CLT
UPDATE
Friday, May 23, 2003
Taxes disguised as "fees"
get scrutiny
Budget language makes it clear that the purpose of some new fees is to raise revenues for "the general fund"
(eg, firearms fees, Outside Section 439-444), not just to cover the cost of the service.
The homeowner’s insurance tax provides no service to the insurance company, much less to the homeowner that we don’t already get from our property tax payment, and is given to municipal entities that are already being paid for the service by property taxes....
With this clear and obvious example, we should be able to get a clarified definition of fees that will also wipe out many of the other examples of taxes parading as such
(eg., the nursing home bed tax and prescription drug tax), and prevent the many other taxes that will follow this growing violation if left unchallenged.
CLT News Release
Thursday, May 22, 2003
Senate budget, taxes disguised as "fees"
Governor Mitt Romney would almost certainly veto a Senate proposal to raise $40 million by adding a surcharge to all home and commercial property insurance premiums, a spokesman said yesterday.
The surcharge, which would tack on a 2.3 percent fee to all such policies to help defray the rising costs of local police, fire, and emergency services, was one of a handful of new fee hike proposals in the Senate's $23 billion package unveiled Wednesday. The budget relies on about $500 million in new and higher fees.
But Romney's administration, which has vowed no new taxes to close a $3 billion budget gap, has determined that the insurance surcharge "has all the earmarks of a tax," according to spokesman Eric Fehrnstrom.
"We don't favor this $40 million insurance assessment," Fehrnstrom said. "It's an assessment charged by the state with no corresponding service provided to the payer that they don't already pay for with property taxes." ...
[Insurance industry spokesmen] said, the insurers would "definitely" pass on the surcharge to policyholders because the companies can't afford to hold onto it. They, too, called it a tax....
As it is, the state imposes a 2.9 percent excise tax on all premiums that sends unearmarked money into the state's general fund.
The Boston Globe
Friday, May 23, 2003
Senate's plan for insurance surcharge hit
Veto of 'tax' is likely, Romney camp says
Nearly 100 hospitals fighting a $1.30 prescription tax had their day in court yesterday as a doctors' group filed a separate lawsuit against the assessment....
The assessment, intended to raise $36 million, was approved last year to help fund Medicaid, a program that provides health care coverage to the poor. Lawmakers hoped to use the money from the tax to garner federal matching dollars to offset an increase in the dispensing fee paid to pharmacies filling Medicaid prescriptions....
"We assert that the assessment is invalid, ineffective and unlawful," Michael S. Gardener, an attorney representing the pharmacies and Harvard Vanguard, said in court yesterday.
The Boston Herald
Thursday, May 22, 2003
Hospital, pharmacy drug-tax lawsuits hit court
Senate leaders snuck millions of dollars of pet projects and hometown goodies in their budget plan while deeply slashing local aid and foisting $500 million in new and increased fees on taxpayers.
The chief beneficiary is Senate boss Robert E. Travaglini (D-East Boston), who directs earmarked pork for $2 million sound barriers along Route 1 in Revere and secures new cash from racetrack owners for Revere and Boston - all in his district.
The Senate president also pumped up the overall Senate operating budget by a cool million.
Senate leaders were thrilled with their winnings amid all the budget slicing and a $3 billion deficit.
The Boston Herald
Friday, May 23, 2003
Pull of pork: Senate leaders cash in
as fees rise, aid sinks
Advocates for stricter campaign finance rules denounced the bill, saying it would roll back one of the strictest contribution limits in the US, set in 1994, and make it easier for wealthy donors to influence political races.
"There's obviously an interest for incumbents to raise the contribution limit. It makes their job easier, to protect their reelection," said Pamela Wilmot, executive director of Common Cause Massachusetts. "The incumbents can get those $1,000 checks a lot faster than a challenger can." ...
She said Straus' bill would increase the influence of corporate groups in campaigns. The average Massachusetts family of four only earns $52,253 and could ill afford a $1,000 political donation, she said.
"Higher limits increase the power and prestige of monied interests and leave average citizens with a muffled voice," Wilmot said.
State House News Service
Thursday, May 22, 2003
House lawmakers seek to
double campaign contribution limit
More Massachusetts voters believe Massachusetts is on the wrong track and previously undecided voters are giving the state's new leader, Republican Gov. Mitt Romney, unpopular reviews, according to new poll results....
