CLT
UPDATE
Monday, December 12, 2005
Teachers unions' corrupting power
exposed
Attorney General Thomas F. Reilly yesterday said the
Legislature should roll back the state income tax rate to 5 percent
early next year if the state's revenues and reserves continue to grow.
Reilly, a Democrat who plans to run for governor, said in an interview
he previously opposed the tax cut because the state could not afford the
$600 million it would return to taxpayers each year. Voters approved the
cut in 2000.
But given a steady climb in tax revenues and the longstanding growth of
the state's "rainy day" reserve fund, Reilly said, the Legislature
should cut the tax rate first thing in the new year if the state's
revenue numbers for this month are strong.
"If these numbers hold up, then we should do it," Reilly said....
Currently, the state's "rainy day" fund, an emergency reserve account,
holds $1.7 billion -- or roughly the amount it held prior to the fiscal
crisis. In addition, tax revenues in the fiscal year that ended June 30
came in $1.2 billion higher than anticipated, and revenues are expected
to climb another $509 million in the current fiscal year.
The Boston Globe
Friday, December 9, 2005
Reilly shifts stance, favors cutting tax
Healthy treasury the key, he says
Rather than rolling back the state income tax, lawmakers
should cut the property tax, a "regressive and inefficient" means of funding
local schools and services, said Democratic gubernatorial candidate Deval
Patrick.
"The income tax is the wrong tax at the wrong time," Patrick said yesterday....
Patrick, a former U.S. attorney general who is competing with state Attorney
General Thomas F. Reilly for the Democratic nomination for governor, was
responding to Reilly’s assertion last week that the Legislature should roll back
the income tax to 5 percent early next year if state revenues remain strong.
The Boston Herald
Sunday, December 11, 2005
Patrick rips plan to chop income tax
Just nine months ago, Attorney General Thomas Reilly argued
against rolling the state income tax rate back from 5.3 to 5 percent, saying it
would be "shortchanging the future." Now, with state revenues increasing,
gubernatorial candidate Thomas Reilly is for making the cut "if these numbers
hold up."
But Reilly runs the risk of being labeled a one-eyed politician -- focusing only
on the revenue picture without looking at what state government does, or too
often doesn't do....
The Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation emphasizes that the
current budget is just barely in balance. There is no room for a tax cut....
It is shameful for Reilly to join Governor Romney in supporting a tax cut while
Massachusetts students are still receiving $15 million less in scholarship aid
than they did five years ago.
A Boston Globe editorial
Saturday, December 10, 2005
Not so fast on tax cut
Driven in many cases by Proposition 2½ overrides and steadily
rising home values, property taxes in MetroWest and Milford area communities
will increase by between 2 percent and 10 percent this year.
In the hardest hit communities, such as Sudbury and Weston, voters passed
overrides to pay for the increased cost of basic services and capital projects.
They will pay the piper....
One of the biggest problems with the increased reliance on the property tax is
it favors wealthy communities, said Barbara Anderson, executive director
of the group Citizens for Limited Taxation, the driving force behind
Prop. 2½.
Wealthy towns tend to vote in more overrides and can continue to invest more and
more money into the schools.
Parents pass overrides for their children, Anderson said, "so their kids can
have the equivalent of a private school education without paying for it.
"We’re seeing out there an awful lot of people who have an awful lot of money
who pass these overrides for their kids and don’t seem to care much about people
like senior citizens who are on fixed incomes," Anderson said. "When the day
comes that maybe their credit cards have expanded too far and they’re living on
macaroni and cheese, maybe they’ll stop voting for overrides."
Anderson said she sees the shift coming when baby boomers reach retirement age.
When they leave the work force, they’ll be less likely to want to raise their
taxes, she said.
"As baby boomers approach the retiring age, they’re going to see the world
differently, I’m hoping."
The MetroWest Daily News
Sunday, December 11, 2005
Property tax hikes not too hard to find
The Fitchburg Teachers Association will vote next month on
whether to launch an override or debt exclusion campaign, according to union
president Chad Radock.
Either measure would raise property taxes, in this case to address school
needs....
Radock said an affirmative vote at the Jan. 4 union meeting would begin a
campaign to put the tax hike question on a ballot....
