THE WILL OF THE VOTERS AND AMENDMENTS

LAST TIME WE WERE HERE, OPPONENTS OF TAXPAYER FINANCED ELECTIONS WERE TOLD THAT THE VOTERS HAD SPOKEN AND DEMANDED BLIND OBEDIENCE TO THE “WILL OF THE VOTERS” THE EXPRESS INTENT OF THE VOTERS.

NOW WE HAVE A HANDFUL OF PEOPLE PURPORTING TO INTERPRET THE WILL OF THE VOTERS BY FILING NUMEROUS AMENDMENTS TO THIS LAW—TINKERING WITH IT BEYOND RECOGNITION.

THE PROPONENTS OF THIS LAW ARGUE THAT THE VOTERS UNDERSTOOD THE LAW—IT’S CLEAR TO ME FROM THE NUMBER OF AMENDMENTS FILED THAT THE DRAFTERS OF THE LEGISLATION DID NOT UNDERSTAND THE LAW AND MORE IMPORTANTLY DID NOT INTEND ITS CONSEQUENCES. ITS POORLY CRAFTED WITH FATAL FLAWS—WE ARE NO LONGER, WITH THESE AMENDMENTS, BEING FAITHFUL TO THE WILL OF THE VOTERS, WE ARE NOW BEING ASKED TO ACCEPT REFINEMENTS TO THIS LAW DRAFTED BY A HANDFUL OF PEOPLE WHO HAVE THE AUDACITY TO INSIST THEY AND THEY ALONE UNDERSTAND AND INTERPRET THE WILL OF THE VOTERS AND SPEAK FOR THE VOTERS.

NOT ONLY DID THE DRAFTERS OF THIS LEGISLATION NOT CRAFT THE LAW IN A THOUGHTFUL MANNER UNDERSTAND THE LAW AND NOT INTEND ITS CONSEQUENCES, BUT THE VOTING PUBLIC DID NOT UNDERSTAND THIS LAW AND, MOST DEFINITELY, DID NOT INTEND ITS CONSEQUENCES, NAMELY THAT MANY MILLIONS OF DOLLARS SHOULD GO TO CANDIDATES WHO ARE NOT OTHERWISE VIABLE CANDIDATES SO THEY CAN GET THEIR MESSAGE OUT.

MANY OF US JUST RECEIVED A LETTER FROM A FINE GENTLEMAN WHO PULLED OUT OF THE RACE FOR GOVERNOR. IN A LETTER TO DEMOCRATIC LEADERS HE WRITES THAT HE WITHDREW BECAUSE OF THE UNCERTAINTIES OF CLEAN ELECTION FUNDING AND, WELL, THE TRAVAILS OF SECURING A PLACE ON THE BALLOT---WELL, OF COURSE THERE IS THAT, THE FACT THAT YOU HAVE NO DELEGATES GOING INTO THE CONVENTION AND NO SUPPORT. DID WE REALLY NEED TO GIVE THAT INDIVIDUAL A MILLION DOLLARS TO DISCOVER THAT HE WOULD NOT SURVIVE THE CONVENTION?

PURPOSES OF CLEAN ELECTIONS—NOT NEEDED IN MASSACHUSETTS

THIS FOLLY IS LIKE THE 13TH STRIKE OF THE CLOCK, IT CASTS DOUBT UPON ALL THAT HAS COME BEFORE IT.

“BARE KNUCKLES” FIGHT WITH YOUR COLLEAGUES AND FIGHTING WITH PEOPLE WHO BUY INK BY THE BARREL

YOU DO THE PEOPLE OF THE COMMONWWEALTH NO SERVICE WHEN YOU CREATE ANXIETY ABOUT THE WORK OF THIS LEGISLATURE WHERE NONE SHOULD EXIST. PEOPLE ARE ANXIOUS ENOUGH ABOUT WHAT HAPPENED ON 9/11 AND WHAT HAS HAPPENED TO THE ECONOMY. ITS UNCONSCIONABLE WHAT SOME OF YOU HAVE DONE HERE.

YOU DO THE PEOPLE OF THE COMMONWEALTH NO SERVICE WHEN YOU CAST DOUBT UPON THE HONESTY AND INTEGRITY OF YOUR COLLEAGUES WHERE NONE SHOULD EXIST. THE MEMBERS OF THIS BODY ARE OVERHWELMINGLY HARD WORKING, SELF-SACRIFICING AND DEDICATED TO THEIR DISTRICTS AND I AM AS PROUD TO SERVE WITH THIS INSTITUTION AND OUR SPEAKER, ONE OF THE BRIGHTEST PEOPLE I HAVE EVER MET, AND I AM AS PROUD TO SERVE WITH ALL OF YOU AS I HAVE EVER BEEN TO SERVE IN ANY INSTITUTION IN MY PROFESSIONAL LIFE.

BUT THERE ARE THOSE OF YOU, WHO HOLD YOURSELVES OUT, AND, INDEED ABOVE YOUR COLLEAGUES, AS THE HONEST BROKERS AS THE CHAMPIONS OF THE PEOPLE—YOU WHO WOULD SAVE THE COMMONWEALTH FROM THE EVIL YOUR COLLEAGUES WOULD PERPETRATE.

BUT SOME OF YOU LURED BY A FEW KIND WORDS FROM THE PRINT MEDIA AND SEDUCED BY DREAMS OF RUNNING STATE WIDE, HAVE TURNED NOT JUST UPON YOUR COLLEAGUES BUT UPON THE PEOPLE YOU SERVE, AND ENTERED, PERHAPS UNWITTINGLY INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH THE MEDIA TO BRING HOME THE BACON FOR THEM.