Fifty-eight percent of those polled said they are somewhat or very dissatisfied with the way state government is working, while 40 percent considered themselves very or somewhat satisfied. Only 27 percent of Democratic voters polled said they like the way things are working. The overall ratings of state government performance have held steady since the fiscal crisis began.
And voters are not giving lawmakers high grades either. Seventy-four percent of those polled in April said the Legislature was doing a fair or poor job, with 20 percent opting for the "excellent" or "good" options....
Voters remain with Romney on his top issue, taxes, but the connection is tenuous. The April poll shows 47 percent of voters somewhat or strongly favor raising the income tax from 5.3 percent to 5.6 percent, the rate it stood at in 2001. That's up from 45 percent in January. And the results are at odds with voter sentiment at the ballot last November, when they only narrowly turned back a binding question that would have abolished the income tax.
On the local level, 61 percent of those polled said they would vote against a property tax hike if one were put before them locally. Thirty-five percent said they would probably vote "yes." Local aid cuts are fueling a surge in local Proposition 2½ override attempts....
State House News Service
Thursday, May 22, 2003
Voters concerned about state's direction,
Romney's leadership, new poll says
Chip Ford's CLT
Commentary
It appears that at least the Senate's proposed illicit
use of "fees" as taxes is undergoing a bit of scrutiny by
Governor Romney's office and may draw his veto if included in the final
budget. The governor had proposed a similar "fee" on privately
paid health insurance policies a while back but reversed himself, so
perhaps at last somebody on Beacon Hill is beginning to grasp the
concept. Fees have a specific legal definition established by the state
Supreme Judicial Court in its 1984 decision, Emerson
College vs. the City of Boston.
The pharmacy group that is suing over the
prescription drug "fee" imposed on them is, in my opinion,
challenging on the wrong grounds. Its position that this is an unfair
tax on them and their interests begs the question of whether the
"fee" is even legally imposed, whether it is constitutional
under the SJC definition. This is unfortunate for the industry and for
others burdened by this new and expanding form of stealth taxation.
Somebody, sooner or later, must again seek a
reaffirmation from the court of its previous ruling. We're hoping that
those with deeper pockets than CLT have not overlooked the
principled obvious and are arguing their case on the proven grounds that
such "fees" are an already-determined violation of the law.
As usual, after a budget -- even a
"barebones" budget -- is released the fat rises to the surface
and is revealed. The Senate's praised version this year is no different,
with millions of taxpayer dollars snuck in for senator leaders'
"pet projects and hometown goodies." Again, they intend to
bring home the bacon at any cost. Nothing compares to "pet projects
and hometown goodies" when reelection rolls around and it doesn't
even get reported as an "in-kind" contribution to the
campaign.
But "in-kind" contributions won't be as relevant
if Rep. William Straus, House chairman of the Election Laws Committee,
has his way with doubling the campaign contribution limit, doubling the
amount of money candidates can receive from a single donor. As usual,
this is another move to benefit incumbents -- who have the most to gain
from such a "reform."
It's not enough that they fundraise from the moment
they're reelected and continue right up to their next election; it's not
enough that, despite being paid for a fulltime job, they've arranged the
legislative schedule to give them months off in which to campaign
fulltime against any upstart challenger who doesn't have such employment
flexibility. It's just not enough to utterly overwhelm any citizen so
insolent as to consider taking them on despite their clear advantages.
Now they want to make it easier to raise more campaign cash quicker,
scaring off even more potential rivals before they get out of the gate.
Beacon Hill legislators certainly do know how to take
care of themselves, and they flaunt it with regularity.
Do you suppose they're scratching their heads,
wondering why 74 percent of respondents in a recent poll said the Legislature was doing
only a fair or even poor job?
With their advantages and the new ones they seek -- do
you suppose they even care?
|
|
|
Chip
Ford |
The Boston Globe
Friday, May 23, 2003
Senate's plan for insurance surcharge hit
Veto of 'tax' is likely, Romney camp says
By Raphael Lewis, Globe Staff
Governor Mitt Romney would almost certainly veto a Senate proposal to raise $40 million by adding a surcharge to all home and commercial property insurance premiums, a spokesman said yesterday.
The surcharge, which would tack on a 2.3 percent fee to all such policies to help defray the rising costs of local police, fire, and emergency services, was one of a handful of new fee hike proposals in the Senate's $23 billion package unveiled Wednesday. The budget relies on about $500 million in new and higher fees.
