Monday, February 5, 2001
Consistency, not situational ethics
Over the weekend, CLT's associate director, Chip Faulkner, went over the voting lists
in the towns allegedly represented by state Senator Richard T. Moore, who last week floated the trial balloon that our
successful tax rollback was suddenly open to legislative consideration and debate. He found:
"Senator Richard Moore (D-Uxbridge) non-represents 13 towns,
all in Worcester County except for Bellingham. These 13 towns collectively voted for the tax rollback, Question 4, better
than 2-1, with a "yes" vote of almost 67 percent. This is eight percentage points higher than the statewide average of 59
"In fact, three of his towns (Charlton, Douglas, and Mendon)
voted more than 70 percent for the tax rollback. To illustrate how strong support was for this ballot question: The lowest
"yes" vote in his district was Southbridge which still gave it 60 percent!
"Talk about taxpayers without
Today's Boston Herald editorial also sums up CLT's position
on the issue of initiative petitions that make it to the ballot and are approved by the voters. We too opposed the Clean
Elections ballot question, but it won, big. Fight passionately for your position during the campaign, but -- win or lose -- if
they're passed, then we've always pulled out the stops to defend the initiative process. If one initiative can be meddled
with or ignored by the Legislature, any and all initiatives can be.
Consistency, not situational ethics.
The Boston Herald
Monday, February 5, 2001
Pols must listen when voters speak
A Boston Herald editorial
Some legislators just don't get it -- and maybe never will.
Oh, sure, they whine and wail when voters take matters into their own hands and pass one
referendum after another -- a tax cut, a Clean Elections Law. They somehow fail repeatedly
to make the connection between the utter frustration of voters who can't get their will done
on Beacon Hill and the need of citizens to resort to voter-initiated lawmaking. (Is there a
simple connect-the-dots book we could get them?)
In 1998 voters opted for a Clean Elections Law which provides public money to politicians
who voluntarily restrict their campaign fund-raising as called for in the law. This
newspaper opposed the referendum on the grounds that it offends our sensibilities to have to bribe
politicians with public money in order to keep them honest. But our side lost; the
forces in favor of public financing won. End of story.
This past November the citizens of Massachusetts voted to give themselves a tax cut, with a
phased-in proposal that will bring the tax rate back down to 5 percent -- the rate it was
when the Legislature approved a "temporary" tax hike back in 1989. This referendum we
endorsed, as did many other newspapers and civic organizations. It was approved
overwhelmingly. Again, end of story.
But we are dealing here with the Massachusetts Legislature, which numbers among its
members the truly clueless.
So both of these voter-passed laws are under fire.
Some House incumbents are trying to figure out how they can have their cake and eat it too
on the issue of public finance of campaigns. Some apparently want to be able to dip into that
pool of public money while preserving some of their rights to take special interest money (just
not too, too close to the election). It's a hideously cynical ploy.
In the Senate it's the tax cut that could be endangered. Never mind that 60 percent of the
state's voters approved it. Now some senators think the tax cut should be tied to economic
"triggers." The Senate had a chance to do that last year, before the voters took matters into
their own hands. It didn't. It surely can't revisit the issue now -- after the people have
Senate President Tom Birmingham (D-Chelsea) has wisely disavowed efforts to tinker with
the tax cut.
"The voters having passed Question 4, my very strong predisposition is that we ought to live
with what they passed," Birmingham told the State House News Service. "This is a matter
that was fully and fairly debated before the people of the commonwealth."
We will take the Senate president at his word. And let's face it, a would-be gubernatorial
candidate doesn't need to take on a fight against 60 percent of the voting public.
Tinkering with either referendum would touch off a political war the likes of which this state
has never seen before.
NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this
material is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior
interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes
only. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml