 |
and the
Citizens Economic Research Foundation
Post Office Box 1147 ●
Marblehead, Massachusetts 01945 ●
(781) 990-1251
“Every Tax is a Pay Cut ... A Tax Cut is a Pay Raise”
44 years as “The Voice of Massachusetts Taxpayers”
— and
their Institutional Memory — |
|
CLT UPDATE
Monday, September 10, 2018
Maybe 5%
before more of us are gone?
|
For the first time in three years, Massachusetts taxpayers
may be in line for another slight income tax cut in January
2019 after tax revenue growth in fiscal 2018 exceeded the
threshold needed to meet the first trigger for a reduction.
Department of Revenue Commissioner Christopher Harding wrote
to Baker administration budget chief Mike Heffernan on
Thursday informing him that baseline tax revenue growth in
fiscal 2018, adjusted for inflation, grew by 5.485 percent,
well in excess of the 2.5 percent growth needed to meet the
first of five triggers that must be met to reduce the rate
from 5.1 percent to 5.05 percent in 2019.
Tax revenues of $25.9 billion in fiscal 2018 were up more
than $2.1 billion from the prior year, according to a copy
of the letter obtained by the News Service. For the income
tax cut to go into effect, tax revenues must exceed the
prior year's collection for the next four consecutive,
three-month periods from Sept. 15 through Dec. 15.
Gov. Charlie Baker and legislative leaders anticipated
the income tax in January when they built the state's fiscal
2019 budget, assuming a reduction of $83 million in income
tax revenue from the cut, which would be the second-to-last
before the income tax reaches its destination of 5 percent.
Voters in 2000 approved a ballot question to roll back
the state’s income tax from 5.75 percent, but two years
later legislators froze the income tax at 5.3 percent and
imposed triggers to continue incremental reductions until it
reaches 5 percent. Tax revenues in fiscal 2016 and fiscal
2017 were insufficient to trigger a cut.
State House News Service
Friday, August 31, 2018
First trigger met for 2019 income tax cut
By Matt Murphy
While lawmakers still haven't decided how to
allocate the fiscal 2018 surplus, Massachusetts taxpayers
continue to deliver revenue to Beacon Hill at levels higher
than state government leaders forecast.
The Department of Revenue released August
data on Thursday showing that tax collections over the first
two months of fiscal 2019 are running $233 million, or 6.6
percent over the same period in fiscal 2018.
The $3.74 billion in tax collections during
July and August are also running $53 million ahead of the
benchmarks that Gov. Charlie Baker and the Legislature used
to assemble the fiscal 2019 budget.
August tax collections of $1.843 billion
were $131 million, or 7.6 percent, above August 2017
collections, and $46 million above benchmark.
In all, tax collections for fiscal 2018
exceeded original expectations by about $1.1 billion. Most
of the unexpected revenue was used to cover unbudgeted
expenses or deposited into the rainy day fund, but a
substantial surplus of $150 million to $200 million remains
unallocated.
State House News Service
Friday, September 7, 2018
Tax $$$ flow continues to outpace estimates
By Michael P. Norton
Democratic legislative leaders, who this
year were the last in the nation to deliver an annual budget
bill, have given no indication that they are taking
seriously Comptroller Thomas Shack's warnings that they're
ignoring fiscal best practices by failing for so long to tie
up loose ends on a fiscal year that ended more than two
months ago. Instead, judging by the level of activity on
Beacon Hill since late July, lawmakers who voted themselves
large pay raises at the outset of the current two-year
session appear focused on their own re-election efforts, if
they have challengers, or outside pursuits including side
jobs.
State House News Service
Friday, September 7, 2018
Advances - Week of Sept 9, 2018
The future of our communities and the state
relies on the quality of our public education. Which is why
it’s so troubling that the Massachusetts Legislature failed
to produce long-needed reform in how it funds our
communities’ public schools.
A state legislative session that began two
years ago with parliamentary hocus-pocus to ram through
hefty pay and fee increases for elected officials, all
hatched in secret and executed in a flash, ended in
midsummer this year with the ignominious collapse of
negotiations between the state House and Senate over
much-needed reforms in funding public education. More money
for our Statehouse solons, no money when it’s clearly needed
for our kids. Not a good look....
Facing a need to make hard budgeting
decisions of where to add and where to trim, even taking
years if necessary to attain its goals, it appears the
Legislature was counting too heavily on what appeared to be
the easy way out: the “Millionaires Tax” ballot question
this fall.... It would have raised an estimated $2 billion
more in tax revenues, slotted for education and
transportation. That is, until large numbers moved over the
state line into the welcoming arms of New Hampshire or
suffered the kind of setbacks in earnings that we see from
time to time.
We were spared when the State Supreme
Judicial Court ruled just in June that the referendum was
unconstitutional and should never have been approved for the
ballot to begin with. And the Legislature, prematurely
counting its revenue chickens before they were hatched, was
forced into a short drill in hard budgeting decisions that
it had two years to make....
