Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/load.php on line 651
Notice: Trying to access array offset on value of type bool in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/theme.php on line 2241
Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387 common cause – RI Future Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387
Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387
Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387
Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387
Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387
Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387
Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387
Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387
Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387
Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387
Question 2 on Rhode Island’s ballot this election asks voters if the state Ethics Commission should have restored authority over state legislators that a 2009 lawsuit stripped away. While on its face it may seem like any increased oversight of the often ethically-challenged General Assembly would be a step in the right direction, there are free speech arguments against passing the amendment to the state constitution.
Indeed two of Rhode Island’s most trusted State House special interests are at odds on Question 2: Common Cause Rhode Island is for the ballot measure and the RI ACLU is against it. So RI Future brought in John Marion and Steven Brown, the executive director of each organization, to discuss their difference of opinion.
“Common Cause and the ACLU disagree on the limits of what free speech is,” said Marion, of Common Cause.
“We believe there is free speech that is involved when a legislator representing their constituents gets up and talks about an issue,” said Brown, of the ACLU.
At issue is the speech in debate clause of Rhode Island’s constitution that, according to Marion, “provides a general immunity – to legislators, and only legislators – from prosecution or suit for their legislative duties.” Similar speech in debate clauses exist in 43 other state constitutions, he said.
Marion and Brown agree that a 2009 US Supreme Court case found, in Marion’s words, that “there is no First Amendment protection for people with a conflict of interest. If you have a conflict of interest as defined by law you aren’t supposed to participate.”
Brown thinks the court got it wrong. He said legislators need to be able to do their jobs “freely without fear there are going to be consequences,” he said. “We are concerned that the possibility exists that this could be undermined as a result of the amendment.”
“I certainly understnad the arguments on the other side and I don’t dismiss them because certainly the problem with ethics in our government is one that can’t be ignored but I think it’s just a legitimate differing of opinions in balancing these issues and deciding where the greatest harm lies.”
Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387
When a Warwick resident and doctor checked his phone between appointments, he saw an unfamiliar number. Looking it up, he learned that the call came from Child Support Services, a state agency.
“Good afternoon,” said a male voice on his voicemail. “I’m a representative of Senator Walaska. We’re looking for some support this election if you go out and vote in the primary we would greatly appreciate it. Thank you.”
After hearing the call, and believing the use of state phones for partisan campaign calls to be against the law, the Warwick resident, who asked not to be identified, contacted the Attorney General‘s office. They told him that the AG’s office is only interested in issues of campaign fraud. He was referred to the Secretary of State‘s office. The Secretary of State’s office was similarly disinterested, and referred him to the Board of Elections. According to the resident who sent me the call, the person from the Board of Elections searched through the relevant statutes in vain before giving up and telling the resident that he should call back when he learned exactly what law is being broken.
For future reference, that law seems to be:
§ 36-4-52. Restrictions on political activities of classified employees
No classified employee shall during working hours engage to any extent in any form of partisan politics except that he or she may attend and vote at any party caucus, primary, or election held during working hours. Outside of working hours a classified employee may attend any partisan political rally, club, or gathering and privately express his or her partisan political views but any further partisan political activity on his or her part shall be engaged in only in accordance with the personnel rules. A classified employee violating the provisions of § § 36-4-50–36-4-54, or of the personnel rules shall for a first offense be either demoted or dismissed and for a second offense dismissed. All charges of these violations shall be publicly heard by the personnel appeal board.
Robert Kando executive director of the Board of Elections could not be reached for comment.
John Marion of Common Cause said that the issue appears reminiscent of an ethics complaint against Susan Cicilline Buonanno when she ran for the House District 33 seat that Narragansett Democrat Donald Lally resigned. Buonanno, principal of Gladstone Elementary School in Cranston was accused of using school email and phones to advance her political campaign.
This case is different because it’s not the candidate, but someone claiming to represent the candidate who appears to be using state resources for partisan political purposes.
“As you might expect, using state work telephones for campaigning is forbidden, and so we would want to know if this sort of thing was taking place so that the charges could be investigated and suitable disciplinary action taken if warranted,” said Fred Sneesby, an administrator at Children’s & Family Services. The Warwick resident who sent me the call has been put in contact with Sneesby.
Contacted by phone, Senator Walaska, after I identified myself but before I could fully explain what I was calling about, said, “I know you don’t support me. I have no idea. I don’t know what you’re talking about.”