WHAT DO YOU THINK WILL HAPPEN WHEN THE PUBLIC FIGURES OUT THAT SOME OF YOU HAVE SOLD OUT TO THE PRESS AND, IN RETURN FOR A FEW KIND WORDS, YOU HAVE GUARANTEED THEM MILLIONS IN ADVERTISING REVENUES PAID FOR BY THE PEOPLE OF THE COMMONWEALTH. THIS IS THE POT OF GOLD AT THE END OF THE RAINBOW FOR THE MEDIA. NOT ONLY WILL THE PRESS HAVE A NEVER ENDING MEDIA CIRCUS OF FRINGE CANDIDATES UPON WHICH TO REPORT, BUT THE PRESS WILL NO LONGER HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT NOT GETTING PAID FOR ADVERTISING FROM CAMPAIGN ACCOUNTS UNABLE TO RAISE MONEY FROM MAINSTREAM MASSACHUSETTS—NO LONGER WILL THE PRESS HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT DEMANDS FROM FRINGE CANDIDATES TO PROVIDE THEM WITH EQUAL TIME FOR NOTHING. NOW, THE PRESS IS GUARANTEED PAYMENT FOR ADS BY A NEVER ENDING SUPPLY OF TAX PAYER DOLLARS. AS THE COST OF ADVERTISING GOES UP, AND I PROMISE IT WILL, SO WILL THE DEMAND FOR MORE FUNDING. TALK ABOUT THE TAIL WAGGING THE DOG!

IT IS NOTHING LESS THAN ASTONISHING, THAT WHEN HUNDREDS AND POSSIBLY THOUSANDS OF WORKERS IN THE COMMONWEALTH ARE LOSING THEIR JOBS, OR AGREEING TO GO WITHOUT PAY, WHEN BUDGETS ARE BEING CUT, WHEN OUR MOST VULNERABLE CITIZENS ARE LOSING SERVICES THAT SO-CALLED PROGRESSIVES WOULD INSIST THAT TENS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN AN AMOUNT SO LARGE IT IS UNASCERTAINABLE AT THIS TIME WOULD BE SPENT ON, OF ALL THINGS, NEWSPAPER AND TELEVISION ADVERTISING—BECAUSE THAT’S WHAT MODERN CAMPAIGNS ARE ABOUT AND THAT’S WHERE THIS MONEY WILL
GO.

DON HEWITT, EXECUTIVE PRODUCER CBS NEWS “60 MINUTES”

WROTE JUST LAST MONTH (JANUARY 25, 2002) IN A NEW YORK TIMES OP-ED PIECE ABOUT MONEYS GRIP ON CAMPAIGNS BEING CAUSED BY THE HIGH COST OF ADVERTISING—SPECIFICALLY TELEVISION ADVERTISING.

IN RECALLING THE DAY 42 YEARS AGO, THE BEGINNING OF TELEVISED COVERAGE OF POLITICS IN 1960 WITH THE KENNEDY-NIXON DEBATES, HE WAS THE PRODUCER---HE SAID HE KNEW THEN THAT CAMPAIGNING ANYWHERE BUT ON TELEVISION WAS PROBABLY A WASTE OF TIME AND MONEY AND THAT WHAT TELEVISION WANTED WAS “THE POLITICIAN’S ACCESS TO A BOTTOMLESS PIT OF ADVERTISING DOLLARS.”

HE STATES THAT OF THE $70 MIL HILLARY CLINTON AND RICK LAZIO SPENT IN THEIR 2000 BATTLING FOR ONE SENATE SEAT, TELEVISION COMMERCIALS TOOK THE LION’S SHARE OF THAT AMOUNT. “WE WOULDN’T HAVE TO LIVE WITH MONEY’S GRIP ON CAMPAIGNS IF AMERICA TOOK A STAND AGAINST POLITICAL ADS ON T.V. AS IT ONCE TOOK A STAND AGAINST TOBACCO ADS.”

HE SAID THAT THE UNDENIABLE TRUTH IS THAT THERE IS NOTHING “FREE” ABOUT THE WAY WE ELECT OFFICE SEEKERS. ADDRESSING THE REAL CONCERN HE ASKS, “WHAT WOULD IT DO TO AMERICA’S BROADCASTERS TO GIVE UP ALL THAT ADVERTISING REVENUE FROM POLITICAL CAMPAIGNERS? WELL ADVERTISERS WOULDN’T HAVE TO GIVE IT ALL UP HE SAYS, THEY JUST NEED TO SELF-REGULATE AND PLACE REASONABLE LIMITS UPON CAMPAIGN SPENDING.

(CALLING UPON THE FCC TO LIMIT THE AMOUNT OF TELEVISION ADVERTISING A CANDIDATE COULD PURCHASE AND, FAILING FCC REGULATION, CALLING UPON BROADCASTERS TO SELF-REGULATE THE AMOUNT THEY ALLOW CANDIDATES TO SPEND.)

NOW, WITH AN AVERAGE OF 70% OF ALL CAMPAIGN DOLLARS GOING FOR MEDIA, WE KNOW THAT THERE IS LITTLE INCENTIVE FOR THE MEDIA TO PROVIDE FREE AIR TIME OR PRINT SPACE TO ALL CANDIDATES OR TO SELF-REGULATE THE AMOUNT OF CAMPAIGN ADVERTISING EITHER PRINT OR BROADCAST, AS LONG AS THEY ARE GETTING PAID.

NOW, WHEN THE PUBLIC STARTED DEMANDING CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM, LARGELY BECAUSE OF WHAT THEY SAW GOING ON IN CONGRESSIONAL AND PRESIDENTIAL RACES WITH $25,000 A PLATE DINNERS AND HUGE AMOUNTS OF MONEY COMING FROM FOREIGN SOURCES AND SPECIAL INTEREST GROUPS, THE MEDIA SAW A HUGE SOURCE OF REVENUE DRYING UP---IT WAS FOR THIS REASON, I SUSPECT THAT IT EMBRACED TAXPAYER FINANCED ELECTIONS—AFTER ALL WHAT BETTER SOURCE OF REVENUE THAN THE DEEP POCKETS OF UNCLE SAM.

I CALL UPON THE MASSACHUSETTS MEDIA TODAY—PRINT AND BROADCAST—TAKE THE MONEY OUT OF POLITICS, DO THE TAXPAYER’S A SERVICE AND DONATE EQUAL AND FREE AIR TIME AND PRINT SPACE TO EACH CANDIDATE THAT QUALIFIES UNDER THE LAW AS PASSED OR WITH THE INUMERABLE AMENDMENTS PROPOSED. I GUARANTEE THAT THIS WILL INCREASE THE NUMBER OF CANDIDATES AND CONTESTED RACES STATE WIDE EXPONENTIALLY, WHICH IS, OF COURSE, THE AVOWED PURPOSE OF THE LAW.