It’s imperative that this issue be resolved
in the new session starting in January, not by pinning hopes
on another misbegotten referendum question that would let
the Legislature off the hook, but in setting priorities and
making the kind of difficult budgeting decisions that go on
in nearly every household. The future of our children, of
Massachusetts and our communities is at stake. We can’t
afford another failure like this one.
A Telegram & Gazette editorial
Sunday, September 2, 2018
Funding for public education in Massachusetts must be
reformed
The shocking upsets of two prominent House
Democrats Tuesday night is being called a strong rebuke of
House Speaker Robert DeLeo's leadership, but the veteran
House leader dismissed that narrative Wednesday as one that
overlooks the success of House Democrats across the state.
DeLeo appeared at a Democratic Party event
Wednesday morning where he did not mention Sanchez or
Rushing in his remarks, but defended the House's record of
the past two years. "We have taken the lead," DeLeo said.
While critics say too many urgent
progressive policies are dying in the House, the speaker
mentioned the House's role in helping to pass laws promoting
gun safety, fighting substance abuse, raising the minimum
wage, defending reproductive rights and reforming the
criminal justice system. He also urged Democrats to defeat a
ballot question that would roll back protections for
transgender people in public facilities.
The defeat of his Ways and Means Chairman
Jeff Sanchez and Majority Whip Byron Rushing in two Boston
House districts, however, produced audible gasps on Tuesday
night at the headquarters of Democratic gubernatorial
nominee Jay Gonzalez when U.S. Rep. Michael Capuano, in a
concession speech of his own on live television, confirmed
the upsets.
State House News Service
Wednesday, September 5, 2018
DeLeo: "Good night" for House Dems despite Sanchez, Rushing
losses
Popular incumbent Gov. Charlie Baker will
face former state budget chief and health insurance
executive Jay Gonzalez in a general election matchup pitting
two candidates against each other with competing visions for
how the state should pay for education, housing and
transportation now and into the future.
Baker, who cruised to a primary victory
Tuesday over conservative Springfield pastor Scott Lively,
highlighted his opposition to higher taxes in a victory
speech at a restaurant in Dorchester, also touting 180,000
new jobs since he took office and a record low high school
dropout rate.
Gonzalez, meanwhile, launched his general
election campaign promising to deliver affordable child care
and pre-school in his first term, to "fully fund" public
education and to move Massachusetts to a single-payer health
care system.
"I get it. It is a relief to have a governor
who seems nice and isn't a crazy right wing extremist. With
Donald Trump setting the bar so low, nice and not crazy
seems pretty good. But it's not good enough. Not for us,"
Gonzalez said.
State House News Service
Wednesday, September 5, 2018
Gonzalez prevails, promises "clear choice" in race against
Gov. Baker
What's the difference between a Democrat and
Republican Gov. Charlie Baker?
Nothing, according to Mary Lou Daxland,
president of the Massachusetts Republican Assembly — a group
that calls itself the "Republican wing of the Republican
Party."
As expected, though, incumbent Baker won the
GOP's gubernatorial primary Tuesday. But what some may not
have expected was that his far-right opponent Scott Lively
would nab 36 percent of the vote.
"Charlie Baker has been running under the
Democrat[ic] platform for the last few years more than the
Republican platform," Daxland said....
Vote Totals:
Charlie Baker: 173,776 / 63.9%
Scott Lively: 98,214 /
36.1%
WBUR 90.9 FM News
Thursday, September 6, 2018
Scott Lively's 'Surprising' Vote Totals Signal
Some Mass. GOPers Will Align With The Far-Right To Ditch
Baker
As he runs at the top of the Republican
party ticket in Massachusetts, Gov. Charlie Baker is
supporting the rest of the GOP's statewide slate, he said
Friday.
"I've endorsed the ticket, which I said I
was going to do months ago, yeah," Baker told reporters when
asked if he backed the party's Senate nominee, state Rep.
Geoff Diehl.
Baker defeated conservative Springfield
pastor Scott Lively in Tuesday's primary, in which Diehl and
attorney general hopeful Jay McMahon also beat their
opponents. Lt. Gov. Karyn Polito, treasurer candidate Rep.
Keiko Orrall, secretary of state candidate Anthony Amore and
auditor candidate Helen Brady each ran unopposed.
While Baker has touted his bipartisan
credentials, including endorsements by Democratic lawmakers
and mayors, and did not vote in the 2016 presidential
election, McMahon and Diehl have more closely tied
themselves to President Donald Trump.
State House News Service
Friday, September 7, 2018
Baker backing full GOP slate, but says he's focused on his
race
The state's high court on Thursday upheld a
ban on corporate donations to political candidates, a
decision one plaintiff said he hopes to appeal to the United
States Supreme Court.