Jeanine Calkin, a progressive Democrat who is running against the 22-year incumbent, said that her husband, Daniel Calkin, received a similar call. A photo of her husband’s phone is on the left. Daniel Calkin, listening to the audio above, said he was “pretty sure it’s the same guy.”
“This looks like a very clear-cut violation,” said Sam Bell, executive director of the RI Progressive Democrats.”Campaign calls should not be made from state numbers. Being able to direct state workers to campaign for a candidate gives an enormously unfair advantage to powerful incumbents.”
Requests for comment from Representative Joseph McNamara and Brandon Bell, respective chairs for the Democratic and Republican parties in Rhode Island have gone unanswered.
As for the Warwick resident and doctor who sent me the call, he says that he is “disinclined to vote for Walaska.”
Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387
John Marion, at the moment of passage in the Senate
The General Assembly unanimously approved legislation to restore the Ethics Commission’s jurisdiction over lawmakers. The joint resolution puts a constitutional amendment before voters at the November general election that, if approved, would close the legislative immunity loophole. Since it is a joint resolution, it does not require a signature by the governor to become effective.
In 2009, the Rhode Island Supreme Court held that the state constitution’s “speech in debate clause” conferred legislative immunity upon General Assembly members. As a result, legislators stood outside the purview of the Ethics Commission. A constitutional amendment is necessary to restore the Ethics Commission’s oversight of the legislature.
“Since the Irons decision, Common Cause has dedicated itself to closing the ‘legislative immunity’ loophole,” said Common Cause Executive Director John Marion. “This is a historic moment for those who care about ethical government in Rhode Island. We have no doubt that this measure will increase transparency and accountability in our legislature. The work is not done, however, because voters still need to pass this constitutional amendment on the ballot in November.”
Phil West, seconds after passage
“Today’s vote is a dramatic, historic step forward,” said Phil West, who is the former executive director of Common Cause Rhode Island. “The Speaker and Senate President’s ballot question will allow voters to establish the same ethics accountability for all public officials in Rhode Island. It will again allow legislators to think through potential conflicts of interest and to seek advisory opinions from the Rhode Island Ethics Commission. No other state has anything better than this.”
The resolution adopted by the House and Senate did not include a campaign blackout period for filing complaints.
“We met with several groups and decided that the Constitution was an inappropriate place for a moratorium on filing complaints,” said Speaker Nicholas Mattiello. “I have confidence that the Ethics Commission will consider and determine the proper approach for dealing with frivolous, politically charged complaints.”
Personal note: It was an honor to sit in the House and Senate galleys with John Marion and Phil West as the resolutions passed.
Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387
After a seven year dearth, it looks like a little bit of ethical oversight may be returning to the General Assembly. Thanks to a bill sponsored by House Speaker Nick Mattiello, Rhode Islanders could vote to restore the Ethics Commission’s ability to review legislators’ actions this November.
“The public and the business community need to have trust in their government,” Speaker Mattiello said in a news release. “I believe giving the Ethics Commission jurisdiction over the General Assembly is a strong step forward for Rhode Island.”
Mattiello’s bill is a weaker version of the rules concerning Ethics Commission review of legislator conflicts of interest and other issues that the state Supreme Court effectively suspended seven years ago. It would suspend the oversight for five months before an election.
The state Supreme Court ruled seven years ago that legislators should not be held liable for actions that don’t violate the law, including conflicts of interest. The court used the “speech-in-debate” clause that had traditionally been used to shield lawmakers from civil suit.
North Kingstown state Senator Jim Sheehan, a Bernie Sanders supporter, has been leading a one-man crusade for ethics reform over the General Assembly this year. He took the somewhat unprecedented action of buying advertising on local media (including this site) to call attention to the matter.
“While far from perfect, the House amendment represents a reasonable compromise on the ethics reform issue,” Sheehan said. “Most critically, it finally closes the ‘legislators loophole,’ after a seven year hiatus, by restoring the jurisdiction of the Ethics Commission over the General Assembly. If approved and ratified by voters, I hope this measure will help rebuild the people’s trust in their elected state representatives and senators. In light of recent revelations of scandal at the State House, albeit overdue, this reform could not have come any sooner. After six year of working diligently on ethics reform, I am gratified to see a successful outcome to this issue.”
