CLT UPDATE
Thursday, March 24, 2011
Unions' assault on democracy exposed
A leader of the group that brought the property
tax-cutting Proposition 2˝ to the ballot three decades ago joined
other citizens groups Wednesday in denouncing a proposal that would
make it more difficult to place future initiatives before
Massachusetts voters.
The proposed constitutional amendment, sponsored
by state Rep. Denise Provost (D-Somerville), would more than double
the number of signatures petitioners would need to collect before a
ballot imitative could move forward....
Chip Faulkner, associate director of
Citizens for Limited Taxation, said the Legislature should not
make it harder for citizens to take matters into their own hands
when lawmakers fail to act on an issue. He told a hearing of the
Election Laws Committee that CLT only barely managed to get enough
signatures in 1980 to get Proposition 2˝ on the ballot.
If the higher threshold had been in place then,
Faulkner said, "We wouldn't have come remotely close to getting the
signatures. You wouldn't have had 2˝ on the ballot, it wouldn't have
passed, and your property taxes would be double or triple what they
are now." ...
Provost told the committee she wasn't attempting
to stifle citizen participation, but believed the current 3 percent
signature threshold was too low when compared to most other states
that allow initiative petitions....
Raising the necessary number of signatures would
help prevent wealthy individuals or well-financed special interest
groups from dictating public policy, Provost said.
Citizens groups from across the political
spectrum joined CLT in criticizing the proposed amendment, including
Common Cause, the Massachusetts Public Interest Research Group and
the Massachusetts Family Institute, which has tried unsuccessfully
to outlaw gay marriage in the state.
Associated Press
Wednesday, March 23, 2011
Bill would hike signatures needed for Mass. ballot
Arguing that the existing process for placing
policy questions on the statewide ballot makes it easy for
wealthy individuals to force their will upon Massachusetts
residents, a state lawmaker urged colleagues Wednesday to more
than double the number of signatures necessary to put a proposal
before Bay State voters....
Based on the results of the 2010
gubernatorial election, Provost's proposal would require backers
of ballot drives to gather 162,397 signatures, up from 68,911
under current constitutional requirements....
The only support for Provost's proposal came
from union officials.
"It has been several cycles since any
question has been put on the ballot without the use of paid
signature gatherers," said Chris Condon, political director of
SEIU Local 509. "They care about how much money they're going to
get for each signature they collect."
Condon noted that last year, voters passed a
proposal to repeal the sales tax on alcohol but rejected a
proposal to slash the state sales tax to 3 percent. The winner
in each case, he said, was the side that overwhelmingly outspent
the other.
"That is the process it has become in
Massachusetts," he said. "Yes or no is determined by who makes
the most money."
Condon was joined in support of the proposal
by officials from the Massachusetts Teachers Association and the
Massachusetts Building Trades Council....
Rep. Cory Atkins (D-Concord), a member of the
committee, said she used to treat initiative petitions as
"sacred" until she saw out-of-state influences attempt to drive
policy in Massachusetts.
"It's really people with resources who buy -
do the media buys that, in the end, define the issue," she said.
"I thought we were protected from that usurpation of power …
This is an area that's really fraught with danger."
State House News Service
Wednesday, March 23, 2011
Rep's ballot access reform plan hit at hearing
Legislation sponsored by Representative
Denise Provost, a Somerville Democrat, and scheduled for a
public hearing yesterday would more than double the number of
certified signatures that citizen activists need to put
initiative petitions on the statewide ballot, according to Citizens for Limited Taxation, which will testify against
the proposal.
In a memo to lawmakers dated yesterday, CLT’s
Chip Faulkner called the bill “just another in a long
list of attempts to kill the initiative petition process in
Massachusetts.” ...
Faulkner attributed efforts to raise the bar
for initiative petitions to “some liberal or union-controlled
legislators” that he said “hate seeing the average citizen put
issues on the ballot without bowing and scraping to an
unresponsive Legislature.”
The Boston Globe
Thursday, March 24, 2011
Tax group blasts referendum bill
|
|
Chip Ford's CLT
Commentary
One news reporter observing yesterday's Election
Laws Committee hearing expressed surprise at the alliance of
eclectic organizations opposing Rep. Denise Provost's obnoxious
bill: CLT, MassPIRG, Common Cause, the Massachusetts Family
Institute – from all sides of the political
spectrum. But this wasn't the first time we've supported each other
when our common interests as citizens are threatened.
