilarious. Throw us a few progressive bones and we should just ignore all the fraud, bribery, and assorted hackery? Give us health care and you get ALL YOU CAN EAT BRIBES!
<
p>Really?
<
p>See, “gonzoD”, we can walk and chew gum. We demand progressive policies, and as you rightly say, we sometimes get them. They give us those because that’s what we sent them there to do. Not take bribes.
<
p>Why so eager to change the subject, “gonzoD”? Getting a little hot inside the building?
<
p>Can someone explain to Charley that access, cost and quality, together, are what constitute real healthcare reform. The MA Plan is faux reform that is bankrupting our state. Many worthy public programs being slashed and the mandatory private insurance premiums–not to mention the public subsidies–are bankrupting countless municipal budgets, families and businesses.
<
p>Wake up, what we have here is “ALL YOU CAN EAT BRIBES sans healthcare reform.
As many corrupt individuals can get elected under this system. I have said previously that we should not ignore issues of corruption. But corruption is committed by individuals, and is not going to be solved by this proposal. We have plenty of laws to prosecute individuals who violate the public trust.
<
p>A ballot question? A constitutional amendment? This is what you want to devote time and energy to? Why don’t you get some real cojones and get working on fixing the tax system in this state. This is just a bunch of dilettantes who could not organize their way out of a paper bag who whine when the world doesn’t act the way they think it should.
<
p>And my corner of the building is just fine, thank you. Just not the building you think it is. Typical smug bluemassgroup reaction. I expect it from David but not from you, Charlie.
You would certainly have a case for this line of argument if we just hadn’t indicted our THIRD speaker in a row.
<
p>Does that not point to something wrong not just with these three bad apples*, but with the system itself? Yes, individuals committed these acts and perhaps we’ll never devise a perfect system but in light of these problems, don’t you think it’s worth examining how we might change the incentives so that corruption is less appealing?
<
p>*all apples ripe and tasty until proven rotten in a court of law.
ROFLMAO!! That’s the funniest thing I’ve heard all day. You don’t know Charley like I know Charley…. đŸ˜‰
<
p>More generally, I think you see the Globe as the real villain in this. If only those pesky reporters hadn’t gone after Sal, he could’ve kept doing God’s work, and ya know, if he snitches a few bucks here and there, well, who can begrudge the great man — think of it as a down payment on what he truly deserves. Sorry pal, but that’s not the government I want.
<
p>And as for this:
<
p>
<
p>What is your evidence for that? Most of recent Massachusetts history seems to contradict it.
What, I’m not smug enough for our friend here? Shoot, I’ve been working on that obnoxious little elitist no-account smirk all year.
<
p>In fact, this dilettante volunteered for a thoughtful, well-executed challenge just this last season — Patrick McCabe. Lost by some 25 points.
<
p>Yeah, so pretty clearly, gonzo’s trying to protect someone, but why?
If you thought McCabe ran a thoughtful, well-executed campaign, you truly are a dilettante. You don’t win elections by trying to explain to the voters that they made a mistake by electing and re-electing a representative who reflects their values. The voters are much smarter than you think they are.
<
p>But, Rep. Ann-Margaret Ferrante was able to unseat Tony Verga and Rep. Carolyn Dykema’s aggressive campaigning led Paul Loscocco to see the handwriting on the wall and give up his seat. John Fernandes beat Marie Parente. Carl Sciortino beat Vinny Ciampa. And there are more examples of incumbents stepping aside because they knew they were going to face a difficult challenge.
<
p>And I reject the notion that every incumbent who doesn’t face a strong challenge is somehow corrupted by the system. These are individuals who work hard for the people of their district. The vast majority are returned to office because they earn their constituents’ support.
<
p>Now, I have elsewhere made my contempt for the Globe well stated. And I am truly sorry, and disappointed by yesterday’s events, although I will await passing judgement until the final verdict has been rendered. That is not the government I want either.
<
p>But, how about a little perspective or sense of proportion about the appropriate response. Everyone seems to want to use this tragedy as a means to promote their personal agenda. David wants to invest millions in a ballot question; others speak of one-party rule. Please. None of these have anything to do with individuals who seek to violate the public trust.
<
p>Sorry, Charlie. I didn’t realize you boys competed for smugness points.
No worries, gonzo. You’ve got us both beat, hands down.
I guess.
“You don’t win elections by trying to explain to the voters that they made a mistake by electing and re-electing a representative who reflects their values.”