Senate President Teresa Paiva Weed, who joined Mattiello at a news conference yesterday, said, “I hope this is the final piece of the puzzle in terms of restoring confidence and trust in an institution which seeks to serve the people of the state of Rhode Island.”
Other state leaders called it one step in restoring Rhode Islanders’ faith in their government. “This legislation, along with my proposed lobby reform legislation, are historic steps toward restoring Rhode Islanders confidence in their government,” said Secretary of State Nellie Gorbea.
Said Governor Gina Raimondo, “Rhode Islanders deserve better – we need to embrace broad and deep reforms. By restoring Ethics Commission oversight, adopting a line-item veto, and re-examining grant programs, we can send a strong signal that we are committed to making Rhode Island a good place to do business.”
John Marion, executive director of Common Cause RI, who has long championed returning Ethics Commission oversight of the General Assembly said he supports the bill with some qualifications.
“Common Cause is supportive of the Speaker’s proposal to restore the full jurisdiction of the Ethics Commission over members of the General Assembly,” he said. “Our support is qualified on our need to examine the proposal further given that it was only made public today. Additionally, we believe that the moratorium on ethics complaints before an election belongs in law, not in the constitution. It has been seven years since a Rhode Island Supreme Court decision created this loophole in ethics oversight. It’s high time the voters be given a chance to close it by amending our constitution this November.”
Legislative leaders changed their minds on addressing legislators’ immunity from oversight by the Ethics Commission after former House Finance Committee Chairman Ray Gallison resigned amid a law enforcement probe last week. It’s unclear why the FBI and state police are investigating Gallison, but media reports since his resignation have shined a light on a non-profit that he works for. It received significant state funding and board members had little idea of the organization’s work and even their roles, which surprised some listed as board members.
Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387
In the wake of corruption charges against former House Speaker Gordon Fox, Common Cause Rhode Island is calling on the General Assembly to allow the ethics commission to oversee legislators, which currently it does not, and to impose audits on campaign accounts.
“We know there are several simple, immediate actions that can be taken to help hold our public officials more accountable,” Marion said.
Marion noted that in 2003 Fox was fined $10,000 by the state ethics commission for taking on GTech as a lawyer as he was working on a bill to move the business to Providence as a legislator. A 2009 state Supreme Court decision famously exempted legislators from being investigated by the ethics commission, and Common Cause has been advocating to restore their power over legislators ever since.
“When legislators feel there are no repercussions for the smaller stuff, the bigger stuff will eventually take over,” Marion said.
There could be political reasons the House won’t take up the ethics bill this session. Its sponsor is Rep. Mike Marcello, of Smithfield, who challenged Rep. Nick Mattiello as speaker. The Senate version is sponsored by Sen. Ed O’Neill, and independent from North Smithfield, Lincoln. The bill would put the question to the voters of Rhode Island.
Marion also said Fox’s plea today should inspire legislators to require some sort of campaign finance auditing. “Whether random or a percentage, we’ll look at other states and see what they do,” Marion said. “I do know other states routinely look at them.”
Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387
On the November ballot, referendum Question 3 will ask voters; “Shall there be a convention to amend or revise the constitution?” While most people following Ocean State politics are focused on who will be the next governor of our state, or the next mayor of our capital city, question three bears watching too. The process for putting the referendum on the ballot every ten years was the result of a 1973 constitutional convention ballot initiative.
The first time the voters were presented with the new question (in 1984) they authorized a convention. The result was a two-year process that placed 14 questions on the 1986 ballot, eight of which were ratified by the voters. In 1994 and 2004 the voters rejected the referendum and no conventions were held as a result. Our organization, Common Cause Rhode Island, opposed the last two referenda but in 2014 we are not taking a position. Quite frankly, there are too many compelling arguments for and against a convention this time. Just a cursory review shows both sides to have compelling arguments.
Supporters of a convention point to important constitutional changes that they assert are needed in our state as the impetus for their efforts. They also rightfully point out that many of these reforms that limit legislative power could be much more difficult to achieve through the typical process whereby the General Assembly puts proposed constitutional amendments it would like on the statewide ballot.