Get your grubby hands
off our democracy!
All that's necessary to expose what this latest
assault is really about is recognition of who is supporting the
attempted destruction of the initiative and referendum petition
process: The unions, particularly public employee unions. Allegedly
the intent of this bill is to take
the corrupting influence of big bucks out of the process
– especially out-of-state fortunes which are
polluting our elections, if you would believe its sponsors.
But who ALWAYS spends the most money
during ballot campaigns to defeat tax cuts? THE UNIONS
– by millions of bucks! They'd like to
hang on to that money, instead spend it electing butt-kissing
legislators who'll toe the union line and keep them sassy, fat and
happy at our expense. Fighting ballot campaigns drains their union
coffers of treasure they'd rather spend otherwise; enriching
themselves further at our expense.
The State House News Service reported yesterday:
. . . The only support for Provost's
proposal came from union officials.
"It has been several cycles since any question has been put
on the ballot without the use of paid signature gatherers,"
said Chris Condon, political director of SEIU Local 509.
"They care about how much money they're going to get for
each signature they collect."
Condon noted that last year, voters passed a proposal to
repeal the sales tax on alcohol but rejected a proposal to
slash the state sales tax to 3 percent. The winner in each
case, he said, was the side that overwhelmingly outspent the
other.
"That is the process it has become in Massachusetts," he
said. "Yes or no is determined by who makes the most money."
Condon was joined in support of the proposal by officials
from the Massachusetts Teachers Association and the
Massachusetts Building Trades Council. . . .
Let's take an honest look at this latest Big Lie.
We need to reach back no further than Question 3 on last year's
ballot, the proposal to reduce the state sales tax from its
recently hiked 6.25 percent down to 3 percent.
According to the Secretary of State's Elections
Division, here is the amount raised by the proponents and opponents:
Proponents: Alliance to Roll Back Taxes
$263,838
Opponents: Mass. Coalition for our Communities
$5,673,178
That's an over 21:1 spending advantage for the
tax-and-spend opponents of the measure – and they
didn't have the expense and effort of collecting the signatures.
They spent millions on a campaign to defeat the
question once it got onto the ballot, without breaking a sweat. So
who are those deep-pockets big-spenders who are purportedly
corrupting the system with all that easy money which so desperately
needs to be stopped?
According to
BallotPedia.org, the largest contributors opposing the 2010
sales tax cut ballot question (Question 3) were:
National
Education Association: $1,325,000
Massachusetts Teachers Association:
$1,062,000
Service Employees International Union:
$888,000
American Federation of Teachers - Massachusetts:
$704,000
American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees:
$200,000
Boston Teachers Union: $150,000
Massachusetts Nurses Association:
$104,000
The opponents simply dipped into and spent union
members' mandatory dues on their campaign to defeat the tax cut
question, once it got onto the ballot.
Chris Condon's Service Employees International
Union alone spent $888,000 last year to defeat the sales tax
cut ballot question. His one union alone overwhelmed
the grassroots proponent's entire combined petition signature drive and
ballot campaign fund-raising and spending – by more than three-to-one!
A better solution to this perceived
crisis would be a ban on mandatory union membership dues being spent
in ballot campaigns.
Like
sponsors of ballot campaigns – unions should
have to ask for donations.
That'd easily solve the
alleged big-money corruption problem without trampling on democracy.
 |
|
Chip Ford |
|
|
|
|
Associated Press
Wednesday, March 23, 2011
Bill would hike signatures needed for Mass. ballot
By Bob Salsberg
A leader of the group that brought the property tax-cutting
Proposition 2˝ to the ballot three decades ago joined other citizens
groups Wednesday in denouncing a proposal that would make it more
difficult to place future initiatives before Massachusetts voters.
The proposed constitutional amendment, sponsored by state Rep.
Denise Provost (D-Somerville), would more than double the number of
signatures petitioners would need to collect before a ballot
imitative could move forward.
The current signature threshold must be equal to at least 3 percent
of the number of voters in the most recent gubernatorial election,
which translated to about 66,000 signatures during the last election
cycle. Provost's bill would raise the threshold to 7 percent.