—OR FOR THAT MATTER DONATE FREE SPACE OR TIME TO ANY CANDIDATE THAT SHOWS UP ON YOUR DOOR STEP NO MATTER HOW MARGINAL, NO MATTER WHETHER A NEO-NAZI, AN ANTI-SEMITE, A RACIST OR SOMEONE WHO ADVOCATES THE VIOLENT OVERTHROW OF THE GOVERNMENT—AND THERE ARE CANDIDATES OUT THERE RIGHT NOW WHO ESPOUSE THOSE VIEWS AND WOULD LOVE TO HAVE A FORUM—AND THOSE CANDIDATES DON’T CARE WHETHER THE TAXPAYER PAYS FOR THAT FORUM OR WHETHER ITS DONATED TO THEM FOR FREE—I DON’T WANT MY TAX DOLLARS USED TO SUPPORT CANDIDATES LIKE THAT AND I DO NOT THINK WE DSHOULD COMPEL TAXPAYERS TO PAY FOR THESE INDIVDUALS TO BE HEARD SO I RESPECTFULLY SUGGEST THE MEDIA STEP UP TO THE PLATE AND DONATE EQUAL TIME AND SPACE TO EACH CANDIDATE. SAVE AMERICA AND MASSACHUSETTS FROM THE GRIPS OF BIG MONEY POLITICS. BEYOND QUESTION, MASSACHUSETTS IS IN A FISCAL CRISIS—DO YOUR PART TO SEE THE COMMONWEALTH THROUGH-- ITS YOUR PATRIOTIC DUTY TO DO SO.

IN RE: ISAAC AND JEREMY

THE SJC GAVE GREAT DEFERENCE TO THE DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES IN THE PLACEMENT OF CHILDREN IN ITS PERMANENT CUSTODY AND WOULD NOT ORDER THE DEPARTMENT TO PLACE THE CHILDREN IN THE VERY EXPENSIVE RESIDENTIAL TREATMENT PROGRAMS THEIR ADVOCATES SOUGHT IN LARGE MEASURE BECAUSE OF THE COURTS CONCERN ABOUT THE COSTS OF THESE PROGRAMS.

AMONG THE QUESTIONS THE COURT ADDRESSED IN THESE CASES IS DOES THE COURT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO ORDER THE DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES TO EXPEND FUNDS IT WOULD OTHERWISE NOT BE REQUIRED TO EXPEND. THE SJC SAID, “NO” THE SJC SAID, “A COURT, OF COURSE, MAY NOT PROPERLY EXERCISE THE FUNCTIONS OF THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH OF STATE GOVERNMENT…. WE STRONGLY SUPPORT THE APPLICATION OF THE TRADITIONAL RULE GOVERNING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN TAN ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY AND THE COURTS BECAUSE THESE DECISIONS HAVE AN IMPACT ON THE DEPARTMENT’S ALLOCATION OF FINITE RESOURCES AMONG A LARGE POPULATION OF CHILDREN IN NEED OF SERVICES.

THE SJC REFUSED TO SUBSTITUTE ITS JUDGMENT FOR THAT OF THE DSS BECAUSE OF ITS JUDGMENT THAT THE DEPARTMENT NEEDED TO MANAGE THE FINITE RESOURCES ALLOCATED TO IT IN A MANNER THAT WOULD ENABLE THE DEPARTMENT TO SERVE A LARGE POPULATION IN NEED OF SERVICES. YET, THIS SAME SJC NOW EXPRESSES A COMNFORT LEVEL WITH TELLING THE LEGISLATURE TO APPROPRIATE AN UNASCERTAINABLE AMOUNT OF MONEY NOTWITHSTANDING THE MANY NEEDS OF THE CHILDREN OR ANY OTHER GROUP OF INDIVIDUALS IN THE COMMONWEALTH.

OTHER STATES EXPERIENCES WITH TAXPAYER FINANCED ELECTIONS

Clean Elections

THE WILL OF THE VOTERS AND AMENDMENTS

LAST TIME WE WERE HERE, OPPONENTS OF TAXPAYER FINANCED ELECTIONS WERE TOLD THAT THE VOTERS HAD SPOKEN AND DEMANDED BLIND OBEDIENCE TO THE “WILL OF THE VOTERS” THE EXPRESS INTENT OF THE VOTERS.

NOW WE HAVE A HANDFUL OF PEOPLE PURPORTING TO INTERPRET THE WILL OF THE VOTERS BY FILING NUMEROUS AMENDMENTS TO THIS LAW—TINKERING WITH IT BEYOND RECOGNITION.

THE PROPONENTS OF THIS LAW ARGUE THAT THE VOTERS UNDERSTOOD THE LAW—IT’S CLEAR TO ME FROM THE NUMBER OF AMENDMENTS FILED THAT THE DRAFTERS OF THE LEGISLATION DID NOT UNDERSTAND THE LAW AND MORE IMPORTANTLY DID NOT INTEND ITS CONSEQUENCES. ITS POORLY CRAFTED WITH FATAL FLAWS—WE ARE NO LONGER, WITH THESE AMENDMENTS, BEING FAITHFUL TO THE WILL OF THE VOTERS, WE ARE NOW BEING ASKED TO ACCEPT REFINEMENTS TO THIS LAW DRAFTED BY A HANDFUL OF PEOPLE WHO HAVE THE AUDACITY TO INSIST THEY AND THEY ALONE UNDERSTAND AND INTERPRET THE WILL OF THE VOTERS AND SPEAK FOR THE VOTERS.

NOT ONLY DID THE DRAFTERS OF THIS LEGISLATION NOT CRAFT THE LAW IN A THOUGHTFUL MANNER UNDERSTAND THE LAW AND NOT INTEND ITS CONSEQUENCES, BUT THE VOTING PUBLIC DID NOT UNDERSTAND THIS LAW AND, MOST DEFINITELY, DID NOT INTEND ITS CONSEQUENCES, NAMELY THAT MANY MILLIONS OF DOLLARS SHOULD GO TO CANDIDATES WHO ARE NOT OTHERWISE VIABLE CANDIDATES SO THEY CAN GET THEIR MESSAGE OUT.

