By Bob Katzen

The Senate 6-31, rejected an amendment to a bill requiring more frequent public reporting of fundraising and spending by groups supporting or opposing statewide ballot questions.

The amendment would apply the state’s campaign finance election laws to political expenditures of more than $1,000, made by persons, corporations, associations, organizations or other groups of people, to influence the outcome of local ballot questions in cities and towns. The person or group would be required to file disclosure forms and failure to comply would be punishable by a 1-year prison sentence and/or a $1,000 fine.

Sen. Bruce Tarr (R-Gloucester), the sponsor of the amendment, did not respond to repeated requests by Beacon Hill Roll Call asking him to comment on his amendment.

Supporters said that the amendment will close a loophole that allows unlimited amounts of unreported funds by outside individuals and groups to influence and sway the local voters’ decision. They noted the flow of dark drowns out the vote of the local voters.

“[The] amendment promoted the idea of more transparency on the local level for political spending, when it comes to ballot questions,” said Sen. Ryan Fattman (R-Sutton). “These laws already exist on the state level, and I think that residents should be able to understand who is supporting local ballot initiative questions and what their implications are.”

“I voted ‘Yes’ on this amendment because it guarantees transparency in local ballot question,” said Sen. Patrick O’Connor (R-Weymouth). “Any individual or entity who is spending a significant amount of money to influence decisions on a ballot question should have to publicly disclose where this money is coming from. This would close a disclosure gap in municipal elections, deter outside influence and keep consistent with existing campaign finance principles. I think that this would keep democracy in check as oftentimes municipal elections are overlooked. Consistency across the board would be the most beneficial to all.”

Amendment opponents said the amendment goes beyond the subject matter of the bill which deals with statewide ballot questions. They argued that the gist of the amendment is already in several separate bills that are pending before the Legislature. They said the Senate should consider this amendment as a separate bill which would be the subject of a public hearing and be vetted through the legislative process.

“I voted against the amendment because I believe Sen. Julian Cyr’s [separate] bill … is the more appropriate vehicle for meaningful municipal election funding reform,” said Sen. John Keenan (D-Quincy). “This is important legislation that I hope to see passed in the Senate soon.”
Sen. Sal DiDomenico (D-Everett) did not respond to repeated requests by Beacon Hill Roll Call asking him why he led the charge against the amendment and to comment on why he opposed it.

In December, the House gave initial approval to a related bill that would apply the state’s campaign finance election laws to political expenditures of more than $1,000, made by persons, corporations, associations, organizations or other groups of people, to influence the outcome of articles that appear on Town Meeting warrants. The person or group would be required to file disclosure forms and failure to comply would be punishable by a 1-year prison sentence and/or a $1,000 fine.

(A Yes” vote is for the amendment. A “No” vote is against it.)

Sen. Patricia Jehlen No