Opponents of a convention point to the many important changes that have been put on the ballot by the legislature; including Separation of Powers, downsizing the legislature, elimination of the much abused legislative pensions, merit selection of judges, etc. They argue that a convention will be a creature of the legislature given that the election of delegates is based on state legislative districts, and that in 1986 many of them had deep ties to members of the General Assembly.
Opponents of a convention express legitimate concerns about the possibility that such a gathering might put restrictions on important civil rights and liberties up to a popular referendum. They point to amendments from 1986 that would have put restrictions on abortion rights (which didn’t pass) and imposed restrictions on bail for certain drug offenses (which did pass).
Supporters point to the fact that the people must approve any changes to the Rhode Island constitution that are placed on the ballot by a convention, and that the voters overwhelmingly rejected new restrictions on abortions in 1986. They argue that the U.S. Constitution contains sufficient protections for civil rights and liberties, and that those cannot be abrogated by the a state constitution.
We encourage the voters of Rhode Island to look closely at the arguments made against a convention by Citizens for Responsible Government, and for having a convention by Renew RI. Both coalitions have already been spending considerable resources to make their respective point of view heard. No doubt the coming weeks will see even more arguments by both sides of this question.
Common Cause is engaging a different type of education, one that is not focused on persuading anyone about the merits or dangers of a convention. Rather we are trying to explore what a convention might look like by digging into the archives from the 1980s and other sources. Here are a few quick facts:
There were an extraordinary 558 candidates for the November 5, 1985 election of 100 delegates to the constitutional convention. That election resulted in only 96,538 eligible voters casting a ballot. The convention held 11 statewide public forums and received over 1000 comments. After that they held 111 substantive committee meetings and took testimony at 34 public committee hearings. The result was 322 resolutions introduced by the delegates and vetted through six substantive committees. Fifty-six of the resolutions were debated in 10 plenary sessions. The result was 26 resolutions that passed and were consolidated into the 14 ballot questions proposed in 1986.
While the candidates you vote for on November 4th may be in office for four or eight years, changes to our state’s constitution may last for generations. In the coming weeks we hope you take the time to become educated about Question 3 and make sure on Election Day to go down the ballot and make your voice heard on this issue, no matter where you stand.
Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387
The People’s Pledge has been violated, said Common Cause RI Executive Director John Marion. And as a result, Gina Raimondo and Clay Pell are to make a donation to the charity of Angel Taveras’ choice.
The ad in question was an attack on Taveras, paid for by the Providence Fraternal Order of Police. Marion included it in this letter.
“It is my opinion that the advertising does indeed violate the terms of the Pledge,” said Marion, in an email. “I am not yet able to determine the cost of the advertising buy, and subsequently determine how much must be donated to charity.”
The Taveras campaign has asked the other two campaigns to donate to the Federal Hill House. “Federal Hill House is dedicated to enabling people from throughout the Greater Providence area achieve their potential by removing obstacles that hinder them,” according to its website.
Marion said this has been the only violation of the People’s Pledge in a letter to the candidates. “If this is the only violation of the Pledge we see in this primary election it will be a great success and something I think you should all be proud of having taken part in.”
Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387
Rhode Island’s Democratic primary election for governor will be the first time a People’s Pledge will be used to control outside anonymous advertising in a state-based political campaign, said Common Cause RI Executive Director John Marion, who first floated the idea and helped bring the three Democrats running for governor together to agree to it. It will also be the first time a Peoples’ Pledge, an agreement to pick up the cost of outside political advertising, will be implemented outside of Massachusetts, he said.
“This represents a watershed moment in Rhode Island politics,” Marion said in a press release, “and we are proud to have facilitated this historic agreement and want to thank the campaigns of the three major Democratic candidates for working together to get this agreement done.”
The agreement signed by Clay Pell, Gina Raimondo and Angel Taveras applies only to the Democratic primary and says a candidate will pay the cost of a third-party negative advertising about an opponent, or third-party positive advertising about themselves. It does not cover direct mail or canvassing, as Raimondo’s team had suggested.
Marion said he initially invited Republican candidates for governor to sign the pledge too, but he did not hear back from them. He hopes a similar agreement can be made for the general election between both parties.
Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387
Voter fraud, when it occurs, happens during registration and through absentee ballots, not at the polls, points out John Marion of Common Cause. Money spent enforcing a worthless voter ID law cannot be spent to prevent real voter fraud, or to expand and improve our electoral process.