Radock also said he would like the campaign to join up with efforts by the
city's police, fire and public works unions.
The Fitchburg Sentinel & Enterprise
Saturday, December 10, 2005
Teachers union mulls tax hike push
With Governor Mitt Romney's push for education reform
stalled, a review of state records has found that the Massachusetts Teachers
Association has used a little-known avenue in a state campaign finance law to
quietly add legislative allies to fight the initiatives.
A Globe examination of campaign finance records has found that the association
pumped $341,849 into last year's legislative elections. That figure amounts to
more than six times as much as any other group gave last year.
The funding also provides a glimpse into how the state's largest teachers union
has built itself into a powerhouse lobby on Beacon Hill....
Unlike direct donations by political action committees, which are capped at $500
per candidate per year, there is no state limit on such "independent
expenditures," as the funding is called.
The Boston Globe
Sunday, December 11, 2005
Teachers union quietly aiding candidates
Sidesteps limits on campaign handouts
Chip Ford's CLT Commentary
The mortal enemies of taxpayers have never been so
clearly defined.
Tom Reilly apparently got handed a new internal
campaign poll and did a quick about-face. Abruptly he now favors
our 16-year-old-late income tax rollback, five years after the voters
mandated it. Deval Patrick, Reilly's only primary opponent at
this point, probably doesn't have the money to fund his own or is
counting on the radical left-wing Democrat nomination convention --
comprised largely of the teachers unions and other public employees
union delegates -- to put him over the top, so he's standing hard and
fast against the voters.
Naturally Patrick has the coordinated support of The
Boston Globe's ivory-tower elitist editorial staff who duly noted: "The
Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation emphasizes that the current budget is
just barely in balance. There is no room for a tax cut." More
coordination and more cover from MTF -- as usual and expected.
Meanwhile, the teachers union in Fitchburg is
preparing another onslaught on taxpayers, campaigning -- yes,
campaigning! -- for another tax hike that nobody seems to
want, but them. And they hope to enlist the support of other
Fitchburg public employee unions in their assault: the police, fire, and
public works unions.
I hope these other unions have learned bitterly from
history that the only pay raises that matter in this proposed deal with
the devil are the teachers' pay raises; otherwise, they'll be
sold out as always at the first convenience by the insatiable teachers
union.
After all, the teachers unions are buying and selling
elections as the highest bidder -- and nothing in the state can touch
them.
The fortunate dichotomy/schizophrenia between The
Boston Globe's editorial elitists and its factual investigating and news
reporting is stark. According to its news-side analysis, just the
state's premier teachers union alone "pumped $341,849 into last year's
legislative elections.... more than six times as much as any other group
gave last year.... Apart from a handful of private citizens, no one
other than the Massachusetts Teachers Association made independent
expenditures in 2004."
"In addition to its independent expenditures, the
Massachusetts Teachers Association's political action committee gave
$15,125 to candidates in 2004.... Two other teachers unions, the
Massachusetts Federation of Teachers and the Boston Teachers Union,
contributed only through their political action committees, giving
$29,800 and $21,300, respectively."
"In one race for an open State Senate seat, for
example, the union spent $47,008 to boost the candidacy of Edward M.
Augustus Jr., a Democrat . . ."
You should recall Senator Augustus: he's the
guy who spent this year
attempting to
drive a stake through the initiative and referendum process.
You recall that constitutional provision, the one that allows us mere
citizens to cut taxes from time to time -- or used to allow it?
Gee whiz, now I wonder why he's determined to do that
to us citizens?
"They saw somebody who would be advocating for the
interests of kids, their members, and education in general," Sen.
Augustus told the Globe reporter.
Ah, "For The Children!" Of course.
For the children, amen.
"Independent expenditures have to be reported but
they do not appear on the candidates' campaign finance forms. And the
union was free to use members' dues to pay for them," The Boston Globe
reported.
"Under state law, campaign spending qualifies as
'independent' as long as it is not coordinated with the candidate."
Oh well then, a "level playing field" indeed exists,
which still gives us average taxpayers a chance to remain competitive, they would have you believe.