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, in
an opinion written by Chief Justice Ralph Gants, sided
against plaintiffs 126 Self Storage Inc. and 1A Auto Inc.
The court said the ban does not violate free speech rights
and can help prevent actual and perceived corruption.
Allowing corporate contributions would
create "a serious threat of quid pro quo corruption," Gants
wrote.
"In just the last decade, several
Massachusetts politicians have been convicted of crimes
stemming from bribery schemes intended to benefit
corporations," Gants wrote, going on to say that it would be
"unrealistic for a court to require the Legislature to wait
for evidence of widespread quid pro quo corruption resulting
from corporate contributions before taking steps to prevent
such corruption." ...
Massachusetts law prohibits corporations
from contributing directly to candidates or establishing
political action committees but allows them to make
unlimited independent expenditures, with certain disclosure
requirements, that are used to advocate for or against
candidates but do not go directly to their campaigns. The
plaintiffs argued the ban violates their First Amendment
rights and unfairly applies to corporations but not other
entities like unions and nonprofits....
Unions and non-profits that are not
corporate-funded can give up to $15,000 to a single
candidate in a year, which is 15 times the limit on an
individual contribution.
The Supreme Judicial Court found there was
no record of evidence showing lawmakers, in establishing the
ban, acted with the "impermissible intent" of silencing the
political speech of corporations "while favoring the
political viewpoints of those entities that fall outside its
scope."
Gants wrote that if lawmakers had intended
to "accomplish viewpoint discrimination against businesses,
one would certainly have expected it to include trade
associations within its prohibitions," instead of leaving
them excluded along with nonprofit corporations....
[Justice Scott] Kafker's opinion said the
majority did not adequately address the issue of the law
failing to prohibit contributions by other entities. He said
it's difficult to determine if the ban's "differential
treatment of business corporations rests on grounds
considered legitimate, illegitimate or both."
"The ultimate issue, however, is not simply
whether contributions by business corporations may be
limited due to concerns about quid pro quo corruption or the
appearance of such corruption, but whether a statutory
scheme that bans such contributions while simultaneously
permitting contributions by other organizations, including
well-endowed nonprofit corporations and unions, is closely
drawn to the State's interest in preventing corruption and
its appearance," Kafker wrote, noting that there are
examples of nonprofits and unions violating campaign finance
law as well as corporations.
State House News Service
Thursday, September 6, 2018
Plaintiffs may take SJC campaign finance ruling to Supreme
Court
|
|
Chip Ford's CLT
Commentary
Next year will mark thirty years since
the Massachusetts income tax was "temporarily" increased
from its historic 5 to 5.95 percent, only "for 18
months," don'cha know. It was "temporary" only in
that the following year it was again "temporarily"
hiked, to 6.25 percent. [see "The Promise"
here and
here.]
Twice CLT did petition drives to
put the promised rollback on the ballot. The first
attempt, in 1997, saw every signature we turned in
challenged by the Massachusetts Teachers Association.
After
an arduous months-long challenge and defense of every
signature then a long court process the teachers
union, spending $2 million on its effort to defeat us,
managed to get the question knocked off the 1998 ballot
for being
26 certified signatures short of the 64,928 required.
With the support of then-Gov. Paul
Cellucci, CLT came roaring back and
did it all over again in 1999, this time collecting
far more signatures than could be successfully
challenged. Our rollback went onto the 2000
ballot, where it
won handily with 59 percent of the vote.
When our rollback had in steps reduced
the income tax rate from 5.85 to 5.3 percent, in 2002
the Legislature unilaterally "froze" it, created a
"trigger" mechanism for our rollback to continue.
The Boston Globe at that time reported ("More
tax hikes next year called possible
– House votes override of
Swift's $1.14b veto"):
"The Legislature's package freezes the income
tax at 5.3 percent, despite a voter-approved
ballot question that called for rolling it back
to its previous level of 5 percent. [Barbara]
Anderson predicted that Democrats early next
year will attempt to boost the income tax to 5.6
percent, and could seek to increase the sales
tax and dismantle Proposition 2½, which limits
the amount communities can increase property
taxes in a given year."
Barbara died before ever seeing the
"temporary" income tax rate rolled all the way back to
its historic 5 percent, and I'm moving on out-of-state
before I ever will. Thirty years is a long
time to prosecute a campaign to roll back a "temporary"
tax increase – and it's
still not complete. Persistence seems to be
bringing it a little closer. Maybe it'll finally
return to 5 percent before more of us are gone?
Meanwhile, the Massachusetts primary
election came and went last week. Most of the
results were unremarkable, typical for our
liberal-dominated Bay State. Most of the
incumbents in "The Best Legislature Money Can Buy," on
taxpayer-paid leave since last month and not due back to
work until early January, had plenty of free time to
campaign against any challengers. But there
were a few surprises.