Marion went on to explain that provisional ballots, which may be cast by those without proper ID, are a different kind of ballot, and there is no guarantee that such votes will be counted or any recourse for voters to take to ensure that they are counted.
Are we setting up a two-tiered voter system? One for those who have money and “proper” ID and a second one for the poor? It certainly smells like class warfare to me.
Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387
Last night the Senate Committee on Judiciary heard a full agenda of election bills. You’ll read a lot in the Projo and RI Future about the Voter ID repeal legislation Senator Gayle Goldin sponsored, and that deserves attention. But there were a number of other really important pieces of legislation that are largely being ignored in the shadow of the fight over Voter ID.
Two of the other bills being heard last night would help us catch up:
S 2676 by Senator Gayle Goldin creates a system for online voter registration. In 2008 there were only two states that allow voters to register to vote, or alter their registration, using an online tool. As of last week, there are 22 states that have authorized such systems. In states where online voter registration has been adopted tens of thousands of citizens have taken advantage. Since we know that the more likely threat to election integrity are poor voter rolls, a system of online registration is the real way to reduce our dirty rolls and prevent registration fraud. Here’s the kicker; online voter registration not only makes it easier for people to register and change registration, but it saves cities and towns a ton of money.
S 2237 by Senator Erin Lynch creates a system of in-person early voting. Currently 32 states have some sort of in-person early voting. Rhode Island clings to a system from the 19th Century designed to accommodate an agricultural society where in-person voting only happens on Election Day. Senator Lynch’s bill would provide for evening and weekend hours accommodating citizens who lead 21st Century lives. In recent years Rhode Island has shortened Election Day by an hour and increased the number of voters per precinct. As the rest of the country makes advances, we retreat. In-person early voting has even been cited such as Hurricane Sandy.
While it’s right to be concerned about Rhode Island’s Voter ID law, let’s not forget there are a lot of areas where we need to make improvements.
Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387
Yesterday’s Supreme Court McCutcheon decision certainly means that the distorting power of money over what’s left of American democracy is not going to abate any time soon. Given this, perhaps we should think twice before opening the “Pandora’s Box” of a Constitutional Convention here in Rhode Island. At the forum held recently at Bryant University, Justice Robert Flanders Jr made the suspect claim that lobbyists would be at a loss to navigate the unknown corridors of power at a Con Con. Fortunately, Steve Brown of the ACLU quickly pointed out the paucity of this argument.
Lobbyists will be a part of the Constitutional Convention, were one to be held here in Rhode Island. Big money will enjoy yet another avenue to warp our politics and our society. Some say the risk is small, and the gains to be had are big. This is exactly what they tell you at Foxwoods, but gambling isn’t a sound economic plan or an intelligent political strategy.
Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387
“I wish I could say, ‘Go read this book! There’s a great narrative of what happened in 1984-1986,'” says John Marion, Executive Director of Common Cause RI, “There isn’t a single volume that tells that story.”
Instead, Marion gave this terrific talk at the opening of a forum sponsored by the Hassenfeld Institute for Public Leadership at Bryant, the Roger Williams University School of Law, Common Cause Rhode Island and the Rhode Island League of Women Voters that sought to provide needed information to the public about the possibility of a Constitutional Convention in the next few years.
What will a Constitutional Convention look like? What issues are likely to be taken up? What will an election of delegates look like and what will this all cost? Marion attempts to answer these and other questions by examining the history of the 1984-1986 Constitutional Convention held here in Rhode Island, which is also the last Constitutional Convention to be held anywhere in the United States.
This might just be the best introduction to this important subject available anywhere.
Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387
Robert Benson introduces himself as “Al” Benson in this public access TV show in which he interviews Bob Flanders about a history book he co-authored.
Robert Benson is a frequent contributor to the Providence Journal op-ed pages. Almost every time he contributes, he writes about an anti-organized labor economic topic (see here, here, here, here and here among others).
Sometimes when he writes he thinks public sector unions should be banned, as he did here: “Is it any wonder that Rhode Islanders are fed up with these arrogant, selfish and economically ignorant union bosses? The response of these so-called union leaders to reasonable actions like pension reform is justification for banning government unions altogether.”
And other times, like this morning, he’s more reserved: “We don’t need to outlaw public sector unions, but our elected officials must be able to balance the union demands with the taxpayer’s ability to pay for these demands.”