That is, so long as CLT can compete with an additional
$341,849 of spending during each election cycle. But that alone is about twice
the total amount of CLT's annual
voluntary contributions. CLT can't simply "assess" dues
by force on those for whom we lobby,
average taxpayers -- like the teachers union does on its members.
So how can we taxpayers possibly compete?
During the 2000 ballot question campaign to roll back
the income tax to 5 percent, the teachers unions alone kicked in what
the Boston Herald called "a staggering $800,000" to defeat it.
(See: "Teachers
unions have paid $800G to defeat Question 4," Nov. 3, 2000)
When the state teachers union can't extract enough from its own members,
it just taps into its national parent union for however much more it
needs. On Oct. 25, 2000, the State House News Service
reported "The Massachusetts Teachers Association gave $425,000, of
which $350,000 came from its parent union, the National Education
Association."
Never mind a level playing field or anything
even close. It's an open playing field for the
bottomless-pockets of just the teachers unions.
The next time some teacher cries poor-mouth, claims
to be underpaid, ask how much the unions -- national, state and
local -- extract from their healthy pay check before they even see it to
cash.
Then you'll understand why More Is Never Enough
(MINE) and never will be. Ahead of even their own families, they
must support the rapacious and power-lusting teachers unions.
|
 |
|
Chip Ford |
The Boston Globe
Friday, December 9, 2005
Reilly shifts stance, favors cutting tax
Healthy treasury the key, he says
By Raphael Lewis, Globe Staff
Attorney General Thomas F. Reilly yesterday said the Legislature should
roll back the state income tax rate to 5 percent early next year if the
state's revenues and reserves continue to grow.
Reilly, a Democrat who plans to run for governor, said in an interview
he previously opposed the tax cut because the state could not afford the
$600 million it would return to taxpayers each year. Voters approved the
cut in 2000.
But given a steady climb in tax revenues and the longstanding growth of
the state's "rainy day" reserve fund, Reilly said, the Legislature
should cut the tax rate first thing in the new year if the state's
revenue numbers for this month are strong.
"If these numbers hold up, then we should do it," Reilly said.
In March, Reilly said the income tax rollback championed by Governor
Mitt Romney was tantamount to "short-changing the future," and added,
"We have difficult financial challenges ahead of us over the foreseeable
future, over the next few years, and right now we cannot afford to be
rolling back taxes."
Eric Fehrnstrom, Romney's communications director, welcomed Reilly's
newfound support.
"I haven't seen a conversion like that since Bob Dylan became a
born-again Christian," Fehrnstrom said. "We hope he puts as much energy
into lobbying for a tax cut as he did in lobbying for tuition breaks for
illegal aliens."
In the 2000 election, voters backed a ballot question to drop the
personal income tax rate to 5 percent. But amid a fiscal crisis, the
Legislature later passed a law that froze the income tax at 5.3 percent,
and even took away the charitable deduction.
This fall, House Speaker Salvatore F. DiMasi and Senate President Robert
E. Travaglini have continued to dismiss calls to drop the tax rate,
saying the state's fiscal health is still in question.
Deval Patrick, a former assistant US attorney general who is competing
with Reilly for the Democratic nomination for governor, yesterday said
he agrees with delaying a tax cut.
"I support a rollback in the income tax when we can afford it, but I'm
not persuaded that we can afford it right now," Patrick said in an
interview. "I have spent a lot of time with city and town leaders who
are having to make decisions about how to balance increases in
healthcare costs for public workers, for example, and maintaining
staffing for police and fire and public schools."
Both Romney and Lieutenant Governor Kerry Healey -- who will run for
governor if Romney decides against seeking reelection -- have advocated
an immediate rollback of the income tax rate since their 2002 campaign.
Currently, the state's "rainy day" fund, an emergency reserve account,
holds $1.7 billion -- or roughly the amount it held prior to the fiscal
crisis. In addition, tax revenues in the fiscal year that ended June 30
came in $1.2 billion higher than anticipated, and revenues are expected
to climb another $509 million in the current fiscal year.
Reilly said such numbers, should they remain intact by Dec. 31, would
present a strong argument for the tax cut.
"We're getting to that point of having sufficient reserves," Reilly
said.
Reilly declined to discuss specifics, such as whether he would urge an
immediate rollback or a gradual reduction.