Chip Faulkner, associate director of Citizens for Limited
Taxation, said the Legislature should not make it harder for
citizens to take matters into their own hands when lawmakers fail to
act on an issue. He told a hearing of the Election Laws Committee
that CLT only barely managed to get enough signatures in 1980 to get
Proposition 2˝ on the ballot.
If the higher threshold had been in place then, Faulkner said, "We
wouldn't have come remotely close to getting the signatures. You
wouldn't have had 2˝ on the ballot, it wouldn't have passed, and
your property taxes would be double or triple what they are now."
Proposition 2˝ requires voter approval before a community can raise
its property tax levy by more than 2.5 percent over the previous
year.
Provost told the committee she wasn't attempting to stifle citizen
participation, but believed the current 3 percent signature
threshold was too low when compared to most other states that allow
initiative petitions.
"Massachusetts has the second-lowest threshold of signatures as a
percentage of the population," Provost said. "The only state that
has a lower threshold is California, and everything that I have read
recently about the budget crisis in California has suggested that
one of the reasons for the disfunctionality of the government is the
referendum process there."
Raising the necessary number of signatures would help prevent
wealthy individuals or well-financed special interest groups from
dictating public policy, Provost said.
Citizens groups from across the political spectrum joined CLT in
criticizing the proposed amendment, including Common Cause, the
Massachusetts Public Interest Research Group and the Massachusetts
Family Institute, which has tried unsuccessfully to outlaw gay
marriage in the state.
While acknowledging that the signature threshold was low, critics
said the initiative petition in Massachusetts was more challenging
than in other states because of the relatively short period of time
-- about two months -- that supporters are given to gather
signatures, and stringent rules designed to safeguard against fraud
or tampering.
"We have the most narrow window to collect signatures and the most
Draconian standards for those signatures, where even a thumbprint on
the corner of the page throws those signatures out." said Kris
Mineau, the family institute's president.
Some members of the committee also seemed skeptical while
questioning Provost about her bill. Rep. Marc Lombardo (R-Billerica)
asked Provost if she had faith in voters to make the correct
decisions on ballot questions.
Provost said she did have faith in the electorate, but added that
the questions posed can often be so complex and confusing that even
the informational booklet sent to voters by the Secretary of State's
office before each election fails to adequately explain the issues
involved.
State House News Service
Wednesday, March 23, 2011
Rep's ballot access reform plan hit at hearing
By Kyle Cheney
Arguing that the existing process for placing policy questions on
the statewide ballot makes it easy for wealthy individuals to force
their will upon Massachusetts residents, a state lawmaker urged
colleagues Wednesday to more than double the number of signatures
necessary to put a proposal before Bay State voters.
Rep. Denise Provost (D-Somerville), testifying before the
Legislature's Election Laws Committee, suggested moneyed interests
have long been able to place major policy proposals on the ballot by
hiring paid signature gatherers who can easily clear the existing
signature threshold. The dynamic will be exacerbated, she said, by
the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling eliminating restrictions on
political spending by corporations and unions.
Provost's proposal (H 1830) would amend the Massachusetts
Constitution to require backers of ballot initiatives to collect
signatures totaling 7 percent of the total number of votes cast in
the most recent gubernatorial election, up from the current 3
percent.
"When you have too small a number of people driving public policy,
you come up with strange results," Provost said. "The fact that our
thresholds are so low that a single well-funded individual can
basically purchase signatures … it becomes a commercial enterprise
which is akin to the kind of abuse that we have seen and can expect
to see more of because of the [Supreme Court] decision. What you
don't have is the kind of free, open democratic process that was
contemplated by those who in their wisdom created this process."
Based on the results of the 2010 gubernatorial election, Provost's
proposal would require backers of ballot drives to gather 162,397
signatures, up from 68,911 under current constitutional
requirements. She argued that Massachusetts's threshold is among the
lowest in the nation and said lax rules about initiative petitions
in California have helped fuel some of the state's fiscal woes.
According to statistics compiled by Secretary of State William
Galvin's office, 60 proposed laws have appeared on the state ballot
since 1919 and 28 have passed. Only three proposed constitutional
amendments - which require the approval lawmakers in two consecutive
legislative session - have reached the ballot, and two have passed.
Provost's argument found little support at the hearing and in fact
united a broad array of groups in opposition. Common Cause and
MassPIRG, Citizens for Limited Taxation and the Massachusetts
Family Institute, one by one, argued that the proposal would
undercut democracy, dampen civic participation and aid the wealthy
interests Provost purports she would weaken.