MANY OF US JUST RECEIVED A LETTER FROM A FINE GENTLEMAN WHO PULLED OUT OF THE RACE FOR GOVERNOR. IN A LETTER TO DEMOCRATIC LEADERS HE WRITES THAT HE WITHDREW BECAUSE OF THE UNCERTAINTIES OF CLEAN ELECTION FUNDING AND, WELL, THE TRAVAILS OF SECURING A PLACE ON THE BALLOT---WELL, OF COURSE THERE IS THAT, THE FACT THAT YOU HAVE NO DELEGATES GOING INTO THE CONVENTION AND NO SUPPORT. DID WE REALLY NEED TO GIVE THAT INDIVIDUAL A MILLION DOLLARS TO DISCOVER THAT HE WOULD NOT SURVIVE THE CONVENTION?

PURPOSES OF CLEAN ELECTIONS—NOT NEEDED IN MASSACHUSETTS

THIS FOLLY IS LIKE THE 13TH STRIKE OF THE CLOCK, IT CASTS DOUBT UPON ALL THAT HAS COME BEFORE IT.
“BARE KNUCKLES” FIGHT WITH YOUR COLLEAGUES AND FIGHTING WITH PEOPLE WHO BUY INK BY THE BARREL

YOU DO THE PEOPLE OF THE COMMONWWEALTH NO SERVICE WHEN YOU CREATE ANXIETY ABOUT THE WORK OF THIS LEGISLATURE WHERE NONE SHOULD EXIST. PEOPLE ARE ANXIOUS ENOUGH ABOUT WHAT HAPPENED ON 9/11 AND WHAT HAS HAPPENED TO THE ECONOMY. ITS UNCONSCIONABLE WHAT SOME OF YOU HAVE DONE HERE.

YOU DO THE PEOPLE OF THE COMMONWEALTH NO SERVICE WHEN YOU CAST DOUBT UPON THE HONESTY AND INTEGRITY OF YOUR COLLEAGUES WHERE NONE SHOULD EXIST. THE MEMBERS OF THIS BODY ARE OVERHWELMINGLY HARD WORKING, SELF-SACRIFICING AND DEDICATED TO THEIR DISTRICTS AND I AM AS PROUD TO SERVE WITH THIS INSTITUTION AND OUR SPEAKER, ONE OF THE BRIGHTEST PEOPLE I HAVE EVER MET, AND I AM AS PROUD TO SERVE WITH ALL OF YOU AS I HAVE EVER BEEN TO SERVE IN ANY INSTITUTION IN MY PROFESSIONAL LIFE.

BUT THERE ARE THOSE OF YOU, WHO HOLD YOURSELVES OUT, AND, INDEED ABOVE YOUR COLLEAGUES, AS THE HONEST BROKERS AS THE CHAMPIONS OF THE PEOPLE—YOU WHO WOULD SAVE THE COMMONWEALTH FROM THE EVIL YOUR COLLEAGUES WOULD PERPETRATE.

BUT SOME OF YOU LURED BY A FEW KIND WORDS FROM THE PRINT MEDIA AND SEDUCED BY DREAMS OF RUNNING STATE WIDE, HAVE TURNED NOT JUST UPON YOUR COLLEAGUES BUT UPON THE PEOPLE YOU SERVE, AND ENTERED, PERHAPS UNWITTINGLY INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH THE MEDIA TO BRING HOME THE BACON FOR THEM.

WHAT DO YOU THINK WILL HAPPEN WHEN THE PUBLIC FIGURES OUT THAT SOME OF YOU HAVE SOLD OUT TO THE PRESS AND, IN RETURN FOR A FEW KIND WORDS, YOU HAVE GUARANTEED THEM MILLIONS IN ADVERTISING REVENUES PAID FOR BY THE PEOPLE OF THE COMMONWEALTH. THIS IS THE POT OF GOLD AT THE END OF THE RAINBOW FOR THE MEDIA. NOT ONLY WILL THE PRESS HAVE A NEVER ENDING MEDIA CIRCUS OF FRINGE CANDIDATES UPON WHICH TO REPORT, BUT THE PRESS WILL NO LONGER HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT NOT GETTING PAID FOR ADVERTISING FROM CAMPAIGN ACCOUNTS UNABLE TO RAISE MONEY FROM MAINSTREAM MASSACHUSETTS—NO LONGER WILL THE PRESS HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT DEMANDS FROM FRINGE CANDIDATES TO PROVIDE THEM WITH EQUAL TIME FOR NOTHING. NOW, THE PRESS IS GUARANTEED PAYMENT FOR ADS BY A NEVER ENDING SUPPLY OF TAX PAYER DOLLARS. AS THE COST OF ADVERTISING GOES UP, AND I PROMISE IT WILL, SO WILL THE DEMAND FOR MORE FUNDING. TALK ABOUT THE TAIL WAGGING THE DOG!

IT IS NOTHING LESS THAN ASTONISHING, THAT WHEN HUNDREDS AND POSSIBLY THOUSANDS OF WORKERS IN THE COMMONWEALTH ARE LOSING THEIR JOBS, OR AGREEING TO GO WITHOUT PAY, WHEN BUDGETS ARE BEING CUT, WHEN OUR MOST VULNERABLE CITIZENS ARE LOSING SERVICES THAT SO-CALLED PROGRESSIVES WOULD INSIST THAT TENS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN AN AMOUNT SO LARGE IT IS UNASCERTAINABLE AT THIS TIME WOULD BE SPENT ON, OF ALL THINGS, NEWSPAPER AND TELEVISION ADVERTISING—BECAUSE THAT’S WHAT MODERN CAMPAIGNS ARE ABOUT AND THAT’S WHERE THIS MONEY WILL
GO.