"I think the approach has to be fact-driven," Reilly said. "You take a
look and make that decision based on the circumstances. The first thing
you do is find out what the facts are, what are those revenues at the
end of the year."
Return to top
The Boston Herald
Sunday, December 11, 2005
Patrick rips plan to chop income tax
By Marie Szaniszlo
Rather than rolling back the state income tax, lawmakers should cut the
property tax, a "regressive and inefficient" means of funding local
schools and services, said Democratic gubernatorial candidate Deval
Patrick.
"The income tax is the wrong tax at the wrong time," Patrick said
yesterday. "We all agree that we should have certain statewide education
standards. Yet the state provides less and less in aid. Until we’re in a
position for the state to provide the aid cities and towns need, then I
don’t think we can afford to roll back the income tax."
Patrick, a former U.S. attorney general who is competing with state
Attorney General Thomas F. Reilly for the Democratic nomination for
governor, was responding to Reilly’s assertion last week that the
Legislature should roll back the income tax to 5 percent early next year
if state revenues remain strong.
Reilly initially opposed the cut, saying the state could not afford the
$600 million it would have to return annually to taxpayers.
But at a news conference Friday, Reilly noted that tax revenues and the
state’s reserve fund had both increased steadily.
Voters approved the income-tax rollback in 2000. But lawmakers later
froze the tax at 5.3.
Gov. Mitt Romney and Lt. Gov. Kerry Healey, who will seek the Republican
nomination if Romney decides not to run for a second term, both have
called for a rollback since they ran in 2002.
Return to top
The Boston Globe
Saturday, December 10, 2005
A Boston Globe editorial
Not so fast on tax cut
Just nine months ago, Attorney General Thomas Reilly argued against
rolling the state income tax rate back from 5.3 to 5 percent, saying it
would be "shortchanging the future." Now, with state revenues
increasing, gubernatorial candidate Thomas Reilly is for making the cut
"if these numbers hold up."
But Reilly runs the risk of being labeled a one-eyed politician --
focusing only on the revenue picture without looking at what state
government does, or too often doesn't do.
When voters approved the tax cut in 2000, they were told by
then-Governor Paul Cellucci and others that it would require no cuts in
services. Instead, a slumping economy combined with the tax cut to strip
the efforts of university professors and park rangers and detox workers
and thousands of others trying to deliver the services voters should be
able to expect. The Legislature wisely froze the income tax rate
reduction at 5.3 percent.
Even now there is no budget surplus. Growing revenues, while most
welcome, are not spilling out of state coffers. The Massachusetts
Taxpayers Foundation emphasizes that the current budget is just barely
in balance. There is no room for a tax cut. Reilly said he was impressed
that the state's rainy-day fund has been restored to the $1.7 billion
that was its peak prior to the slump. But that amount was not nearly
enough to save the state from harsh cuts, many of which are still in
place.
It will be time to start debating the further reduction to 5 percent
when:
Public colleges and universities have the additional $279 million to
$346 million that would allow them to operate at 2000 levels.
Environmental agencies have $67 million in cuts restored so that they
can plow the roads effectively, keep parks open, and clean graffiti off
of public structures. The Department of Environmental Protection lost
more than a quarter of its staff in the last three years.
Detox centers are operating some of the 405 beds that have been shut
down since 2000 -- a cut of more than 40 percent.
Smoking cessation programs, which were cut by more than 90 percent,
receive the $46 million that would restore them.
Cities and towns receive the $698 million for education and other local
aid that would, according to the Taxpayers Foundation, allow them to
operate at 2000 levels.
Housing programs are restored by putting back the $50 million cut from
the Department of Housing and Community Development.
Similar examples abound. It is shameful for Reilly to join Governor
Romney in supporting a tax cut while Massachusetts students are still
receiving $15 million less in scholarship aid than they did five years
ago.
Return to top
The MetroWest Daily News
Sunday, December 11, 2005
Property tax hikes not too hard to find
By Tyler B. Reed, News Staff
Driven in many cases by Proposition 2½ overrides and steadily rising
home values, property taxes in MetroWest and Milford area communities
will increase by between 2 percent and 10 percent this year.