Since Ed Achorn has taken the helm of the paper of record’s op/ed section, every time he writes, the Providence Journal makes a practice to point out that he is a member of Common Cause and Operation Clean Government, even though neither of these organizations take a stand on – or have anything to do with – economic policy and/or the labor movement, the subjects Benson takes on in his essays.
This fits an emerging pattern on the ProJo op/ed page of parsing anti-left rants as being more non-partisan than they actually are.
But forget (if you can!) for a moment the Providence Journal’s new style of painting an overly rosy picture of those who target the left. I’m just as curious as to why Robert Benson (who sometimes goes by Al Benson, by the way) is allowed to spew misinformation – over and over again, mind you, as he makes this claim in more than one of his ProJo pieces – about Rhode Island having the most expensive fire fighters in the nation.
Here’s what he wrote this morning (emphasis mine): In fact, Rhode Island’s firefighting costs are the highest or second highest in the country, according to the Rhode Island Public Expenditure Council (see “How R.I. Compares,” at http://www.ripec.org).
Here’s what the RIPEC report says (again emphasis mine): “Rhode Island’s fire safety expenditures of $5.06 per $1,000 in 2000 and $6. 50 per $1,000 of personal income in FY 2011, ranked the state 2nd in the country and first in the region.” And, elsewhere in the report: “Per capita FY 2000 fire safety expenditures in Rhode Island of $153 were 80.6 percent higher than the national average and highest in the country. In FY 2011, Rhode Island’s per capita fire safety spending was $280, the second highest in the country and 104.6 percent higher than the national average of $137.”
So, as a point of fact, RIPEC does not rank Rhode Island as the “highest or second highest in the country.” It ranks Rhode Island as the “second highest in the country.”
Those who doubt these numbers seem to have these questions (cribbed directly from actual comments):
1) EMS services are included for Rhode Island but not the other states. By including EMS, you couldn’t even compare Providence to Worcester- two very similar sized cities, but Worcester’s EMS is provided by UMass Hospital, and Providence’s by the Fire Department.
2) The cost represents the total cost of fire protection in RI, meaning sprinkler systems, alarms and other additions, not just the actual fire department budgets.
3) Belief that pension costs are included in the RI costs but not in those for other states.
All the RIPEC report says about it’s methodology is:
Fire Protection comprises expenditures for the prevention, avoidance and suppression of fires and for the provision of ambulance, medical, rescue or auxiliary services when provided by fire protection agencies.To be clear, I’d like more particulars myself.
In short, the Providence Journal op/ed page is overstating/misrepresenting anti-fire fighter information that even Anchor Rising contributors have become skeptical of, four years ago.
Why? How often does this happen? Are their other errors that have gone unnoticed and uncorrected? Has this been an increasing pattern since the wildly anti-union Ed Achorn took over the editorial page control?
I don’t know but if I were John Marion, executive director of Common Cause RI, I might ask Robert Benson to not make such claims under the name “Common Cause.”
Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387
Clay Pell, Gina Raimondo and Angel Taveras have so far largely agreed with one another as they stake out their campaigns to win the Democratic primary for governor. But not so much when it comes to a potential Peoples’ Pledge, according to John Marion, the executive director of Common Cause RI, who oversaw the two hour conversation the three candidates had about it on Monday.
“The sides are pretty far apart on the scope,” said Marion, “but once they present some language I hope things will move along quickly. Everyone indicated a desire to get this done.”
Here’s the statement Marion sent to me when I asked him to comment:
It went well. We got through the ground rules discussion pretty quickly and had a long (2 hr.) conversation about the substance of a possible Pledge. The parties agreed to draft language and circulate it to the group by Monday. By Tuesday I’m going to touch base with everyone and try to set up the next meeting. The sides are pretty far apart on the scope, but once they present some language I hope things will move along quickly. Everyone indicated a desire to get this done.
Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387
As early as Monday RI Democratic candidates for governor will sit at this table at Common Cause RI to agree to discourage outside spending in the Democratic primary.
Democratic candidates for governor could meet Monday with Common Cause RI to hammer out the details of a People’s Pledge, said John Marion, executive director of the good government group who first suggested using the tool developed in Massachusetts to keep outside money from influencing local elections.