DON HEWITT, EXECUTIVE PRODUCER CBS NEWS “60 MINUTES”

WROTE JUST LAST MONTH (JANUARY 25, 2002) IN A NEW YORK TIMES OP-ED PIECE ABOUT MONEYS GRIP ON CAMPAIGNS BEING CAUSED BY THE HIGH COST OF ADVERTISING—SPECIFICALLY TELEVISION ADVERTISING.

IN RECALLING THE DAY 42 YEARS AGO, THE BEGINNING OF TELEVISED COVERAGE OF POLITICS IN 1960 WITH THE KENNEDY-NIXON DEBATES, HE WAS THE PRODUCER---HE SAID HE KNEW THEN THAT CAMPAIGNING ANYWHERE BUT ON TELEVISION WAS PROBABLY A WASTE OF TIME AND MONEY AND THAT WHAT TELEVISION WANTED WAS “THE POLITICIAN’S ACCESS TO A BOTTOMLESS PIT OF ADVERTISING DOLLARS.”

HE STATES THAT OF THE $70 MIL HILLARY CLINTON AND RICK LAZIO SPENT IN THEIR 2000 BATTLING FOR ONE SENATE SEAT, TELEVISION COMMERCIALS TOOK THE LION’S SHARE OF THAT AMOUNT. “WE WOULDN’T HAVE TO LIVE WITH MONEY’S GRIP ON CAMPAIGNS IF AMERICA TOOK A STAND AGAINST POLITICAL ADS ON T.V. AS IT ONCE TOOK A STAND AGAINST TOBACCO ADS.”

HE SAID THAT THE UNDENIABLE TRUTH IS THAT THERE IS NOTHING “FREE” ABOUT THE WAY WE ELECT OFFICE SEEKERS. ADDRESSING THE REAL CONCERN HE ASKS, “WHAT WOULD IT DO TO AMERICA’S BROADCASTERS TO GIVE UP ALL THAT ADVERTISING REVENUE FROM POLITICAL CAMPAIGNERS? WELL ADVERTISERS WOULDN’T HAVE TO GIVE IT ALL UP HE SAYS, THEY JUST NEED TO SELF-REGULATE AND PLACE REASONABLE LIMITS UPON CAMPAIGN SPENDING.

(CALLING UPON THE FCC TO LIMIT THE AMOUNT OF TELEVISION ADVERTISING A CANDIDATE COULD PURCHASE AND, FAILING FCC REGULATION, CALLING UPON BROADCASTERS TO SELF-REGULATE THE AMOUNT THEY ALLOW CANDIDATES TO SPEND.)

NOW, WITH AN AVERAGE OF 70% OF ALL CAMPAIGN DOLLARS GOING FOR MEDIA, WE KNOW THAT THERE IS LITTLE INCENTIVE FOR THE MEDIA TO PROVIDE FREE AIR TIME OR PRINT SPACE TO ALL CANDIDATES OR TO SELF-REGULATE THE AMOUNT OF CAMPAIGN ADVERTISING EITHER PRINT OR BROADCAST, AS LONG AS THEY ARE GETTING PAID.

NOW, WHEN THE PUBLIC STARTED DEMANDING CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM, LARGELY BECAUSE OF WHAT THEY SAW GOING ON IN CONGRESSIONAL AND PRESIDENTIAL RACES WITH $25,000 A PLATE DINNERS AND HUGE AMOUNTS OF MONEY COMING FROM FOREIGN SOURCES AND SPECIAL INTEREST GROUPS, THE MEDIA SAW A HUGE SOURCE OF REVENUE DRYING UP---IT WAS FOR THIS REASON, I SUSPECT THAT IT EMBRACED TAXPAYER FINANCED ELECTIONS—AFTER ALL WHAT BETTER SOURCE OF REVENUE THAN THE DEEP POCKETS OF UNCLE SAM.

I CALL UPON THE MASSACHUSETTS MEDIA TODAY—PRINT AND BROADCAST—TAKE THE MONEY OUT OF POLITICS, DO THE TAXPAYER’S A SERVICE AND DONATE EQUAL AND FREE AIR TIME AND PRINT SPACE TO EACH CANDIDATE THAT QUALIFIES UNDER THE LAW AS PASSED OR WITH THE INUMERABLE AMENDMENTS PROPOSED. I GUARANTEE THAT THIS WILL INCREASE THE NUMBER OF CANDIDATES AND CONTESTED RACES STATE WIDE EXPONENTIALLY, WHICH IS, OF COURSE, THE AVOWED PURPOSE OF THE LAW.

—OR FOR THAT MATTER DONATE FREE SPACE OR TIME TO ANY CANDIDATE THAT SHOWS UP ON YOUR DOOR STEP NO MATTER HOW MARGINAL, NO MATTER WHETHER A NEO-NAZI, AN ANTI-SEMITE, A RACIST OR SOMEONE WHO ADVOCATES THE VIOLENT OVERTHROW OF THE GOVERNMENT—AND THERE ARE CANDIDATES OUT THERE RIGHT NOW WHO ESPOUSE THOSE VIEWS AND WOULD LOVE TO HAVE A FORUM—AND THOSE CANDIDATES DON’T CARE WHETHER THE TAXPAYER PAYS FOR THAT FORUM OR WHETHER ITS DONATED TO THEM FOR FREE—I DON’T WANT MY TAX DOLLARS USED TO SUPPORT CANDIDATES LIKE THAT AND I DO NOT THINK WE DSHOULD COMPEL TAXPAYERS TO PAY FOR THESE INDIVDUALS TO BE HEARD SO I RESPECTFULLY SUGGEST THE MEDIA STEP UP TO THE PLATE AND DONATE EQUAL TIME AND SPACE TO EACH CANDIDATE. SAVE AMERICA AND MASSACHUSETTS FROM THE GRIPS OF BIG MONEY POLITICS. BEYOND QUESTION, MASSACHUSETTS IS IN A FISCAL CRISIS—DO YOUR PART TO SEE THE COMMONWEALTH THROUGH-- ITS YOUR PATRIOTIC DUTY TO DO SO.