But Romney's administration, which has vowed no new taxes to close a $3 billion budget gap, has determined that the insurance surcharge "has all the earmarks of a tax," according to spokesman Eric Fehrnstrom.
"We don't favor this $40 million insurance assessment," Fehrnstrom said. "It's an assessment charged by the state with no corresponding service provided to the payer that they don't already pay for with property taxes."
While Fehrnstrom stopped short of promising a veto, he said the prognosis wasn't good for the surcharge: "We're going to do a more thorough analysis of the Senate budget and the revenue- raising measures in it, so I don't want to give a formal position, but it has raised concerns and we're taking a closer look at it."
Insurance industry officials yesterday expressed frustration that the Senate is targeting homeowner and commercial property policies through the fee, which would add about $25 to the average homeowner policy.
While premiums have grown slower in Massachusetts than in other states since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the industry as a whole is suffering grievous losses; the amount was $6.5 billion last year nationwide, according to industry spokesmen. What's more, they said, the insurers would "definitely" pass on the surcharge to policyholders because the companies can't afford to hold onto it. They, too, called it a tax.
"The industry is simply not in a position to absorb these costs," said P. J. Crowley, vice president of the Insurance Information Institute, a trade group.
The Senate is not the first government body this year to propose hitting up the insurance industry as a means to closing the budget gap. The House budget calls for assessing insurers to fund the $9.5 million annual budget of the state Division of Insurance, which regulates the industry.
"I suspect that's one reason why they're going crazy today," said one senior state official. "They feel like they're getting hit from all sides."
Frank Mancini, executive vice president of the Massachusetts Association of Insurance Agents, said he is certain that in coming
days members of the industry will fill the State House lobbies hoping to convince lawmakers that the various revenue-generating schemes are misguided. He said the industry was all the more upset because it was not informed of the surcharge proposal.
Michael Moran, a spokesman for the American Insurance Association, a trade group whose members write a quarter of all homeowners' policies in the Bay State and about 60 percent of commercial property policies, said that policyholders could expect a 2.3 percent increase in premiums if the surcharge passes. After all, he said, the insurers will have to devise a method to collect and track the new fee, too.
"Insurance companies don't make good tax collectors," he said.
Currently, home and property owners pay a little less than $2 billion a year in residential and commercial insurance premiums, according to A. M. Best Co., an insurance rating firm. As it is, the state imposes a 2.9 percent excise tax on all premiums that sends unearmarked money into the state's general fund.
But supporters of the Senate proposal say the surcharge would, as the budget states, "support municipal police, fire, and emergency medical services" and thus could not be raided to fund other state programs. The money would go into the general fund at first, then be allotted by formula to cities and towns on a demonstrated-need basis.
Fehrnstrom, however, said the administration would set about working with the Legislature to avoid having the surcharge become part of the budget package.
"In the context of a $23 billion budget, it's a small piece of the pie," Fehrnstrom said. "We think we can work with the Legislature to find an alternative solution."
Return to
top
The Boston Herald
Thursday, May 22, 2003
Hospital, pharmacy drug-tax lawsuits hit court
by Jennifer Heldt Powell
Nearly 100 hospitals fighting a $1.30 prescription tax had their day in court yesterday as a doctors' group filed a separate lawsuit against the assessment.
Pharmacies, including CVS Corp., have previously charged that the tax, approved last year, imposes an "unfair and unreasonable burden" on them.
Harvard Vanguard Medical Associates filed suit against the state late Tuesday night based on similar arguments. The doctors' group also argues that regulators have no authority to apply the tax to them.
"We are not a retail pharmacy, we are a nonprofit clinic pharmacy," said Ken
Paulus, Harvard Vanguard chief. "It is our feeling that the state inappropriately caught us in this net that they cast."
The assessment, intended to raise $36 million, was approved last year to help fund Medicaid, a program that provides health care coverage to the poor. Lawmakers hoped to use the money from the tax to garner federal matching dollars to offset an increase in the dispensing fee paid to pharmacies filling Medicaid prescriptions.
Pharmacies initially passed the tax directly to consumers, but later refunded the money under pressure from lawmakers and others. They then filed a suit to stop it.