Democrat House Ways and Means Chairman
Jeff Sanchez and Majority Whip Byron Rushing were
defeated by their party's progressive wave, and Rep.
Robert Koczera of New Bedford also lost his
primary to political newcomer Christopher
Hendricks. The longest-serving
Massachusetts Speaker of the House, Robert DeLeo, summed
it up: "... out of approximately 130 members we
only had 16 or 17 members that had any primary
challenges and out of those 16 I think it was 13 who
were victorious so I think it was a good night for the
Democratic House."
Ten-term uber-liberal U.S. Congressman
Michael Capuano was defeated by the "Resistance's"
darling, progressive Ayanna Pressley, who, without a
Republican opponent in November, will become the 7th
Congressional District's new congresswoman.
The only noticeable change is that
Massachusetts became a bit more liberal.
One outcome that surprised many, and
didn't surprise some was the Republican primary for
governor. "The Most Popular Governor in The
Nation," Charlie Baker, won against challenger Scott
Lively, an unknown, vastly under-funded pastor from
Springfield. That Baker won surprises few of us
– but the impressive 36%
vote margin won by Lively said a whole lot about Baker's
support among conservatives.
Like Baker did in the presidential
election, I did not vote for him. I had two
winners: Republicans Geoff Diehl for U.S. Senate,
now running against U.S. Senator and presumed 2020
presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren in November, and
Jay McMahon for Attorney General, now running against
gun-grabbing anti-Trump AG Maura Healey.
Charlie Baker is now running for
re-election against the Democratic Party's preferred
nominee, Jay Gonzalez –
Deval Patrick's Secretary of Administration and Finance.
We taxpayers now have a choice between Democrat Lite and
Democrat Left.
As I've said before, Charlie Baker is
the best Democrat we taxpayers can hope to elect as
governor in Massachusetts. While he's not as
conservative as Democrat Edward J. King was as governor,
he's definitely head and shoulders and then some above
Michael Stanley Dukakis.
Like many more than expected, I cast my
protest vote for Scott Lively. Come November
– assuming I'm still here
and not already in Kentucky –
I'll hold my nose and vote for the lesser of two evils.
Then I'll run like hell for the border!
|
 |
 |
|
Chip Ford
Executive Director |
|
|
|
|
|
The Worcester Telegram &
Gazette
Sunday, September 2, 2018
A Telegram & Gazette editorial
Funding for public education in Massachusetts
must be reformed
The future of our communities and the state
relies on the quality of our public education.
Which is why it’s so troubling that the
Massachusetts Legislature failed to produce
long-needed reform in how it funds our
communities’ public schools.
A state legislative session that began two years
ago with parliamentary hocus-pocus to ram
through hefty pay and fee increases for elected
officials, all hatched in secret and executed in
a flash, ended in midsummer this year with the
ignominious collapse of negotiations between the
state House and Senate over much-needed reforms
in funding public education. More money for our
Statehouse solons, no money when it’s clearly
needed for our kids. Not a good look.
Any self-congratulation over the session’s
accomplishments – and there were several, such
as in criminal justice reform and in addiction
treatment – ignores that one of the prime
directives of state and local government is the
education of its children, its new generations
of leaders, innovators and residents who will
shape what our state becomes.
Twenty-five years ago, Massachusetts passed the
Education Reform Act, a “grand bargain” forced
on the state by legal action over the inequities
in the state’s public education funding. In
exchange for a Foundation Budget that set
expectation for local funding by each community,
it established a formula for state funding based
on community needs, and developed standards and
testing, and further empowered state education
officials to take over failing school systems if
need be, as they’ve done in Southbridge and two
other communities. The changes helped propel the
state’s education system to the top of the
nation, one in which Massachusetts children can
compete with the world. But after a quarter
century, it’s become painfully clear that the
formulas are in need of adjustment.
In fact, by some estimates, the shortfall in
state funding amounts to $1.5 billion to $2
billion annually – those are numbers in the 30
to 40 percent range of the state’s total $4.6
billion allocation and represent up to 5 percent
of the state’s total budget.
Facing a need to make hard budgeting decisions
of where to add and where to trim, even taking
years if necessary to attain its goals, it
appears the Legislature was counting too heavily
on what appeared to be the easy way out: the
“Millionaires Tax” ballot question this fall. It
would have nearly doubled the tax on earnings
over $1 million, adding a 4 percent surtax on
income over $1 million to the state’s flat 5.1
percent income tax. This easy way out would have
enabled millions of Massachusetts voters to hit
the pocketbooks of roughly 16,000 to 20,000
people here making more than $1 million a year.
It would have raised an estimated $2 billion
more in tax revenues, slotted for education and
transportation. That is, until large numbers
moved over the state line into the welcoming
arms of New Hampshire or suffered the kind of
setbacks in earnings that we see from time to
time.
