The House and Senate: There were no roll calls in the House or Senate last week. This week, Beacon Hill Roll Call continues its three-part series looking at the questions on the Nov. 6 ballot. This week the focus is on Question 2.
Question 2 asks voters if they approve of a proposed law that would create a citizens’ commission to consider and recommend potential amendments to the U.S. Constitution to establish that corporations do not have the same constitutional rights as human beings and that campaign contributions and expenditures may be regulated.
The proposed law is in response to the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2010 decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. In that case, the court ruled that the First Amendment prohibits the government from restricting corporations, unions and individuals from donating unlimited funds to Super Political Action Committees (PACs) that do not donate directly to candidates or political parties.
The Super PACs are often run by a candidate’s former staffers or associates, who use the PAC to fund negative ads against the candidate’s opponents. A candidate’s own committee’s contributions are limited by federal law but Super PACs, as a result of the court decision, can legally accept unlimited donations.
The commission would investigate the entire issue and then file a report regarding the impact of political spending in Massachusetts; any limitations on the state’s ability to regulate corporations and other entities in light of Supreme Court decisions that allow corporations to assert certain constitutional rights; recommendations for constitutional amendments; an analysis of constitutional amendments introduced to Congress; and recommendations for advancing proposed amendments to the Constitution.
“We have over 700 volunteers across the state knocking doors, making phone calls, emailing and texting,” said Ben Gubits, National Political Director of Concord-based American Promise. “We’ve had big endorsements from both Democrat and Republican leaders in the state and across the country. The campaign is going strong and we’re confident that we will win on Election Day, but we’re not taking anything for granted because this doesn’t end on Election Day. Question 2 is part of a national effort of ‘We the People’ to reclaim our republic from wealthy special interests.”
“Question 2 is a silly, feel-good liberal primal scream, a Quixotic tilt at one of its most threatening windmills, with no teeth and no real effect,” said Chip Ford, executive director of Citizens for Limited Taxation. “If adopted, it would create a meaningless ‘advisory commission’ to propose an unlikely amendment to the Constitution that might hopefully overturn the Supreme Court’s free speech decision in Citizens United.”
“Wealthy donors have long had an outsized influence in our democracy, but the Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United decision has opened the floodgates for mega-donations and corporate spending in our elections,” said Janet Domenitz, executive director of the Massachusetts Public Interest Research Group (MASSPIRG). “Spending on political races has skyrocketed. The 2016 election cycle was the most expensive in U.S. history, with almost $6.5 billion spent. We must overturn Citizens United with a constitutional amendment that restores the right of the American people to regulate campaign finance and thereby curb big money in politics. Question 2 on the November ballot moves us in that direction.
“The NAACP fought for the right of freedom of speech and association during the civil rights era at the Supreme Court,” said Paul Craney, a spokesman for the Massachusetts Fiscal Alliance which opposes the creation of the commission. “The Supreme Court upheld their right and their work to protect our freedoms should be continued to be protected today.”
Here are the official arguments, gathered by the secretary of state, by each side of the question.
In favor: Written by Jeff Clements of “People Govern, Not Money.” https://voteyeson2ma.org
“Behind our nation’s challenges is a crisis of billionaires and special interests using money to buy access and influence with politicians. These special interests are well-represented, while most Americans are not. The Supreme Court says that laws limiting political spending violate the First Amendment. Most Americans know this is incorrect: Money is not speech, it is power, and concentrated power requires checks and balances. 75 percent of Americans, including liberals and conservatives, support this amendment to correct the court, with 19 states and over 200 Massachusetts communities formally calling for it. This measure creates a non-partisan, unpaid Citizens Commission to be the people’s advocate for this amendment, with commissioners serving at no cost to taxpayers.”
Against: Written by the Massachusetts Fiscal Alliance. www.MassFiscalScorecard.org
“The controversy surrounding the Citizens United decision hinges on our cherished right to Freedom of Speech. In the decision, the court ruled to expand that freedom and apply it equally to all entities and organizations, rather than just the arbitrary list of winners and losers selected by elected officials in previous campaign finance laws. This is a good thing. The First Amendment protection of our freedom of speech is one of the pillars of our democracy and should be preserved and expanded at every possible opportunity. The less government standing in the way of the exercise of that right, the stronger it is. However, even if you disagree with the Citizens United decision, an amendment to the U.S. Constitution is a dangerous and misguided way to go about undoing it. Please vote no on this question.”
