With the Legislature’s 2015-2016 session down to its last six weeks, it’s time to begin recording casualties — bills that just aren’t going to make it into law. The list is not a short one, so we better get started.
First up: a bill to close a loophole in state campaign finance law. The loophole in question was first discovered and used to great advantage by former gubernatorial candidate and now-Governor Baker. It allows state political figures to pay state expenses with federally-raised money and to avoid disclosing the source of money spent on campaigns for state party membership.
The bill to close the loophole was filed by Senator Jamie Eldridge with the backing of Common Cause following an April decision by the state Office of Campaign and Political Finance that the Baker campaign’s use of these funding practices does not violate current state law. Because Senator Eldridge’s bill was filed after the January 2015 deadline for legislation to be considered automatically, both the Senate and House had to agree to allow it to move forward. The Senate has done so, but the House has not.
More evidence of the oft-rumored bromance between the Governor and the Speaker? It’s pretty hard, for example, to imagine GOP Governor Romney receiving this sort of consideration.
The Speaker insists to the contrary, telling the Globe through his spokesman that the sole reason for the bill’s lack of progress is its late filing date. “With rare exception, the House generally does not fast-track late-filed legislation, especially with eight weeks left.” Well, OK — and there’s no man behind any Green Curtain that we must not pay attention to.
There may be other reasons why the Speaker is letting the clock run out on this bill. For one thing, the loophole is available to both parties, not just to the GOP. For another thing, the Republican state committee elections on which Baker’s folks spent $300,000 in undisclosed contributions resulted in the defeat of many socially conservative GOP party members. Their ouster helped to smooth the way for the Governor to signal his acceptance of the transgender public accommodations bill (assuming that it reaches his desk). With Baker’s opposition eliminated, the Speaker also had a much easier time of things with that troublesome piece of legislation. What’s not to like about this new GOP state committee?
…to regulate campaign finances for state committee members, since they are not in a position to enact laws that might favor a particular interest group. (Disclosure: I’m a member of the Dem State Committee, though did not raise money for either of my campaigns, which turned out to be unopposed anyway.)
Could somebody make this clear for me:
1. Who can pay the expenses?
2. With what money from what account?
3. To whom?
4. With what spending limit?
And there may be more questions, but I’m hoping those four help clear things up…
The complicated details of how the loophole works are explained pretty well in the Globe article that’s at the first link of the post. The ruling by the Office of Campaign and Political Finance that OK’d these Baker practices is here.
…I understand how the first part (using federal accounts to pay for state campaigns for PUBLIC office) might be an issue. but I don’t know why the need for regulation of campaigns for PARTY positions have to be regulated at all.
Also disclosure – I am a former SC member and party officer.
The SC’s (everything I say I assume is for both, your mileage may vary on the DSC) can give money to candidates, but that money is reported by those campaigns. How the SC raises its money is also reported.
But for political office, as opposed to public office, there is no reporting requirements because the SC’s have no direct ability to enact or propose legislation or public policy. It’s like saying that a VFW sets military policy. Ironically, the SC’s labored in public obscurity for many years, but have now become prominent due to the efforts of the Republican Assembly (The REPUBLICAN Wing of the Republican Party) types to take over the RSC in order to enforce their social conservative agenda on the party. They HAD been gaining incrementally, and might have succeeded had they not announced a major revolution, which prompted a reaction.
I always worked with candidates of every opinion, agree with them or not. To me, the role of a SC member is to be a stage hand – tell campaigns about resources, help them plan events, make sure they know who to talk to (or avoid) in order to win the district. Stances on policy or issues is the CANDIDATE”S choice, not the SC members choice, because it is the CANDIDATE who will win or lose, not the SC or its platform. This was not a popular position with the social conservatives,which is why I am a former SC member, but I still think it is true.