We were spared when the State Supreme Judicial
Court ruled just in June that the referendum was
unconstitutional and should never have been
approved for the ballot to begin with. And the
Legislature, prematurely counting its revenue
chickens before they were hatched, was forced
into a short drill in hard budgeting decisions
that it had two years to make.
What’s painful is that this issue didn’t happen
overnight - it’s been building for years. Any
excuses that the Legislature “ran out of time”
during this two-year session ignores warnings
going back a decade. The 1993 Education Reform
Act, with foresight, includes a mechanism for a
periodic review of the formula. A foundation
budget review commission, headed by legislative
and state education leaders, and incorporating a
wide variety of participants that included
teacher unions, began meeting in 2014 and issued
a report in 2015, more than a year before the
just-ended legislative term began in 2017. And
if that weren’t enough, there were the threats
of new suits against the state emanating from
cities such as Worcester and Brockton.
The commission findings and recommendations
included addressing the two areas in which costs
were far outrunning funding: health insurance,
including retiree health insurance; and special
education, including the growing cost of as well
as an increased number of students requiring
special ed. Other factors include the growth in
population of English language learners,
especially on the high school level and
including students arriving here with “limited
or interrupted formal education,” typically with
high needs in coming from war-torn or otherwise
devastated nations. Also, an increase in the
number of students living in poverty.
These issues hit urban school systems hard,
especially Gateway Cities such as Worcester. And
it’s an accomplishment that despite this, the
Worcester Public Schools in general have
performed notably better than other similarly
situated communities. Kudos to them, but the
system still has a way to go and more equitable
funding would help. The festering funding
issues, however, go beyond cities – rural school
systems, including here in Central
Massachusetts, have been hit by the outdated
funding formula as well.
The state Senate version of the now-dead
legislation hewed more closely to the 2015
commission’s recommendations. The House balked
at provisions addressing the growth of ELL
students and low-income students, precisely the
issues affecting Worcester. It’s imperative that
this issue be resolved in the new session
starting in January, not by pinning hopes on
another misbegotten referendum question that
would let the Legislature off the hook, but in
setting priorities and making the kind of
difficult budgeting decisions that go on in
nearly every household. The future of our
children, of Massachusetts and our communities
is at stake. We can’t afford another failure
like this one.
State House News Service
Wednesday, September 5, 2018
DeLeo: "Good night" for House Dems despite
Sanchez, Rushing losses
By Matt Murphy
The shocking upsets of two prominent House
Democrats Tuesday night is being called a strong
rebuke of House Speaker Robert DeLeo's
leadership, but the veteran House leader
dismissed that narrative Wednesday as one that
overlooks the success of House Democrats across
the state.
DeLeo appeared at a Democratic Party event
Wednesday morning where he did not mention
Sanchez or Rushing in his remarks, but defended
the House's record of the past two years. "We
have taken the lead," DeLeo said.
While critics say too many urgent progressive
policies are dying in the House, the speaker
mentioned the House's role in helping to pass
laws promoting gun safety, fighting substance
abuse, raising the minimum wage, defending
reproductive rights and reforming the criminal
justice system. He also urged Democrats to
defeat a ballot question that would roll back
protections for transgender people in public
facilities.
The defeat of his Ways and Means Chairman Jeff
Sanchez and Majority Whip Byron Rushing in two
Boston House districts, however, produced
audible gasps on Tuesday night at the
headquarters of Democratic gubernatorial nominee
Jay Gonzalez when U.S. Rep. Michael Capuano, in
a concession speech of his own on live
television, confirmed the upsets.
DeLeo on Wednesday tried to shake off the blame
for Sanchez and Rushing losing their seats.
"If one were to take a look at the elections on
the statewide basis, first of all you'll see
that out of approximately 130 members we only
had 16 or 17 members that had any primary
challenges and out of those 16 I think it was 13
who were victorious so I think it was a good
night for the Democratic House and I'm proud of
our results and, again, I'm looking forward to
doing all I can to make sure we bring back as
many Democratic members as we can," DeLeo said.
The House currently has 117 Democrats, of which
16 faced primary challenges on Tuesday. Rep.
Robert Koczera of New Bedford also lost his
primary to political newcomer Christopher
Hendricks.
Sanchez lost to Nika Elugardo, who has worked
for a number of state and local advocacy
organizations, while Rushing, the co-chair of
the House Progressives Caucus, lost in a
three-way primary to Jon Santiago, a Boston
Medical Center emergency medicine resident.
"It's a clear rebuke to the speaker and it's
clear that you need to be more aligned with the
district than with the building," said Rep.
Russell Holmes, a Mattapan Democrat.
Holmes knows the risks of challenging DeLeo. He
lost a committee vice-chairmanship after trying
to initiate a discussion about new leadership in
the House after speaker-in-waiting Brian Dempsey
left the Legislature last summer.