<
p>Then why ever run against an entrenched incumbent? Ever? Hell, even old Vinnie Ciampa was thought to represent someone’s “values.” Until he didn’t.
<
p>Maybe we can get something out of this, gonzoD — you have some insight as to who is vulnerable next year? Now — before the fact? Nice that you can point out the “good” campaigns after they actually won.
<
p>That’s a serious question. I’d love to know, so that I don’t waste my time dilletanting.
<
p>I don’t see where David defined this as the problem. He defined the lack of contested races as the problem – potential challengers see it as a hopeless task to run. An uncontested legislator can get sloppy and disconnected. Not all, but certainly some. Imagine that your boss told you that for the next 10 years, you could do nothing to lose your job. Might you at least take some longer lunches? Maybe not return a few phone calls?
<
p>Look at Tom Petrolatti. He has nearly $500,000 in his war chest. I don’t think he has ever been contested. Let’s say that you are a citizen who does not like the way he votes or the way he does business. You want to run against him.
<
p>Will you have any hope of unseating someone who can spend half a million to beat you? Particularly when you have to overcome the advantage that incumbents have with low-information voters? (I remember doing it as an 18-year old, voting for the people I had heard of without knowing anything else about them).
<
p>It takes an enormous amount of time, energy, and money/sacrifice to run for political office. Warchests are the icing on the cake. There’s no need for them, they only stack the deck further. I say we should eliminate them. Would it make legislators spend more time on fundraising? Maybe. But that might not be the best use of their time — perhaps constituent services would be more effective. Maybe spending more money raising money in lieu of being accessible would add fuel to the challenger’s fire.
Beacon Hill’s problems are due to the concentration of power in the hands of a few. One party in the state, on person in each house. One party rule is a recipe for cronyism and sloth.
<
p>Progressivism, if you bother to check your history books, is a tradition that includes fighting the powers that be and combatting corruption. Why? Because concentrated power and corruption are the underlying causes of food not being on the tables of people in need, the lack of universal health care, and an inequitable tax system.
<
p>Progressives believe in empowering the powerless and less than powerful. We believe that government can improve people’s lives, that it should be a bulwark against the monied interests. For this to happen, it’s essential that people believe in government. If that takes campaign finance changes (though I have my doubts about their efficacy), so be it.
<
p>With your materialism, your notion of good government progressivism just feeds the image of progressives as Bolsheviks.
<
p>Voters may have decided to vote against ‘that thoughtful and well-executed challenge‘ but that doesn’t mean they voted FOR 18 years of corrupt leadership.
<
p>I think three straight House speakers resigning under ethical clouds is indicative of systemic problems.
<
p>
<
p>That’s just insulting. I don’t think Flaherty, Finneran nor DiMasi were all that progressive on ethics reform… and issue that matters to me in my daily life. The present House (and Senate) are qualitatively worse for their cowardly retrenchment on ethics reform and their pointed inability to take responsibility for past House leadership. Leadership we know now that was compromised. Ethics is not a ‘quid pro quo’.
…a sitting St. Senator with 1 million bucks in the bank or a state rep with 1/2 a million? Please tell me.
Frank – any time – find my email from my profile. Then get the same info from anyone who 6’s this. Drop me a line with your candidate’s info – I’d love to be a part of a run against a PrINO. Knocking doors might cost you something, but I’ll do Voter ID for an invite to the post-election party.
How about redistricting reform? I can think of several Springfield-area legislators who are probably benefiting because of the special way lines are drawn.
<
p>Look at the city of Chicopee, population about 55,000. 2/3 of the city is represented by Joseph Wagner, but the other 1/3 is represented by 3 separate legislators — one whose base is the smaller city of West Springfield, another whose base is Springfield, and a third whose base is the much smaller city of Ludlow. Although one might argue that Chicopee is better represented by 4 representatives rather than 2, I don’t think that there are enough voters in each of those three districts to force those three non-resident representatives to pay much attention to Chicopee. They identify with the city they live in, particularly when push comes to shove.
That term limits (like one, or at the most two) is the only way to achieve true representative government.
<
p>2. The Freedom of Information Act must apply to both the House and the Senate, including all committees, schedules and meetings. As of today, the House and Senate are immune to the Freedom of Information Act.