Marion said in an interview yesterday that People’s Pledges have been utilized four times in Massachusetts to keep Super PAC and other so-called “dark” money from spending money on negative advertising in local elections – Elizabeth Warren and Scott Brown were the pioneers and it was used in two subsequent congressional races; and Marion also includes an agreement between Bill Weld and John Kerry in 1996.
But, to his knowledge, this would be the first time the ad-hoc workaround to the controversial Citizens United Supreme Court ruling that allows unlimited and anonymous money to be spent in elections.
“With the growth of third party spending … the candidates actual message gets drowned out,” Marion said. “That spending tends to be overwhelmingly negative. Those groups acts as proxys for the official campaign. Official campaigns don’t like to go negative because it reflects poorly on the candidates but when it’s independent of candidate they have no problem.”
Marion said a People’s Pledge could curtail that and be “potentially historic.”
Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387
“The love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows.”
-First Epistle to Timothy, Chapter 6, Verse 10; King James Version
So proclaims the KJV, and ponder that the famous part, “the love of money is the root of all evil,” is a proverb older than Christianity itself.
“Issues of campaign finance have taken a front seat in this election,” John Marion told RI Future earlier. Marion should know; as executive director of Common Cause RI the task of keeping the three big Democratic primary campaigns of Pell, Raimondo, and Taveras at the table falls to him as they meet to hammer out the details of a People’s Pledge. Raimondo and Taveras also swatted at one another over campaign donations this week.
It is beginning to sound like negotiating a Pledge will be akin to a Herculean labor. The Raimondo campaign hit with a one-two punch of an expansive Pledge, covering all outside expenditures, not simply the Super PAC spending; and also requested that the negotiations be open to the media.
It’s a canny move, given that it’s likely the Raimondo campaign won’t just be facing campaign operations, but also public sector union operations aimed at ending her career. The “typical” Pledge used by during Massachusetts’ Warren-Brown race for Senate certainly seems to harm Raimondo the most, and the blanket outside spending ban will prevent her opponents from mitigating her significant fundraising lead.
As intelligent as that may be in the immediate future, it seems to ignore that limiting the resources campaigns have will probably lead to negative advertising (because it unfortunately works); and then it becomes a race to see who can emerge the least-bloodied in September. Hopefully, instead of these being ironclad demands, the Raimondo team is merely staking out its ideal position, and will allow itself to be bargained down.
Similarly, the call for opening negotiations to the media sounds like a great idea; until you think that few negotiations of consequence have ever been hammered out in the public eye. Negotiations call for discretion and humility, and the court of public opinion rarely rewards those characteristics, especially for politicians.
But a call for transparency about a Pledge aimed at increasing transparency is good politics, and it’s a fine line to walk between voicing legitimate concerns and sounding like you’ve got something to hide.
Make no mistake about it, this is a war of position right now, with each side marshaling what it needs to hammer at each other come the summer and early fall when voters start actually paying attention.
That’s partly why campaign finance has received media attention at all. It is the season of fundraisers and campaign finance reports. With little to report on beyond money, the political scene will be mostly focused on the big political campaigns until the General Assembly starts to take up bills, at which point the media will keep one eye on both.
The problem is that the state is not electing a fundraiser-in-chief, but rather a governor. Ultimately the Pledge is subservient to that goal, providing the voters the ability to select who they think would govern best. Until then, we may find ourselves, like the ancients, pierced through with many sorrows.
Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387
General Treasurer Gina Raimondo is not only interested in coming to the table with her fellow Democrats seeking to be governor and agree to a People’s Pledge, but she’s also upping the ante to include other campaign-related activities like opposition research and door-to-door canvassing.
“Let’s keep all outside money off of the airwaves, out of our mail boxes and away from our phones and doors,” said campaign manager Eric Hyers in a statement released this morning. “We have a historic opportunity to come to an agreement that keeps all third-party spending out of this race and ensures that the Democratic primary for governor is just between the candidates running.”
Hyers suggested all negotiations be public and that it include “a complete ban on any and all outside spending, including advertising by groups that have not endorsed a candidate in this race in order to prevent outside groups from exploiting loopholes” and “cover all TV, radio and web advertising, all direct mail, paid phones, paid canvassers and opposition research.”