DeLeo denied that Holmes was demoted as
retaliation for his comments, but failed to
offer any detailed explanation for his decision.
"I'm sad that I lost both of my colleagues, but
I think it sends a message that what he did with
me was the wrong thing to have done," Holmes
said.
"What Is Next In The Building"
Elugardo specifically criticized Sanchez for
being unable to deliver on immigrant protections
that his district favored, but that DeLeo was
hesitant to put to a vote. Sanchez, who
co-sponsored the legislation, said at the end of
the session that he was able to find a consensus
among his House colleagues on a path forward
this session.
DeLeo said he looked forward to having a
discussion with Elugardo, but did not signal any
intention to shift the House to the left or
alter his management and decision-making
approach.
"I can tell you that those folks who do know me
they know that I'm a consensus builder," DeLeo
said. "I work on compromise. It's not very
uncommon that I would have anywhere from two
people to twenty people in my office to try to
work consensus out, so I would respectfully say
whether it's myself as speaker or working with
the chairs or the members that's the way I
operate."
Holmes said he will be watching to see how DeLeo
responds after being unable to protect two
members of his leadership team who also happen
to be the highest ranking black and Latino
lawmakers in the Legislature.
"What I think is going to be interesting next is
what is next in the building," Holmes told the
News Service at the Dorchester unity event. "My
thought is how does the speaker receive this?"
DeLeo expects to remain as speaker in 2019 after
becoming the longest continuously serving House
speaker in state history this summer, but it
remains to be seen how the Democratic membership
will react to the loss of Sanchez, Rushing and
Koczera and whether they will bring any pressure
to bear on the speaker to shake things up.
Sanchez, in a statement released overnight,
called his 16 years in the House a "privilege."
"From the moment I took office, I have enjoyed
getting up every morning to fight together with
my neighbors for the liberal values that we hold
dear. I am so proud of everything we have
accomplished," he said.
State House News Service
Wednesday, September 5, 2018
Gonzalez prevails, promises "clear choice" in
race against Gov. Baker
By Matt Murphy
Popular incumbent Gov. Charlie Baker will face
former state budget chief and health insurance
executive Jay Gonzalez in a general election
matchup pitting two candidates against each
other with competing visions for how the state
should pay for education, housing and
transportation now and into the future.
Baker, who cruised to a primary victory Tuesday
over conservative Springfield pastor Scott
Lively, highlighted his opposition to higher
taxes in a victory speech at a restaurant in
Dorchester, also touting 180,000 new jobs since
he took office and a record low high school
dropout rate.
Gonzalez, meanwhile, launched his general
election campaign promising to deliver
affordable child care and pre-school in his
first term, to "fully fund" public education and
to move Massachusetts to a single-payer health
care system.
"I get it. It is a relief to have a governor who
seems nice and isn't a crazy right wing
extremist. With Donald Trump setting the bar so
low, nice and not crazy seems pretty good. But
it's not good enough. Not for us," Gonzalez
said.
Both Baker and Gonzalez looked poised to win by
similar margins, each with roughly 65 percent of
the vote in their respective party primaries
with more than two-thirds of the votes counted,
though the number of Democratic ballots cast far
exceeded those voting in the GOP primary.
Gonzalez, who served in Gov. Deval Patrick's
cabinet before leaving government to run the
health insurance company CeltiCare, solidly
defeated Bob Massie, a Somerville environmental
activist and entrepreneur, in a primary contest
that came to be seen as the classic
insider-versus-outsider contest.
The first-time candidate sold himself as a
leader with the experience on Beacon Hill to
deliver on his campaign promises, which include
progressive tax reform that will ask the wealthy
to pay more to invest in transportation
infrastructure and early education.
"There's going to be a very clear choice in this
election," Gonzalez told reporters, indicating
his hope to harness some of the energy on the
Democratic side that helped sweep progressives
like Ayanna Pressley into office on Tuesday
night.
Gonzalez will run against the GOP ticket of
Baker and Lt. Gov. Karyn Polito with former
Obama administration official Quentin Palfrey,
who defeated political satirist and comedian
Jimmy Tingle in the Democratic primary for
lieutenant governor.
Baker, who accepted his party's nomination at
Venezia restaurant in Dorchester, ticked through
many his administration's accomplishments, from
partnerships with municipalities to clean energy
promotion and moving the homeless out of hotels
and motels.
"Today, four years later, our state is on the
rise. Our economy is booming. Our schools are
the best in the nation. And hope and possibility
is blooming in every corner of the
commonwealth," Baker said.
The governor also said that despite passing two
bills to combat the opioid epidemic, there was
more to do on that front. He also mentioned
housing production legislation that stalled in
the Legislature this year.
"Finally, we need to respect the taxpayer by
continuing to make state government work smarter
and better --- and by standing up to the urge by
many on Beacon Hill to just raise taxes," Baker
said.