In the hardest hit communities, such as Sudbury and Weston, voters
passed overrides to pay for the increased cost of basic services and
capital projects. They will pay the piper.
Sudbury residents’ taxes -- pending state Department of Revenue approval
-- will go up by $857 to $8,957 for the average single-family homeowner.
Next year, the average homeowner in Weston will pay a whopping $12,865
to the town.
But as tax bills grow, local officials and state watchdogs say towns are
doing a lot with a little.
Geoffrey Beckwith, the executive director of the Massachusetts Municipal
Association, said with the state holding back on restoring the amount of
money it doles out to cities and towns each year, communities are forced
to rely on the property tax to pay for schools, police and the
skyrocketing costs of employee health insurance and utilities.
"The over-arching trend that serves as a backdrop for everything that’s
happening locally is a dramatic increase in the reliance on the property
tax for local service," Beckwith said. "I think that local officials are
doing a really terrific job in really difficult circumstances."
Officials in some towns said this year could have been a lot worse. In
Milford, taxes went up by $150, and in Northborough by $110.
In Southborough, where property taxes are among the highest in the
region, bills rose by $216. Principal Assessor Paul Cibelli said state
reimbursements for recent school building projects helped ease the
increase.
"The last few years, we’ve been hit with the new construction of
schools," Cibelli said. "Now we’re starting to see a little bit of
reimbursement from the state."
The same is true in Holliston. Residents passed a $1.85 million override
in June, but the state this year began to pay the town back for recent
school renovations. Bills there are going up by $250 to $5,550.
Through the state’s Proposition 2½ law, towns are allowed to increase
the amount of money they raise each year by 2.5 percent. Anything higher
than that requires an override, and voter approval.
Because of the rising costs of health care and utilities, and the need
to replace vehicles and repair schools, towns often need more than a 2.5
percent increase to avoid cuts.
"Really, we’re reaching sort of a critical maximum point on the property
tax," Beckwith said.
Local aid "must increase, and if it doesn’t, what will happen is the
Massachusetts economy will suffer," he said. "If communities are forced
to cut local services and increase the property taxes every year, people
will pull up their stakes and go."
Massachusetts was the only town in the country to lose population last
year.
One of the biggest problems with the increased reliance on the property
tax is it favors wealthy communities, said Barbara Anderson,
executive director of the group Citizens for Limited Taxation,
the driving force behind Prop. 2½.
Wealthy towns tend to vote in more overrides and can continue to invest
more and more money into the schools.
Parents pass overrides for their children, Anderson said, "so their kids
can have the equivalent of a private school education without paying for
it.
"We’re seeing out there an awful lot of people who have an awful lot of
money who pass these overrides for their kids and don’t seem to care
much about people like senior citizens who are on fixed incomes,"
Anderson said. "When the day comes that maybe their credit cards have
expanded too far and they’re living on macaroni and cheese, maybe
they’ll stop voting for overrides."
Anderson said she sees the shift coming when baby boomers reach
retirement age. When they leave the work force, they’ll be less likely
to want to raise their taxes, she said.
"As baby boomers approach the retiring age, they’re going to see the
world differently, I’m hoping."
Return to top
The Sentinel & Enterprise
Saturday, December 10, 2005
Teachers union mulls tax hike push
By Kyle Alspach
The Fitchburg Teachers Association will vote next month on whether to
launch an override or debt exclusion campaign, according to union
president Chad Radock.
Either measure would raise property taxes, in this case to address
school needs.
The School Department took a $375,000 budget cut this year. School
officials have lamented over staff cutbacks and the disrepair of some
school buildings.
Radock said an affirmative vote at the Jan. 4 union meeting would begin
a campaign to put the tax hike question on a ballot.
"The (union) will be asking the School Committee, the mayor and the City
Council to propose a 2½ override, or a debt exclusion," Radock said. "We
left it open to both."
An override permanently raises taxes, while a debt exclusion allows the
city to take out a loan, and pay off the debt through taxes.
Either measure must go to a ballot vote and receive voter approval. The
city has never passed an override.
The Fitchburg Teachers Association has 597 members, including 466
teachers and 131 paraprofessionals.
Radock said representatives from the teachers' union met last Wednesday
and crafted a resolution which spells out the tax hike proposal.
