This is a story about a wonderful piece of legislation that appears to be going nowhere, fast.
Over a year ago, at the very start of the current legislative session, State Senator Jamie Eldridge (D – Middlesex & Worcester) introduced Massachusetts Senate Bill S.1577, “An Act Restoring Public Confidence in Government by Eliminating Pay-to-Play Opportunities.” The bill was quickly referred to the Joint Committee on State Administration and Regulatory Oversight, and then for the next fifty-three weeks, it simply collected dust.
Finally, at long last, a week ago this past Friday, on the 27th of January, the Joint Committee announced that the public hearing for this bill was being scheduled for Tuesday, January 31st, at 10 am. Technically speaking, this satisfied the current legislative rules (which call for no less than 48 hours notice prior to a public hearing). But in reality, this meant that no one had a clue.
According to State Senator Eldridge, this bill really matters because: “Our current campaign finance system sets elected officials up for numerous conflict of interest problems because campaigns are often funded by the exact same people who are looking for something in return – a contract, a tax break, or a piece of legislation.” Personally, I love what State Senator Eldridge has to say — and I think he is the most qualified to speak out on these issues — for he holds the distinction of being our state’s only official to ever win a campaign as a Clean Elections candidate!
Anyways, groups such as the Greater Boston Coffee Party Progressives, Common Cause, MassVOTE, and the League of Women Voters of Massachusetts are all thought to be supportive of S.1577. And as someone who is dedicated to getting money out of politics and revitalizing our system of democracy, I had my sights set on S.1577 as well.
But alas, individuals like myself (not to mention many of the interested organizations) had no idea about last week’s hearing because there’s no good way for a busy person to pick up on such an arcane bit of scheduling news in real time — and even if someone did check the State House website all weekend long — there still wouldn’t have been enough time to coordinate efforts or plan a grassroots action.
So all of this makes me wonder — would some legislators have a reason to hurry up and get this public hearing out of the way without much fanfare? Let’s see: the rules state that every bill that’s referred to committee must get a hearing (Joint Rule 1B). Okay. And we now learn that former House speaker Sal DiMasi is on his way back to the Bay State to testify about all sorts of corruption up on Beacon Hill. This is in addition to the relentless drumbeat of speculation leading up to the wave of indictments that are expected in the Probation Department scandal any day now…
So let’s suppose this public hearing was given a month’s notice, and further suppose that in the meantime, DiMasi testified and a dozen or so legislators were all indicted in the Probation scandal — now in this, an election year — imagine for a moment what that public hearing might have looked like…
You never mention what the bill actually contains that would reform the current system.
This bill would help restore confidence in the system by implementing the following reforms:
1) Prohibiting lobbyists from soliciting campaign contributions; 2) Prohibiting principals of state contractors (with contracts of $50K or greater) and their immediate family from giving or soliciting contributions for statewide and legislative candidates for office; 3) Changing the expenditure standard to limit some of the more extravagant expenditures, and 4) Changing the contribution limits from per year to per election.
S. 1577 was a start. Reform is a matter of “progress not perfection.”
It is when no reform is possible, and life becomes intolerable, and peaceful activism and demonstration are rendered impossible by arrests and fines and blacklists that citizens despair of reform, and contemplate revolution. Think Egypt.
Your question, while important and ultimately in need of an answer, isn’t relevant here; No bill, be it the loftiest and noblest of laws-to-be or be it the biggest steaming pile of manure ever brought in to the chamber, ought to be scheduled in this manner.