Baker remains one of the most popular governors
in the country, which worked to scare off many
Democrat donors during the primary cycle as
Gonzalez and Massie both struggled to raise
money.
With the party coalescing behind Gonzalez and
the campaign moving into its next phase,
Gonzalez will look to consolidate the party and
assure liberal-minded independent voters that he
has a chance to topple Baker.
In addition to his strong standing with voters,
Baker holds a sizable advantage over Gonzalez in
fundraising with $6.3 million in the bank at the
end of August compared to Gonzalez's $366,000.
The Republican Governors Association has also
poured $2.8 million so far into the Commonwealth
Future super PAC to support Baker.
While it remains to be seen if the Democratic
Governors Association will invest in the
Gonzalez-Palfrey ticket, the organization headed
by Washington Gov. Jay Inslee congratulated
Gonzalez on his win.
"As the son of an immigrant, Jay joins the most
diverse class of Democratic nominees ever. Jay
Gonzalez has served the people of Massachusetts,
helping to expand access to health care, invest
in early education and manage the state's budget
under Gov. Deval Patrick. Jay will be a leader
for all Massachusetts families, and will push
back against President Trump's policies that are
harming Massachusetts," said Jared Leopold, a
spokesman for the Democratic Governors
Association. "
Neither Baker nor Gonzalez targeted each other
directly on Tuesday night in their speeches, but
the battle line being drawn were clear.
Gonzalez spoke about building a transportation
system that commuters can count on to get to
work on time, while Baker said his
administration will invest $8 billion over the
next five years, or $5 billion more than the
last five years of Deval Patrick's
administration.
"This will be an honest, positive campaign,"
Gonzalez said. His campaign said they would have
more to say soon about how many debates with
Baker they will be requesting. Baker did not
debate Lively.
Attorney General Maura Healey came to the Boston
Teachers Union Hall in Dorchester to introduce
Gonzalez to the small crowd of volunteers and
supporters.
"I'm ready for a governor who knows that in the
time that we are in, especially, that failing to
lead means falling behind," said Healey, who was
critical of Baker when Democrats gathered for
their part convention in June. "I'm ready for
Jay Gonzalez."
Auditor Suzanne Bump, who faces her own
re-election challenge this fall against
Republican Helen Brady, also joined Gonzalez on
stage. Bump had endorsed Gonzalez before the
party's convention in June.
"Jay actually has vision. He's willing to take
positions on difficult issues. He's willing to
take some risks in order to move the state
forward," Bump said about Gonzalez's chances
against Baker, who she called a "play-it-safe
governor."
State House News Service
Friday, September 7, 2018
Baker backing full GOP slate, but says he's
focused on his race
By Katie Lannan
As he runs at the top of the Republican party
ticket in Massachusetts, Gov. Charlie Baker is
supporting the rest of the GOP's statewide
slate, he said Friday.
"I've endorsed the ticket, which I said I was
going to do months ago, yeah," Baker told
reporters when asked if he backed the party's
Senate nominee, state Rep. Geoff Diehl.
Baker defeated conservative Springfield pastor
Scott Lively in Tuesday's primary, in which
Diehl and attorney general hopeful Jay McMahon
also beat their opponents. Lt. Gov. Karyn Polito,
treasurer candidate Rep. Keiko Orrall, secretary
of state candidate Anthony Amore and auditor
candidate Helen Brady each ran unopposed.
While Baker has touted his bipartisan
credentials, including endorsements by
Democratic lawmakers and mayors, and did not
vote in the 2016 presidential election, McMahon
and Diehl have more closely tied themselves to
President Donald Trump.
Diehl helped lead Trump's state campaign
operation and told reporters a year and a half
ago that he would "absolutely" ask the preisdent
to stump for him against U.S. Sen. Elizabeth
Warren. McMahon, in a WATD radio debate last
month, said he thought his support for Trump
would help him with voters.
Baker said he and Polito also "typically support
a lot of" the Republican lawmakers seeking
re-election. On Friday night, he will be a guest
at an event for Rep. Donald Wong at the Kowloon
Restaurant in Saugus.
"I think in some respects those are people we
know, those are people we've worked with, and
those are folks who can help us pursue our
agenda up here on Beacon Hill," Baker said.
Democrats hold a supermajority in both the House
and Senate. With 200 legislative seats on the
ballot Nov. 6, 37 GOP lawmakers are seeking
reelection, while another 13 are running for
open seats and 23 are challenging incumbent
Democrats.
Baker said whether he gets involved in any races
where Republicans are looking to unseat Beacon
Hill Democrats "depends to some extent on time."
"We have a race, and we plan to spend most of
the next 58 days focused on ours," he said.
The general election is Nov. 6 and will pit
Baker and Polito against the Democratic ticket
of Jay Gonzalez and Quentin Palfrey.