"The reps have to go back to their buildings and find out what the
teachers' reaction will be," he said.
The reaction of Mayor Dan H. Mylott was the same as earlier this week,
when he learned that Police Chief Edward Cronin and the police union
were calling for an override or debt exclusion to pay for more officers.
"I still say they're channeling their energy in the wrong place," Mylott
said.
Mylott has repeatedly said the state Legislature owes cities and towns
more local aid, and had to make $1.1 million in budget cuts recently
when his expectation of more state money fell through.
The mayor said Friday that he didn't understand why the teachers union
would ask elected officials, such as himself, to put a tax hike on the
ballot.
Mylott said any group of residents can gather signatures to get a
proposal put on a ballot.
"It's their override, they should be willing to do the work necessary,"
Mylott said. "I don't see why they would expect anyone else to do it for
them."
Mylott said it didn't know how many signatures would be required, but
noted that the cost to the city of a special election would range from
about $7,000 to $8,000.
Radock said the union would gather signatures if city elected officials
decline to get involved, but he was hopeful they would join the effort.
The 11-member City Council will get five new members starting in
January.
But incoming Ward 4 City Councilor Ted DeSalvatore said he did not
believe he would favor a tax increase for his constituents.
"I think I would be asking for trouble if I asked for a 2½ override
right after I get in," DeSalvatore said. "People are already hurting
enough from fuel, gas and other costs. I don't know if I want to be on
the side of taxing them even more."
Incoming at large councilor Tom Conry echoed DeSalvatore's sentiments.
"I'm not warm to a 2½ override," Conry said. "I don't think people want
their taxes increased."
Radock said the union does not plan to ask for a specific dollar amount,
but would most likely use a figure provided by Superintendent Andre
Ravenelle.
Ravenelle has said he is gathering information on the schools' needs --
for maintenance, supplies and technology -- for a possible future
fundraising campaign.
A $1 million override would add $83 to the average property tax bill of
a single family homeowner.
Radock said that if the teachers favor the union's idea, efforts will
begin in earnest.
"We would mobilize the teachers and help them promote the idea of a debt
exclusion or an override -- holding signs, rallies, getting signatures
if necessary," he said. "The proposal also instructs me to send a copy
of the resolution with a cover letter to politicians and the press."
Radock also said he would like the campaign to join up with efforts by
the city's police, fire and public works unions.
Return to top
The Boston Globe
Sunday, December 11, 2005
Teachers union quietly aiding candidates
Sidesteps limits on campaign handouts
By Scott S. Greenberger, Globe Staff
With Governor Mitt Romney's push for education reform stalled, a review
of state records has found that the Massachusetts Teachers Association
has used a little-known avenue in a state campaign finance law to
quietly add legislative allies to fight the initiatives.
A Globe examination of campaign finance records has found that the
association pumped $341,849 into last year's legislative elections. That
figure amounts to more than six times as much as any other group gave
last year.
The funding also provides a glimpse into how the state's largest
teachers union has built itself into a powerhouse lobby on Beacon Hill.
Rather than donate directly to candidates, the teachers' association
spent its money on mass mailings and on telephone calls, on behalf of 20
Democrats who ran in the legislative elections last year. Unlike direct
donations by political action committees, which are capped at $500 per
candidate per year, there is no state limit on such "independent
expenditures," as the funding is called.
Independent expenditures have to be reported but they do not appear on
the candidates' campaign finance forms. And the union was free to use
members' dues to pay for them.
Apart from a handful of private citizens, no one other than the
Massachusetts Teachers Association made independent expenditures in
2004. Business groups, organized labor's usual adversaries, cannot
counter with independent expenditures because state law bars them from
doing so.
In one race for an open State Senate seat, for example, the union spent
$47,008 to boost the candidacy of Edward M. Augustus Jr., a Democrat who
was running against Robi Blute, a Republican and a charter-school
supporter.
The union sent pamphlets featuring photos of smiling teachers across the
district, saying Augustus "supports the everyday miracle of public
education."
Blute, who spent only $25,746 more than the amount that the teachers had
chipped in on behalf of Augustus, voiced surprise at the level of funds
the union had put into the race.