IN RE: ISAAC AND JEREMY
THE SJC GAVE GREAT DEFERENCE TO THE DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES IN THE PLACEMENT OF CHILDREN IN ITS PERMANENT CUSTODY AND WOULD NOT ORDER THE DEPARTMENT TO PLACE THE CHILDREN IN THE VERY EXPENSIVE RESIDENTIAL TREATMENT PROGRAMS THEIR ADVOCATES SOUGHT IN LARGE MEASURE BECAUSE OF THE COURTS CONCERN ABOUT THE COSTS OF THESE PROGRAMS.

AMONG THE QUESTIONS THE COURT ADDRESSED IN THESE CASES IS DOES THE COURT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO ORDER THE DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES TO EXPEND FUNDS IT WOULD OTHERWISE NOT BE REQUIRED TO EXPEND. THE SJC SAID, “NO” THE SJC SAID, “A COURT, OF COURSE, MAY NOT PROPERLY EXERCISE THE FUNCTIONS OF THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH OF STATE GOVERNMENT…. WE STRONGLY SUPPORT THE APPLICATION OF THE TRADITIONAL RULE GOVERNING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN TAN ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY AND THE COURTS BECAUSE THESE DECISIONS HAVE AN IMPACT ON THE DEPARTMENT’S ALLOCATION OF FINITE RESOURCES AMONG A LARGE POPULATION OF CHILDREN IN NEED OF SERVICES.

THE SJC REFUSED TO SUBSTITUTE ITS JUDGMENT FOR THAT OF THE DSS BECAUSE OF ITS JUDGMENT THAT THE DEPARTMENT NEEDED TO MANAGE THE FINITE RESOURCES ALLOCATED TO IT IN A MANNER THAT WOULD ENABLE THE DEPARTMENT TO SERVE A LARGE POPULATION IN NEED OF SERVICES. YET, THIS SAME SJC NOW EXPRESSES A COMNFORT LEVEL WITH TELLING THE LEGISLATURE TO APPROPRIATE AN UNASCERTAINABLE AMOUNT OF MONEY NOTWITHSTANDING THE MANY NEEDS OF THE CHILDREN OR ANY OTHER GROUP OF INDIVIDUALS IN THE COMMONWEALTH.

OTHER STATES EXPERIENCES WITH TAXPAYER FINANCED ELECTIONS

Clean Elections

THE WILL OF THE VOTERS AND AMENDMENTS

LAST TIME WE WERE HERE, OPPONENTS OF TAXPAYER FINANCED ELECTIONS WERE TOLD THAT THE VOTERS HAD SPOKEN AND DEMANDED BLIND OBEDIENCE TO THE “WILL OF THE VOTERS” THE EXPRESS INTENT OF THE VOTERS.

NOW WE HAVE A HANDFUL OF PEOPLE PURPORTING TO INTERPRET THE WILL OF THE VOTERS BY FILING NUMEROUS AMENDMENTS TO THIS LAW—TINKERING WITH IT BEYOND RECOGNITION.

THE PROPONENTS OF THIS LAW ARGUE THAT THE VOTERS UNDERSTOOD THE LAW—IT’S CLEAR TO ME FROM THE NUMBER OF AMENDMENTS FILED THAT THE DRAFTERS OF THE LEGISLATION DID NOT UNDERSTAND THE LAW AND MORE IMPORTANTLY DID NOT INTEND ITS CONSEQUENCES. ITS POORLY CRAFTED WITH FATAL FLAWS—WE ARE NO LONGER, WITH THESE AMENDMENTS, BEING FAITHFUL TO THE WILL OF THE VOTERS, WE ARE NOW BEING ASKED TO ACCEPT REFINEMENTS TO THIS LAW DRAFTED BY A HANDFUL OF PEOPLE WHO HAVE THE AUDACITY TO INSIST THEY AND THEY ALONE UNDERSTAND AND INTERPRET THE WILL OF THE VOTERS AND SPEAK FOR THE VOTERS.

NOT ONLY DID THE DRAFTERS OF THIS LEGISLATION NOT CRAFT THE LAW IN A THOUGHTFUL MANNER UNDERSTAND THE LAW AND NOT INTEND ITS CONSEQUENCES, BUT THE VOTING PUBLIC DID NOT UNDERSTAND THIS LAW AND, MOST DEFINITELY, DID NOT INTEND ITS CONSEQUENCES, NAMELY THAT MANY MILLIONS OF DOLLARS SHOULD GO TO CANDIDATES WHO ARE NOT OTHERWISE VIABLE CANDIDATES SO THEY CAN GET THEIR MESSAGE OUT.

MANY OF US JUST RECEIVED A LETTER FROM A FINE GENTLEMAN WHO PULLED OUT OF THE RACE FOR GOVERNOR. IN A LETTER TO DEMOCRATIC LEADERS HE WRITES THAT HE WITHDREW BECAUSE OF THE UNCERTAINTIES OF CLEAN ELECTION FUNDING AND, WELL, THE TRAVAILS OF SECURING A PLACE ON THE BALLOT---WELL, OF COURSE THERE IS THAT, THE FACT THAT YOU HAVE NO DELEGATES GOING INTO THE CONVENTION AND NO SUPPORT. DID WE REALLY NEED TO GIVE THAT INDIVIDUAL A MILLION DOLLARS TO DISCOVER THAT HE WOULD NOT SURVIVE THE CONVENTION?

PURPOSES OF CLEAN ELECTIONS—NOT NEEDED IN MASSACHUSETTS

THIS FOLLY IS LIKE THE 13TH STRIKE OF THE CLOCK, IT CASTS DOUBT UPON ALL THAT HAS COME BEFORE IT.
“BARE KNUCKLES” FIGHT WITH YOUR COLLEAGUES AND FIGHTING WITH PEOPLE WHO BUY INK BY THE BARREL

YOU DO THE PEOPLE OF THE COMMONWWEALTH NO SERVICE WHEN YOU CREATE ANXIETY ABOUT THE WORK OF THIS LEGISLATURE WHERE NONE SHOULD EXIST. PEOPLE ARE ANXIOUS ENOUGH ABOUT WHAT HAPPENED ON 9/11 AND WHAT HAS HAPPENED TO THE ECONOMY. ITS UNCONSCIONABLE WHAT SOME OF YOU HAVE DONE HERE.