"I don't think we have a serious problem in Massachusetts of
initiative petitions going amok," said Kris Mineau, president of the
Massachusetts Family Institute. "We really are so restrictive that
we don't have enough opportunity for the citizens to speak."
Mineau and other opponents noted that even though the signature
threshold in Massachusetts is low compared to other states, ballot
question proponents must gather them in a two-month window, far
narrower than most other states. In addition, signature gatherers
may not rely on a single county for more than 25 percent of the
total signatures they collect. Opponents also cited court rulings
that permit election officials to toss out signatures sullied by a
coffee stain or thumbprint.
Rep. James Lyons (R-Andover) argued that citizen participation in
government should be "saluted" not impeded.
"Nothing is more debilitating to democracy than narrowing the role
of voters and monopolizing power in the hands of the professional
political class," he said in testimony to the committee. "Please
vote against this self-defeating attempt to restrict the voice of
our voters."
The only support for Provost's proposal came from union officials.
"It has been several cycles since any question has been put on the
ballot without the use of paid signature gatherers," said Chris
Condon, political director of SEIU Local 509. "They care about how
much money they're going to get for each signature they collect."
Condon noted that last year, voters passed a proposal to repeal the
sales tax on alcohol but rejected a proposal to slash the state
sales tax to 3 percent. The winner in each case, he said, was the
side that overwhelmingly outspent the other.
"That is the process it has become in Massachusetts," he said. "Yes
or no is determined by who makes the most money."
Condon was joined in support of the proposal by officials from the
Massachusetts Teachers Association and the Massachusetts Building
Trades Council.
Republicans on the committee largely sided with critics of the bill,
questioning Provost's motivation for filing it and wondered whether
moneyed interests with paid signature gatherers would be able to
surmount any signature threshold while volunteer activists would
find it more difficult to reach the ballot.
Rep. Marc Lombardo (R-Billerica) asked Provost about her
motivations.
"Do you lack faith in the electorate?" he asked.
"I don't think this is so much a question of faith in the
electorate," Provost responded. She said voters are often given too
little information about the policy questions they're asked to vote
on and are forced to rely on advertising campaigns that may distort
facts.
"The senior citizens are practically in tears over these. It is so
confusing, the way the questions are worded is often confusing and
not artful, and they're stripped of context," she said. "There's so
little information that comes with the question about what the
effects will be, about what the resources are that might be altered
by the adoption or rejection of the question that voters often don't
know what to think."
Rep. Cory Atkins (D-Concord), a member of the committee, said she
used to treat initiative petitions as "sacred" until she saw
out-of-state influences attempt to drive policy in Massachusetts.
"It's really people with resources who buy - do the media buys that,
in the end, define the issue," she said. "I thought we were
protected from that usurpation of power … This is an area that's
really fraught with danger."
The Boston Globe
Thursday, March 24, 2011
Tax group blasts referendum bill
[From a State House News Service report]
Legislation sponsored by Representative Denise Provost, a Somerville
Democrat, and scheduled for a public hearing yesterday would more
than double the number of certified signatures that citizen
activists need to put initiative petitions on the statewide ballot,
according to Citizens for Limited Taxation, which will
testify against the proposal.
In a memo to lawmakers dated yesterday, CLT’s Chip Faulkner
called the bill “just another in a long list of attempts to kill the
initiative petition process in Massachusetts.”
Massachusetts voters last year settled three ballot questions,
passing an initiative petition repealing the state’s application of
the 6.25 percent sales tax to retail alcohol purchases and defeating
initiative petitions that would have reduced the sales tax to 3
percent and repealed the Chapter 40B affordable housing law.
In his memo, Faulkner attributed efforts to raise the bar for
initiative petitions to “some liberal or union-controlled
legislators” that he said “hate seeing the average citizen put
issues on the ballot without bowing and scraping to an unresponsive
Legislature.”
If the bill were in effect in 1979, Faulkner said, the petition
drive that led to passage of Proposition 2˝ would have failed, the
question would not have passed, and property taxes in Massachusetts
“would be double or tripe what they are now.”
|
| |
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
Citizens for Limited Taxation ▪
PO Box 1147 ▪ Marblehead, MA 01945
▪ 508-915-3665
|