"We assert that the assessment is invalid, ineffective and unlawful," Michael S. Gardener, an attorney representing the pharmacies and Harvard Vanguard, said in court yesterday.
As the law is written, the tax targets clinic and hospital-based pharmacies and therefore isn't broad-based, he said in court yesterday. If it's not broad-based, the state can't get federal matching funds as the law requires, making it invalid.
In addition, lawmakers wrongfully delegated their taxing authority to a state agency because they left it up to regulators to set the tax rate and didn't set a limit on it, he said.
"Taxpayers are entitled to the certainty that their tax obligations will be set forth explicitly by statute and will not be changeable at the whim of an unelected administrator," Gardener said.
The tax is also unfair because it imposes a greater burden on pharmacies that fill a lot of low-cost prescriptions, he said.
The pharmacies also argue that it is wrong for the state to collect a tax from them to help pay for a dispensing-fee increase.
"It's robbing Peter to pay Peter," Gardener said.
State attorneys said yesterday that the pharmacies don't have a case because it is clear that the tax applies to them. They also said the legislature clearly intended it to include all pharmacies.
They also said the Legislature didn't delegate its taxing authority.
"The Legislature has specified who is subject to the tax and the measurement," said John Bowen, an assistant state attorney.
While pharmacists fight the tax in court they also plan to lobby lawmakers to prevent further rate cuts. Druggists from the state's major chains are planning a rally at the State House today.
Return to
top
The Boston Herald
Friday, May 23, 2003
Pull of pork: Senate leaders cash in
as fees rise, aid sinks
by Elizabeth W. Crowley and David R. Guarino
Senate leaders snuck millions of dollars of pet projects and hometown goodies in their budget plan while deeply slashing local aid and foisting $500 million in new and increased fees on taxpayers.
The chief beneficiary is Senate boss Robert E. Travaglini (D-East Boston), who directs earmarked pork for $2 million sound barriers along Route 1 in Revere and secures new cash from racetrack owners for Revere and Boston - all in his district.
The Senate president also pumped up the overall Senate operating budget by a cool million.
Senate leaders were thrilled with their winnings amid all the budget slicing and a $3 billion deficit. Sen. Susan C. Fargo (D-Lincoln) called herself "amazed and gratified" by the $2.9 million in the budget for bridge and culvert repairs in her district. "It's a matter of public safety," Fargo said.
The revelations come as state officials yesterday announced that cuts authored in the House and Senate budget could have an even bigger hit for Bay State motorists.
The Registry of Motor Vehicles said it plans to lay off 50 front-line workers and close at least six of its branches across the state.
"We're already down about 75 people and cut middle-management, there's nowhere left to cut but services," said Registrar Kim
Hinden. "We will be going back to the days where wait times go through the roof."
Tucked inside the $22.5 billion Senate budget is a separate section that earmarks a previously approved transportation bond bill. In it, senators funnel $8.8 million to projects in only three districts - including Travaglini's sound barriers and Fargo's bridge repairs.
The same section includes $3.85 million for projects in the district of Sen. Charles E. Shannon (D-Winchester), including $500,000 for a pedestrian underpass at the Mystic Wellington Bridge in Somerville. Both Fargo and Shannon sit on the Ways and Means Committee that wrote the budget.
Travaglini's constituents are also in line for more money from their neighbors at the racetracks thanks to the budget. In another outside section, the amount so-called host communities are paid by the state's four tracks is boosted from about $1.8 million to about $2.4 million annually.
Two of those tracks, Suffolk Downs and Wonderland Greyhound Park, are in Travaglini's district.
Travaglini spokeswoman Ann Dufresne said that amendment isn't hurting taxpayers since the cash comes from the tracks. Dufresne said the transportation earmarks were part of an "ongoing commitment with the Highway Department" for those projects. A spokeswoman for Gov. Mitt Romney disputed that.
Senators made their operating budget $17.9 million, a boost of $1.1 million from the $16.8 million figure approved for the Senate in the House budget. The addition gives the Senate more than half the budget of the House - and the Senate has just a quarter of the members.
Dufresne said senators increased their budget because Romney did the same in his office. "This increase is in line with the governor's increase to his operating budget," she said.
Shawn Feddeman, a Romney spokeswoman, said Romney's budget went up over last year because the state now has a lieutenant governor - an office that was unoccupied for nearly two years.