YOU DO THE PEOPLE OF THE COMMONWEALTH NO SERVICE WHEN YOU CAST DOUBT UPON THE HONESTY AND INTEGRITY OF YOUR COLLEAGUES WHERE NONE SHOULD EXIST. THE MEMBERS OF THIS BODY ARE OVERHWELMINGLY HARD WORKING, SELF-SACRIFICING AND DEDICATED TO THEIR DISTRICTS AND I AM AS PROUD TO SERVE WITH THIS INSTITUTION AND OUR SPEAKER, ONE OF THE BRIGHTEST PEOPLE I HAVE EVER MET, AND I AM AS PROUD TO SERVE WITH ALL OF YOU AS I HAVE EVER BEEN TO SERVE IN ANY INSTITUTION IN MY PROFESSIONAL LIFE.

BUT THERE ARE THOSE OF YOU, WHO HOLD YOURSELVES OUT, AND, INDEED ABOVE YOUR COLLEAGUES, AS THE HONEST BROKERS AS THE CHAMPIONS OF THE PEOPLE—YOU WHO WOULD SAVE THE COMMONWEALTH FROM THE EVIL YOUR COLLEAGUES WOULD PERPETRATE.

BUT SOME OF YOU LURED BY A FEW KIND WORDS FROM THE PRINT MEDIA AND SEDUCED BY DREAMS OF RUNNING STATE WIDE, HAVE TURNED NOT JUST UPON YOUR COLLEAGUES BUT UPON THE PEOPLE YOU SERVE, AND ENTERED, PERHAPS UNWITTINGLY INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH THE MEDIA TO BRING HOME THE BACON FOR THEM.

WHAT DO YOU THINK WILL HAPPEN WHEN THE PUBLIC FIGURES OUT THAT SOME OF YOU HAVE SOLD OUT TO THE PRESS AND, IN RETURN FOR A FEW KIND WORDS, YOU HAVE GUARANTEED THEM MILLIONS IN ADVERTISING REVENUES PAID FOR BY THE PEOPLE OF THE COMMONWEALTH. THIS IS THE POT OF GOLD AT THE END OF THE RAINBOW FOR THE MEDIA. NOT ONLY WILL THE PRESS HAVE A NEVER ENDING MEDIA CIRCUS OF FRINGE CANDIDATES UPON WHICH TO REPORT, BUT THE PRESS WILL NO LONGER HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT NOT GETTING PAID FOR ADVERTISING FROM CAMPAIGN ACCOUNTS UNABLE TO RAISE MONEY FROM MAINSTREAM MASSACHUSETTS—NO LONGER WILL THE PRESS HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT DEMANDS FROM FRINGE CANDIDATES TO PROVIDE THEM WITH EQUAL TIME FOR NOTHING. NOW, THE PRESS IS GUARANTEED PAYMENT FOR ADS BY A NEVER ENDING SUPPLY OF TAX PAYER DOLLARS. AS THE COST OF ADVERTISING GOES UP, AND I PROMISE IT WILL, SO WILL THE DEMAND FOR MORE FUNDING. TALK ABOUT THE TAIL WAGGING THE DOG!

IT IS NOTHING LESS THAN ASTONISHING, THAT WHEN HUNDREDS AND POSSIBLY THOUSANDS OF WORKERS IN THE COMMONWEALTH ARE LOSING THEIR JOBS, OR AGREEING TO GO WITHOUT PAY, WHEN BUDGETS ARE BEING CUT, WHEN OUR MOST VULNERABLE CITIZENS ARE LOSING SERVICES THAT SO-CALLED PROGRESSIVES WOULD INSIST THAT TENS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN AN AMOUNT SO LARGE IT IS UNASCERTAINABLE AT THIS TIME WOULD BE SPENT ON, OF ALL THINGS, NEWSPAPER AND TELEVISION ADVERTISING—BECAUSE THAT’S WHAT MODERN CAMPAIGNS ARE ABOUT AND THAT’S WHERE THIS MONEY WILL
GO.

DON HEWITT, EXECUTIVE PRODUCER CBS NEWS “60 MINUTES”

WROTE JUST LAST MONTH (JANUARY 25, 2002) IN A NEW YORK TIMES OP-ED PIECE ABOUT MONEYS GRIP ON CAMPAIGNS BEING CAUSED BY THE HIGH COST OF ADVERTISING—SPECIFICALLY TELEVISION ADVERTISING.

IN RECALLING THE DAY 42 YEARS AGO, THE BEGINNING OF TELEVISED COVERAGE OF POLITICS IN 1960 WITH THE KENNEDY-NIXON DEBATES, HE WAS THE PRODUCER---HE SAID HE KNEW THEN THAT CAMPAIGNING ANYWHERE BUT ON TELEVISION WAS PROBABLY A WASTE OF TIME AND MONEY AND THAT WHAT TELEVISION WANTED WAS “THE POLITICIAN’S ACCESS TO A BOTTOMLESS PIT OF ADVERTISING DOLLARS.”

HE STATES THAT OF THE $70 MIL HILLARY CLINTON AND RICK LAZIO SPENT IN THEIR 2000 BATTLING FOR ONE SENATE SEAT, TELEVISION COMMERCIALS TOOK THE LION’S SHARE OF THAT AMOUNT. “WE WOULDN’T HAVE TO LIVE WITH MONEY’S GRIP ON CAMPAIGNS IF AMERICA TOOK A STAND AGAINST POLITICAL ADS ON T.V. AS IT ONCE TOOK A STAND AGAINST TOBACCO ADS.”

HE SAID THAT THE UNDENIABLE TRUTH IS THAT THERE IS NOTHING “FREE” ABOUT THE WAY WE ELECT OFFICE SEEKERS. ADDRESSING THE REAL CONCERN HE ASKS, “WHAT WOULD IT DO TO AMERICA’S BROADCASTERS TO GIVE UP ALL THAT ADVERTISING REVENUE FROM POLITICAL CAMPAIGNERS? WELL ADVERTISERS WOULDN’T HAVE TO GIVE IT ALL UP HE SAYS, THEY JUST NEED TO SELF-REGULATE AND PLACE REASONABLE LIMITS UPON CAMPAIGN SPENDING.