More information on Question 2 is available at www.sec.state.ma.us/ele
$540 million supplemental budget (H 4930) — The House and Senate approved on a voice vote without a roll call and sent to Gov. Charlie Baker a $540 million fiscal 2018 state budget to close out the books on the fiscal year that ended on June 30. The funds are from the state’s surplus leftover as a result of higher than expected tax revenue. The budget puts $240 million in the state’s Rainy Day Fund, boosting its total to more than $2 billion.
Other provisions include $40 million for road and bridge repairs; $1.5 million to administer the state’s new paid family and medical leave law; $7.5 million for increased access to mental and behavioral health in public schools; $10 million for a neighborhood and community-based gun and violent crime prevention program targeting youths aged 17 to 24; and $5 million to assist people displaced by Hurricanes Maria and Irma in Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands.
“Combined with the fiscally responsible deposit into the (Rainy Day) Fund, this supplemental budget improves both the fiscal health of our state finances and the physical health of our residents,” said House Ways and Means Chairman Rep. Jeff Sanchez (D-Boston). “As Massachusetts’ economy continues to grow, we are committed to planning for the future and ensuring that workers and families receive the support they need to thrive.”
Honor and remember flag (H 2680) — Approved by the House on May 25, 2017, and still stuck in the House Bills in Third Reading Committee is a bill designating the Honor and Remember Flag as the symbol of the state remembering soldiers who have lost their lives while serving. The flag would be required to be flown at the Statehouse and all Superior Courts, and in each city and town on several holidays and occasions including Memorial Day, Flag Day, Independence Day, Veterans Day and whenever there is a military casualty in the state.
The flag is a project of Honor and Remember Flag, Inc., a non-profit group whose mission is to “perpetually recognize the sacrifice of America’s military fallen service members and their families.”
Supporters say the flag is a tangible and visible reminder to all Americans of the lives lost in defense of our national freedoms. They noted there has never been an official national symbol that specifically recognizes the gratitude and respect to the men and women who have given the ultimate sacrifice.
Information about breast reconstruction surgery (H 4490) — Approved by the Health Care Financing Committee on June 14, and still stuck in the House Ways and Means Committee, is a proposal requiring all facilities that provide mastectomy surgery, lymph node dissection or a lumpectomy to provide specific information to the patient in writing prior to the patient giving consent to the procedure.
The information would include the advantages and disadvantages of various reconstructive options and the coverage of these surgeries under private and state-funded health insurance.
–Diabetes and Alzheimer’s (H 4484) — Approved by the House on July 30, and now stuck in the Senate Ways and Means Committee, is legislation requiring the Commissioner of Public Health to create a diabetes action plan to identify goals to reduce the prevalence and impact of diabetes and improve diabetes care in the Bay State.
Realtors must learn about fair housing (H 4352) — Approved by the House on April 26, and still stuck in the House Bills in Third Reading Committee, is a measure that would require that the 40-hour course realtors and brokers are required to take to obtain a license and the 12-hour course mandated to renew their license both include a one-hour course on fair housing.
Bills sent to study committees — The Legislature sent hundreds of bills to a study committee in 2018. Almost every measure that is shipped off to a study committee is never actually studied and is essentially defeated. Here are two of those that met their fate via a study committee.
Allow cities and towns to include marketing material with property tax bills (H 3318) — Allows cities and towns to include in the envelope or electronic message in which a property tax bill is sent, nonpolitical informational or marketing material.
Supporters said this would help cities and towns by generating revenue that could be used for any purpose by the community.
Prohibit lower tuition rates for illegal immigrants (H 637) — Prohibits Massachusetts state universities from offering lower in-state tuition and fees to illegal immigrants and their children. Currently, the lower tuition rate is offered to legal citizens who live in the Bay State and Massachusetts students who have been accepted into the federal program for those who immigrated illegally to the country as children and have a work permit.
Supporters of the ban say the state should not offer financial rewards to anyone who has broken the law and is in this country illegally. They argued it is outrageous to offer low tuition rates to these students while legal citizens from outside Massachusetts, including war veterans, are required to pay higher rates if they attend a Massachusetts state university.
Opponents of the ban say many of these students were babies when they were brought here by their parents and had no choice about entering the country illegally. They noted some hardworking students are currently required to pay out-of-state tuition rates that are significantly higher than the in-state rate.