I’m currently working with Common Cause, MassPIRG, MassVOTE, and some of my colleagues in the Legislature to craft a more robust and comprehensive response to the Citizens’ United decision, which we intend to file in the coming weeks.
But today’s amendment is a good first step towards a more comprehensive solution — because at a minimum, we should all be able to agree that corporations spending money in political elections should have to disclose those expenditures to the public. When someone stands up to speak at town meeting, the first thing they say is their name and where they’re from. Corporations seeking to influence an election should at least be held to the same standard.
Corporate Tax Credit Transparency
The Senate today also passed an amendment to the budget that would bring more transparency to our tax credit programs, requiring public disclosure of the results of refundable or transferable tax credit programs, including the identity of the corporation receiving the credit.
This is an issue I’ve been working very hard on this session, and that I – along with my friend and colleague, Representative Carl Sciortino – have blogged about numerous times on BMG. It’s an important amendment, one that will promote greater accountability at a time when we need to be examining where every single public dollar is going, and what impact it is having.
The final amendment the Senate adopted was not perfect, and there were some changes made to the language that I would have preferred were not adopted. The legislation will require companies to report on the results of the tax credit program, including the number of jobs created – which is a very important piece. Unfortunately, those job figures will be reported in aggregate for each tax credit program, rather than by each individual tax credit rewarded.
I do believe that this change will make it more difficult for the public – and the Legislature – to analyze the effectiveness of each tax credit program. Aggregating the data makes it difficult to see if there are individual companies taking a tax credit which are not creating jobs, which I believe would be valuable information to have in evaluating the overall effectiveness of a program. I also believe that it is, in the end, the public’s money these corporations are receiving – and therefore the public should have the right to see what they are getting for their money.
We will live to fight another day on this front. Ultimately, I supported this compromise amendment because it is still a giant leap forward in providing greater transparency of the spending of public dollars. I applaud my colleagues in the Senate for unanimously supporting this legislation, and look forward to seeing the amendment passed in the final budget. (As Rep. Sciortino recently blogged the House also passed a tax credit transparency provision in their budget.)
Together, these two amendments make a strong statement that the interest of the greater public – in transparency, in accountability of the spending of public dollars, in the disclosure of who is spending money to influence public elections – should take precedence over the interests of big corporations. Those looking to take public benefits – in the form of refundable tax credits – should at the very least have to account for what they are doing with those benefits, and those looking to influence our elections should at the very least have to disclose that they are doing so.
(Cross-posted at The Dridge Report)
If more of our elected officials shared this philosophy, there would not be the anti-incumbent mood that has grown to such the extent that it has.
<
p>I do have a question with regard to this:
<
p>
<
p>Why does this sort of weakening happen? The individual figures for each credit rewarded have to be received and compiled in order to be able to report the results in aggregate – correct? So why not just make the individual reports available too? It’s this sort of manipulation that just infuriates people. Who decided to weaken the language, and for what purpose?
<
p>Thank You so much for being a voice for transparency and sensible use of taxpayer dollars, as well as a voice for the working/middle class. It is so appreciated.
Getting laws passed almost always involves some compromise. It’s a part of the process – so while we should advocate strongly for the best possible version of the law, we also have to be careful not to let the perfect become the enemy of the good, when a good (or in this case, great) bill can in fact be passed.
<
p>So while I wasn’t supportive of the last minute changes that were made to the amendment, and advocated for keeping the original language as strongly as I could, the overall amendment is still a huge step forward, which is why I was happy to support the final amendment.
<
p>Not surprisingly, the weaker language was pushed by business interests, who feel as though the number of jobs they create as a result of the tax credit should be confidential, proprietary information. My response to that argument is that if you don’t want to give that information out, no one is forcing you to apply for a tax credit. It’s the public’s money, and the public should get to see where it’s going and what we are getting in exchange.
<
p>I’d also point out that the Life Sciences Tax Credit Program is structured in such a way as to be fully transparent – about who is receiving the credits, how much they are receiving, how many jobs they have promised to create, and how many jobs they did create – and it certainly hasn’t hurt this successful program or the participating businesses at all. In fact, in conversations with the folks who run the program, they’ve told me they think the transparency element makes the program better.
<
p>Those arguments didn’t win out yesterday, but we’ll be back in the future.
Because without effort like yours, we would have no representation in our government. I understand the point of not letting perfect be the enemy of the good. It think it has become more like not letting good be the enemy of the mediocre. As taxpayers, we do have the right to know every aspect of the outcome of our expenditures. Keeping it hidden not only appears, but literally is, a way of obtaining taxpayer dollars without accountability. It’s not a matter of compromise, it’s a matter of responsibility. Whoever supported those measures to allow that information to remain hidden from taxpayers does not belong in our legislature. They can go and play this game with private money, not taxpayer dollars.
<
p>In any case, we need more representatives like you. Thank You for being a man of the people. It seems this country is waking up to what is going on and the purge has begun ( good – we need it). Let’s just hope we don’t lose the good ones.
but will this address the ability of corporations to fund advertisements through the Chamber of Commerce or other companies. It seems currently they can sort of hide themselves behind voices of different companies.
Technically a Chamber of Commerce is an association, which is covered in the language of the amendment. However, more robust disclosure requirements are going to be needed to totally prevent shadow groups from being able to hide the source of the funding, which is why we’re working on more comprehensive legislation – stay tuned.
I am proud to be a consitutent of Senator Eldridge.
<
p>This seems to be a great time to mention that I am hosting a fundraiser for Jamie on Sunday June 13. It will be at my home.
<
p>This event will feature our newly installed solar panels that are no generating the electircity that powers our home. I’ll be writing a separate post on our decision to install this new solar electric system.
<
p>Below are the details. Please donate here.
<
p>06/13/2010 Boroughs Fundraiser at Kate’s for Senator Jamie Eldridge
Sunday, June 13, 4 – 6 PM
17 Gary Circle, Westborough, MA
‘Boroughs Fundraiser in Support of the Re-election of Senator Jamie Eldridge. at the Home of Kate Donaghue and Kimball Simpson Featuring newly installed solar panels. Hear their story about the step they took toward reducing dependency on foreign oil and reducing global warming. Suggested Donation: $500, $250, $100, $50 Please respond to RSVP@JamieEldridge.com or 508-274-0055. Donate online!
is a perfect example of the difference that progressive legislators can make. Thank you Jamie!
I too appreciate Clean Elections candidates —
<
p>Why is BMG jumping to support Deval Patrick (loaded with corporate money and connections), instead of giving Clean Elections candidate Jill Stein a chance? Is this what progressive democracy looks like?
<
p>Anyway, thank you very much, Sen. Eldridge, and all the other legislators and good-government organizations who worked toward this and other transparency legislation. Let’s make sure it stays in the budget as the final steps are taken.