<
p>3. Bring back 100% cable coverage of ALL House and Senate sessions…
<
p>Just…for starters.
to ensure a legislature without any long term view, reason to respond to voters suggestions/requests/pleas/demands, or sense of history.
<
p>You’d have 200 legislators, representing a total of 200 people. After all, if re-election is out of the question, I might as well play for keeps and do what makes me best off, my district be damned.
Given the importance of the jobs filled by our legislators and the salaries they could earn outside government, aren’t we just asking for trouble? If you compound that with the premia paid legislators in leadership positions, you have a system where control over compensation is powerful and potentially corrupting.
What if only a fraction of the war chest had to be donated? Say, 50%? Then the incumbent retains some advantage, but keeps some “bridge” money? I’m just throwing that out there, that it doesn’t have to be 100% to be effective. That isn’t to say that 50% is the right number either…
A link to the debate is HERE
<
p>Party, pool or charity – no more warchests from campaign to campaign.
<
p>I opposed public financing when we DID have the money.
<
p>MTA and SEIU spend far more than any ‘lobbyist’ for industry, yet they are not percieved as lobbyists by BMG. Wake up. They are. It’s why we don’t have flaggers.
<
p>IRV is incidental to this discussion. (And wrong)
<
p>David – despite efforts to further impede the petition process today in the election laws hearings, it is your best chance. But you might have to shoot for a change in the constitution, as the Lege will ignore or repeal a successful vote, as they did with the income tax.
Can someone shed light on what David Morales’ role was in this? Why did DiMasi think he could get the contract through when the Administration was asking questions about the whole issue?
You have id a real problem…warchests. What does Montigny ahve…a million bucks for a St Senate seat? But it seems that everytime we fiddle with campaign laws, we create loopholes that make matters worse. I’m not sure what it would be…but something.
The real problem, as I see it, is the concentration of power in the House Speaker and the Senate President. Campaign finance reform may change some sheep, but it won’t deal with the shepards who have way too much power. Is there some way that we can get real reform into the Legislature, taking away the leadership’s powers — for example, letting rank and file members vote on Committee Chairs? In the current environment, what Committee Chair would object when the House Speaker wants something inserted into legislation? Which Chairs would even ask any questions? Until we democratize the Legislature and empower rank and file legislators, nothing will change.
Unless we amend the Constitution. And as you know, that is a lengthy and difficult process that requires at least some buy-in from the legislature.
<
p>That’s part of why I’m suggesting what I’m suggesting. It’s something we can actually do.
We can reform the way the House works if we elect a majority of House members who want to reform it. I’d be surprised if we even have 1/3 of the current reps really wanting to reform its processes. It all comes down to winning elections, so David’s suggestion is relevant.
To me, the problem is this unnatural party discipline. The issue is that the Democrats in the State House are astoundingly loyal to their leaders. Even in Westminster systems where the head of the party becomes the head of government (see the UK) the rank and file aren’t as uniform in their behavior.
<
p>This isn’t a factor of punishments and rewards — a prime minister has much more at his/her disposal in that vein than does a legislative speaker/president. This is a cultural problem in the State House, not a systemic one.
You’re probably right about the culture, but in the UK, the PM or Leader of the Opposition pretty much gets to decide if you’re even on the ballot next time. There are no primaries and it’s extremely rare for MPs to cross party lines. Lords have a lot more independence with life tenure. Is it my imagination or didn’t we once have term limits for leadership in MA? I’d like to bring that back.
Nothing is going to solve the incumbency-protection problem by itself. Reducing their money advantage won’t do so on its own, but it would have a big effect. Having a preference voting system won’t do so on its own either, but would also have a big effect – plus many other benefits not directly about reducing incumbency protection.
<
p>IRV, of course, doesn’t directly affect a new challenger entering a race against an otherwise-unchallenged incumbent. The main way IRV or something similar relates to incumbency protection is the potential of multiple challengers. When multiple challengers run against an incumbent, that incumbent is effectively protected somewhat because the anti-incumbent vote is split. This has also has some side effects, for example:
– Incumbents’ allies can entice an extra candidate into the race
– Challengers’ allies may be dissuaded from running, but it may turn out that the candidate who didn’t run was the one who would’ve won the election (if the candidate who did run had chosen not to).
<
p>In general, knowing that there’s a voting system which allows voters’ real level of support for you to be expressed despite strategic considerations, would draw more candidates in. This is likely to have more effect on higher offices (such as US House and up), and open seat races, however.