State House News Service
Thursday, September 6, 2018
Plaintiffs may take SJC campaign finance ruling
to Supreme Court
By Katie Lannan
The state's high court on Thursday upheld a ban
on corporate donations to political candidates,
a decision one plaintiff said he hopes to appeal
to the United States Supreme Court.
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, in an
opinion written by Chief Justice Ralph Gants,
sided against plaintiffs 126 Self Storage Inc.
and 1A Auto Inc. The court said the ban does not
violate free speech rights and can help prevent
actual and perceived corruption.
Allowing corporate contributions would create "a
serious threat of quid pro quo corruption,"
Gants wrote.
"In just the last decade, several Massachusetts
politicians have been convicted of crimes
stemming from bribery schemes intended to
benefit corporations," Gants wrote, going on to
say that it would be "unrealistic for a court to
require the Legislature to wait for evidence of
widespread quid pro quo corruption resulting
from corporate contributions before taking steps
to prevent such corruption."
Massachusetts law prohibits corporations from
contributing directly to candidates or
establishing political action committees but
allows them to make unlimited independent
expenditures, with certain disclosure
requirements, that are used to advocate for or
against candidates but do not go directly to
their campaigns. The plaintiffs argued the ban
violates their First Amendment rights and
unfairly applies to corporations but not other
entities like unions and nonprofits.
Michael Kane, the owner of the Ashland-based 126
Self Storage, said on a conference call with
reporters Thursday that he would like to take
the case to the Supreme Court. The attorney
representing the plaintiffs, Goldwater Institute
senior fellow Jim Manley, said he would be "more
than happy to ask the court to resolve this
dispute."
"You can't treat people differently just because
someone thinks that's the way it should be,"
Kane said. "You have to treat us all the same.
Corporations, businesses and unions aren't all
that different. We all have officers and boards
of directors and employees, or represent
employees, et cetera. There's not that big a
difference."
Manley said he still needed to discuss it with
the plaintiffs, but he was "anticipating" they
would request the Supreme Court hear their case.
If they do, they would file a petition for the
beginning of December, he said.
"The same rules should apply all across the
board, to both sides of the bargaining table,
and what the SJC said today was that the U.S.
Constitution and the Massachusetts Constitution
allows the state to discriminate against groups
based on their viewpoints and ban certain
viewpoints from contributing to candidates,"
Manley said. "That, we think is
unconstitutional. We think the U.S. Supreme
Court has actually said the opposite, has said
that that is unconstitutional, and it's my hope
that the U.S. Supreme Court will weigh in and
change the outcome in this case."
Kane is a member of the board of the
Massachusetts Fiscal Alliance, which was founded
by 1A Auto President and CEO Rick Green. Green
is the Republican nominee in the Third
Congressional District.
Paul Craney, a Mass Fiscal board member and
spokesman, called the ruling a "major
disappointment that only further upholds the
country's most unfair state campaign finance
law."
"Since it was first enacted decades ago, the
union loophole has tainted countless elections
across our state, even giving a louder voice to
out of state union bosses than Massachusetts
residents and employers," Craney said in a
statement.
Though they cannot give directly to a candidate,
corporations are allowed to give unlimited sums
toward ballot question campaigns and they can
set up outside groups to influence the political
process. Unions and non-profits that are not
corporate-funded can give up to $15,000 to a
single candidate in a year, which is 15 times
the limit on an individual contribution.
The Supreme Judicial Court found there was no
record of evidence showing lawmakers, in
establishing the ban, acted with the
"impermissible intent" of silencing the
political speech of corporations "while favoring
the political viewpoints of those entities that
fall outside its scope."
Gants wrote that if lawmakers had intended to
"accomplish viewpoint discrimination against
businesses, one would certainly have expected it
to include trade associations within its
prohibitions," instead of leaving them excluded
along with nonprofit corporations.
Judges Kimberly Budd and Scott Kafker,
appointees of Gov. Charlie Baker, each penned
separate concurring opinions. There was no
dissent.
Kafker's opinion said the majority did not
adequately address the issue of the law failing
to prohibit contributions by other entities. He
said it's difficult to determine if the ban's
"differential treatment of business corporations
rests on grounds considered legitimate,
illegitimate or both."
"The ultimate issue, however, is not simply
whether contributions by business corporations
may be limited due to concerns about quid pro
quo corruption or the appearance of such
corruption, but whether a statutory scheme that
bans such contributions while simultaneously
permitting contributions by other organizations,
including well-endowed nonprofit corporations
and unions, is closely drawn to the State's
interest in preventing corruption and its
appearance," Kafker wrote, noting that there are
examples of nonprofits and unions violating
campaign finance law as well as corporations. |
| |
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
▪ (781) 990-1251
BACK TO CLT
HOMEPAGE
|