The Senate also continues the House's plan to sock away $2.2 million worth of politically prized State Police patrols in certain districts. Among the earmarks, a trooper is directed to watch over Fort Revere in Hull, "during peak hours of nefarious activity" this summer. The extra cost: $31,000.
Return to
top
State House News Service
Thursday, May 22, 2003
House lawmakers seek to double
campaign contribution limit
By Michael C. Levenson
House lawmakers opened a new battle over campaign finance Thursday, proposing to double the limit on political contributions to $1,000.
Lawmakers argued increasing the contribution limit would help candidates fend off attacks from independently financed interest groups, and make it easier for first-time politicians to raise money and run competitive campaigns.
"For candidates other than the wealthy few who are going to have the money anyway, you can't run for office by raising money at these lower limits," said the bill's chief sponsor, House chairman of the Election Laws Committee William Straus (D-Mattapoisett).
Secretary of State William Galvin, another backer, who began a tentative campaign for governor before bowing out last year, argued the higher limits would help candidates afford the rising cost of advertising.
Mitt Romney, a wealthy venture capitalist who spent millions from his own personal fortune, eventually won the governor's race, beating Democrat Shannon O'Brien, who also spent millions.
"It's impossible to run a credible statewide campaign for less than a million dollars. The price of media has gone up," Galvin said. "I can tell you from my own experience that what $1,000 would have got you in 1994 would only get $100 worth at this point."
Advocates for stricter campaign finance rules denounced the bill, saying it would roll back one of the strictest contribution limits in the US, set in 1994, and make it easier for wealthy donors to influence political races.
"There's obviously an interest for incumbents to raise the contribution limit. It makes their job easier, to protect their reelection," said Pamela Wilmot, executive director of Common Cause Massachusetts. "The incumbents can get those $1,000 checks a lot faster than a challenger can."
The bill would also tighten some campaign finance rules. Activists applauded provisions that seek to halve the contribution limit for lobbyists to $100 and require outside groups that spend more than $1,000 in a campaign cycle to report their expenditures within 24 hours, not 7 days.
The battle comes as the future of the national campaign finance picture hangs in the balance. The US Supreme Court is expected to weigh arguments over the constitutionality of the McCain-Feingold law, which seeks to ban "soft money," the largely unregulated contributions to political parties from unions and corporations.
Straus, the chief sponsor of the state legislation, said his bill is patterned after McCain-Feingold, which in addition to banning "soft money" also doubled the contribution limit for federal candidates, from $1,000 to $2,000. "My motto was really to make a proportionate change, the way the federal system was modified under McCain-Feingold," he said.
But Wilmot said the federal contribution limit was raised under McCain-Feingold only as a concession to its congressional critics, not as a step toward reform.
She said Straus' bill would increase the influence of corporate groups in campaigns. The average Massachusetts family of four only earns $52,253 and could ill afford a $1,000 political donation, she said.
"Higher limits increase the power and prestige of monied interests and leave average citizens with a muffled voice," Wilmot said.
The bill remains before the Election Laws Committee and must be passed by the House and Senate and signed by Gov. Romney to become law.
Return to
top
State House News Service
Thursday, May 22, 2003
Voters concerned about state's direction,
Romney's leadership, new poll says
By Michael P. Norton
More Massachusetts voters believe Massachusetts is on the wrong track and previously undecided voters are giving the state's new leader, Republican Gov. Mitt Romney, unpopular reviews, according to new poll results.
The changing views come as Romney and the Legislature wrestle to tame an unbalanced budget in the face of a sluggish economy that is forcing big cuts in popular state and local services. Government leaders are predicting thousands of layoffs over the summer, including the axing of teachers, police officers and firefighters.
According to a MassInsight Corporation poll of 500 likely voters conducted in late April, 47 percent of voters believe Massachusetts is on the wrong track, up from 33 percent in January, when Gov. Mitt Romney was sworn in.
And while 53 percent of those polled in January felt Massachusetts was heading in the right direction, only 45 percent held that view in the April poll, which was conducted by the Cambridge-based Opinion Dynamics Corp. The poll, which was obtained by the News Service, features a margin of error of plus or minus 4.4 percent.
As voters feel less positive about the state's course, they are also viewing the state's chief executive in a new light.
Asked about Romney as a person, 57 percent of those polled said they view him favorably. That figure has been constant since Romney propelled himself onto the state's political stage in the spring of 2002.