(CALLING UPON THE FCC TO LIMIT THE AMOUNT OF TELEVISION ADVERTISING A CANDIDATE COULD PURCHASE AND, FAILING FCC REGULATION, CALLING UPON BROADCASTERS TO SELF-REGULATE THE AMOUNT THEY ALLOW CANDIDATES TO SPEND.)

NOW, WITH AN AVERAGE OF 70% OF ALL CAMPAIGN DOLLARS GOING FOR MEDIA, WE KNOW THAT THERE IS LITTLE INCENTIVE FOR THE MEDIA TO PROVIDE FREE AIR TIME OR PRINT SPACE TO ALL CANDIDATES OR TO SELF-REGULATE THE AMOUNT OF CAMPAIGN ADVERTISING EITHER PRINT OR BROADCAST, AS LONG AS THEY ARE GETTING PAID.

NOW, WHEN THE PUBLIC STARTED DEMANDING CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM, LARGELY BECAUSE OF WHAT THEY SAW GOING ON IN CONGRESSIONAL AND PRESIDENTIAL RACES WITH $25,000 A PLATE DINNERS AND HUGE AMOUNTS OF MONEY COMING FROM FOREIGN SOURCES AND SPECIAL INTEREST GROUPS, THE MEDIA SAW A HUGE SOURCE OF REVENUE DRYING UP---IT WAS FOR THIS REASON, I SUSPECT THAT IT EMBRACED TAXPAYER FINANCED ELECTIONS—AFTER ALL WHAT BETTER SOURCE OF REVENUE THAN THE DEEP POCKETS OF UNCLE SAM.

I CALL UPON THE MASSACHUSETTS MEDIA TODAY—PRINT AND BROADCAST—TAKE THE MONEY OUT OF POLITICS, DO THE TAXPAYER’S A SERVICE AND DONATE EQUAL AND FREE AIR TIME AND PRINT SPACE TO EACH CANDIDATE THAT QUALIFIES UNDER THE LAW AS PASSED OR WITH THE INUMERABLE AMENDMENTS PROPOSED. I GUARANTEE THAT THIS WILL INCREASE THE NUMBER OF CANDIDATES AND CONTESTED RACES STATE WIDE EXPONENTIALLY, WHICH IS, OF COURSE, THE AVOWED PURPOSE OF THE LAW.

—OR FOR THAT MATTER DONATE FREE SPACE OR TIME TO ANY CANDIDATE THAT SHOWS UP ON YOUR DOOR STEP NO MATTER HOW MARGINAL, NO MATTER WHETHER A NEO-NAZI, AN ANTI-SEMITE, A RACIST OR SOMEONE WHO ADVOCATES THE VIOLENT OVERTHROW OF THE GOVERNMENT—AND THERE ARE CANDIDATES OUT THERE RIGHT NOW WHO ESPOUSE THOSE VIEWS AND WOULD LOVE TO HAVE A FORUM—AND THOSE CANDIDATES DON’T CARE WHETHER THE TAXPAYER PAYS FOR THAT FORUM OR WHETHER ITS DONATED TO THEM FOR FREE—I DON’T WANT MY TAX DOLLARS USED TO SUPPORT CANDIDATES LIKE THAT AND I DO NOT THINK WE DSHOULD COMPEL TAXPAYERS TO PAY FOR THESE INDIVDUALS TO BE HEARD SO I RESPECTFULLY SUGGEST THE MEDIA STEP UP TO THE PLATE AND DONATE EQUAL TIME AND SPACE TO EACH CANDIDATE. SAVE AMERICA AND MASSACHUSETTS FROM THE GRIPS OF BIG MONEY POLITICS. BEYOND QUESTION, MASSACHUSETTS IS IN A FISCAL CRISIS—DO YOUR PART TO SEE THE COMMONWEALTH THROUGH-- IT’S YOUR PATRIOTIC DUTY TO DO SO.

IN RE: ISAAC AND JEREMY
THE SJC GAVE GREAT DEFERENCE TO THE DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES IN THE PLACEMENT OF CHILDREN IN ITS PERMANENT CUSTODY AND WOULD NOT ORDER THE DEPARTMENT TO PLACE THE CHILDREN IN THE VERY EXPENSIVE RESIDENTIAL TREATMENT PROGRAMS THEIR ADVOCATES SOUGHT IN LARGE MEASURE BECAUSE OF THE COURTS CONCERN ABOUT THE COSTS OF THESE PROGRAMS.

AMONG THE QUESTIONS THE COURT ADDRESSED IN THESE CASES IS DOES THE COURT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO ORDER THE DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES TO EXPEND FUNDS IT WOULD OTHERWISE NOT BE REQUIRED TO EXPEND. THE SJC SAID, “NO” THE SJC SAID, “A COURT, OF COURSE, MAY NOT PROPERLY EXERCISE THE FUNCTIONS OF THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH OF STATE GOVERNMENT…. WE STRONGLY SUPPORT THE APPLICATION OF THE TRADITIONAL RULE GOVERNING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN TAN ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY AND THE COURTS BECAUSE THESE DECISIONS HAVE AN IMPACT ON THE DEPARTMENT’S ALLOCATION OF FINITE RESOURCES AMONG A LARGE POPULATION OF CHILDREN IN NEED OF SERVICES.

THE SJC REFUSED TO SUBSTITUTE ITS JUDGMENT FOR THAT OF THE DSS BECAUSE OF ITS JUDGMENT THAT THE DEPARTMENT NEEDED TO MANAGE THE FINITE RESOURCES ALLOCATED TO IT IN A MANNER THAT WOULD ENABLE THE DEPARTMENT TO SERVE A LARGE POPULATION IN NEED OF SERVICES. YET, THIS SAME SJC NOW EXPRESSES A COMNFORT LEVEL WITH TELLING THE LEGISLATURE TO APPROPRIATE AN UNASCERTAINABLE AMOUNT OF MONEY NOTWITHSTANDING THE MANY NEEDS OF THE CHILDREN OR ANY OTHER GROUP OF INDIVIDUALS IN THE COMMONWEALTH.