"I always said during the campaign that he was in the tank for the
unions, and that proves it," Blute said last week.
Critics said that the money the union has put into the system helps to
explain the teachers' prodigious power on Beacon Hill.
With the solid support of many Democratic lawmakers, the teachers unions
and allies are hoping to fend off Romney's proposals to institute merit
pay for teachers, and to give administrators more power to hire and fire
them. The governor's bill is pending in the Legislature's Education
Committee.
Catherine A. Boudreau, president of the Massachusetts Teachers
Association, defended her union's use of independent expenditures as
legal, transparent, and a way "to speak directly to a larger audience of
voters about public education."
Under state law, campaign spending qualifies as "independent" as long as
it is not coordinated with the candidate. Boudreau said the union had
met that standard.
"We are transparent, we report everything we do, and there is no
coordination, no discussion, nothing with the candidate," Boudreau said.
"We try to have a firewall between us and the candidate."
Boudreau said the union does not have to deal with candidates directly,
because the policy positions and photographs that are included in the
ads are available on the Internet.
She also noted that the union employs a democratic, district-based
process in deciding which candidates to endorse. Boudreau acknowledged,
however, that union leaders determine which candidates will get
financial help, and how much they will get.
In some districts, teachers can direct that their union dues not be used
for political purposes.
Romney declined to comment on the independent expenditures by the
Massachusetts Teachers Association, but the leader of a group that is
pushing a similar package of school changes, William H. Guenther of Mass
Insight Education, said union power "does present a problem."
"I don't think in every case that campaign contributions dictate votes
on policy, but they do get you a hearing," Guenther said. "Clearly we
don't have the same budgets and weight that the teachers unions have."
In addition to its independent expenditures, the Massachusetts Teachers
Association's political action committee gave $15,125 to candidates in
2004.
Two other teachers unions, the Massachusetts Federation of Teachers and
the Boston Teachers Union, contributed only through their political
action committees, giving $29,800 and $21,300, respectively.
Other groups, notably those favoring gay marriage, spent on so-called
"issue ads" in the past campaign. But unlike ads that are paid with
independent expenditures, issue ads cannot expressly advocate the
election or the defeat of any candidate.
Spending on them does not have to be publicly disclosed.
In addition to the help for Augustus, the Massachusetts Teachers
Association spent $40,405 on direct mail and phone banking to help
Senator Pamela P. Resor, an Acton Democrat on the Legislature's
Education Committee.
The union spent $7,484 to assist Representative Kathleen M. Teahan, a
former teacher from Whitman who spent only $55,927 herself. Senator
Therese Murray of Plymouth, chairwoman of the Senate Ways and Means
Committee, received assistance totaling $25,279. More than a dozen other
legislators also got help.
The union's help will not "change my behavior in any way."
"I think it represents their knowledge, and their watching my behavior
in the past and knowing that I will continue to support public
education," she said.
Augustus, a former Worcester School Committee member and a Department of
Education official during the Clinton administration, said that he was
aware of the mailings but that he was also surprised by how much the
teachers union had reportedly spent.
He offered a similar response: "They saw somebody who would be
advocating for the interests of kids, their members, and education in
general," he said.
Pamela H. Wilmot, head of Common Cause Massachusetts, said she knew the
teachers were using independent expenditures to influence elections but
described the $341,849 figure as "shocking." Wilmot said a US Supreme
Court ruling in the 1980s opened the door to unlimited independent
expenditures by equating them with free speech.
But she said more recent court cases have begun to chip away at that
rationale.
Wilmot also said that Massachusetts should follow the federal
government, as well as the actions of some other states, in curbing it.
"It's a major problem in the campaign finance arena," Wilmot said. "We
need to catch up with new laws and enact some serious regulations here."
Matt Wylie, the current executive director of the state Republican
Party, said it would be ridiculous to think that the union's independent
expenditures do not buy influence on Beacon Hill.
"It's not supposed to be coordinated, but a candidate who receives all
this extra help, you know where their loyalties are going to be," Wylie
said.
"They are spending money that is essentially untraceable to help
candidates," he added.
"It's no wonder," Wylie said, "the Democrats up there don't want to work
with us."
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
|