But the poll results highlight a concern for the new governor. When he took office in January, 26 percent of those polled viewed him unfavorably. That figure was up to 35 percent in April. A significant bloc of voters who ventured no opinion of Romney back in January has formed negative views of him since then, the new poll shows.
Asked to rate the job Romney is doing, 50 percent of those polled in April rated his performance as fair or poor, up from just 37 percent in January. Again, voters undecided about Romney in January broke against him. Also, 56 percent said Romney's budget would require major changes, with only 32 percent considering it a "sound budget."
While they may be growing discontented with Romney's choices, voters give him points for clarity. Only 31 percent of those polled said he has not presented a clear vision of his major priorities for state government. Sixty-two percent said Romney has presented a clear agenda.
But voters are concerned about more than just Romney on Beacon Hill. Fifty-eight percent of those polled said they are somewhat or very dissatisfied with the way state government is working, while 40 percent considered themselves very or somewhat satisfied. Only 27 percent of Democratic voters polled said they like the way things are working. The overall ratings of state government performance have held steady since the fiscal crisis began.
And voters are not giving lawmakers high grades either. Seventy-four percent of those polled in April said the Legislature was doing a fair or poor job, with 20 percent opting for the "excellent" or "good" options.
To be fair, voters, when polled, usually don't give the Legislature high grades, although most are happy with their own representatives and senators. And some lawmakers are taking some pride in another poll result: 41 percent of voters said they trust the Legislature to deal with taxes and budget cuts, compared to 40 percent for Romney. There's been a major shift here. In January, 26 percent sided with the Legislature, and 51 percent with Romney.
Voters remain with Romney on his top issue, taxes, but the connection is tenuous. The April poll shows 47 percent of voters somewhat or strongly favor raising the income tax from 5.3 percent to 5.6 percent, the rate it stood at in 2001. That's up from 45 percent in January. And the results are at odds with voter sentiment at the ballot last November, when they only narrowly turned back a binding question that would have abolished the income tax.
On the local level, 61 percent of those polled said they would vote against a property tax hike if one were put before them locally. Thirty-five percent said they would probably vote "yes." Local aid cuts are fueling a surge in local Proposition 2½ override attempts.
And polled voters remained deeply divided over budgetary questions lawmakers are weighing, such as whether to reduce bonuses for police officers who earn college degrees, whether to make state workers pay more for health insurance, laying off state workers, and reducing the amount the state spends to help students pass the MCAS exam.
House Speaker Thomas Finneran's unfavorable rating in April, at 26 percent, was as high as it's been in the past three years. The Boston Democrat's favorable rating, at 42 percent, was about the same as it's been since April 2002. Among Democrats, he breaks even with 37 percent viewing him favorably and an equal amount unfavorably.
Senate President Robert Travaglini remains virtually unknown by most voters. In the April poll, only 21 percent had any opinion of him, with 13 percent viewing the East Boston Democrat favorably and 8 percent unfavorably. In the Boston area, only 4 percent viewed Travaglini unfavorably.
Another Beacon Hill newcomer, Treasurer Timothy Cahill of Quincy, is also barely registering with the public. Cahill is viewed favorably by 24 percent of those polled in April, and unfavorably by 6 percent. The numbers are consistent with the January poll. But more than two thirds of voters said they could not rate the new treasurer.
Attorney General Thomas Reilly, who is beginning his second term after a high-profile stint as Middlesex County District Attorney, also has visibility problems. Forty-six percent of those polled opted not to rate him. Reilly does well among those with an opinion of him - 45 percent view him favorably, and just 9 percent unfavorably.
More than two thirds of those polled said they could not venture an opinion of Secretary of State William Galvin, a former state representative and once prominent Democratic gubernatorial candidate who has kept a low profile in he second term since dropping out of the governor's race.
Sen. John Kerry's popularity has dropped over the winter and spring. Sixty-one percent viewed Kerry favorably in January, compared to 53 percent in April. His unfavorable ratings are at the highest levels in several years, up to 36 percent in April from 24 percent in January.
And whereas the MassInsight poll in January showed Kerry as a Democratic presidential candidate beating Bush in Massachusetts by a 52 to 36 percent margin, the April poll indicated Bush would defeat Kerry in Massachusetts, 49 to 43 percent. The poll also shows Bush beating Kerry among independent voters by a 60 to 33 margin.
Return to
top
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
|