Agreeing to limit third party direct mail could hurt Clay Pell, who would seem to have the support of organized labor so far. A limit on canvassing could handicap Angel Taveras, who is said to have an advantage when it comes to boots on the ground.
Hyers said, “Rhode Island can be a national leader in crafting an airtight pledge and we strongly believe that these negotiations should not be conducted behind closed doors.”
UPDATE: Pell spokesman Bill Fischer said in a statement sent out this evening: “Clay Pell believes the impact of Super PAC money on our elections is a serious matter and should be treated as such. This process should be facilitated by Common Cause according to their protocols. The public will be best served by a deliberate process, not by dueling press releases. It’s hard to imagine that a fruitful discussion can be accomplished with a roomful of campaign operatives playing to the camera, but this is a call best left to John Marion,” said Bill Fischer, Pell campaign spokesperson.”
RI Common Cause Executive Director John Marion said in an email, “Issues of campaign finance have taken a front seat in this election.”
The three Democrats now need to find a time to get together.
“Common Cause is communicating with the campaigns of Clay Pell, Gina Raimondo, and Angel Taveras to try and find a mutually accommodating time to sit down and begin discussion of a People’s Pledge that all three can agree to,” Marion said.
Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387
Quick up-to-speed: a People’s Pledge is a way to workaround the results of the Citizens United ruling. Candidates agree that if outside interests spend money during the campaign, whoever is the beneficiary of the outside spending will donate half of the cost of the ad to the aggrieved candidate’s choice of charity. This does two things: one, it tells outside groups to back off, because their help will do more harm than good. Two, it makes a candidate donate to charity, which always looks good.
So, long story short, on the 4-year anniversary of Citizens’ United Raimondo backtracked from her campaign’s initially tepid reception of the idea to make a pretty unequivocal statement that a People’s Pledge was needed for the gubernatorial primary. Common Cause RI Executive Director John Marion threw this post up here on RI Future.
Now we could (and will) wildly speculate as to why Raimondo decided to back the Pledge. Maybe the polling for it is good. Maybe it’s an attempt to cloak herself in the Elizabeth Warren mantle. Maybe it’s her significant fundraising lead. Maybe it’s a little of column A, a little of column B, and a little of column C. Whatever. It’s a good thing.
As Common Cause MA points out, the Pledge reduces dark money spending, increases the influence of small donors, and decreases the amount of negative advertising. I wrote a post about a month before the Taveras campaign announced its call for a People’s Pledge, and one of my main points was that we need to avoid bloody primaries. Now, that’s just my partisan progressive Democrat stance, a harsh primary depresses Democratic turnout, and when Dems don’t vote, Republicans win.
Common Cause RI understandably isn’t concerned at all with that, they’re more about the disclosure issues, right of the public to know, that sort of good government thing. They’re hopeful soon-to-announce Clay Pell will also endorse the Pledge, and then the campaigns can get down to brass tacks and sort this out.
I’m hopeful (again). That Pell might refuse seems a bit weird, and would raise more questions than would be good for his fledgling campaign.
Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387
Yes, I was smiling when I read the news that Angel Taveras had called for a People’s Pledge in the RI Democratic Primary for Governor. Common Cause RI pointed to the study by Common Cause MA that the 2012 People’s Pledge for the race between Elizabeth Warren and Scott Brown reduced the amount of influence of outside groups in the election.
Then, I read Gina Raimondo’s response: we’ve already been attacked by special interests, donate the full amount AFSCME paid for the Seidle Report. I may have boiled it down a bit.
My initial thought was “savvy move, Raimondo, savvy move.” Except when I pause to think about it, it’s not really. Taveras has already been attacked as well; notably in totally unfocused ones by the American LeadHERship PAC that couldn’t decided whether the mayor was a political insider or a political novice. Taveras could’ve opened his push for a People’s Pledge by suggesting that would be a place to start for Raimondo, but he didn’t. Which is rather congenial, considering those were nutty political attacks.
It appears that the harrowing few weeks of negative press from progressive left media like Salon and Rolling Stone and the center-leftish The New York Times on pension reform (something which Raimondo could’ve foreseen when she started accepting awards from right-wing think tanks) have raised hackles in the Treasurer’s camp (after decades of ignoring them, suddenly every Rhode Islander is an expert on investing pensions).
Asking Taveras to donate money for something AFSCME is independently angry about makes as much sense as Taveras suggesting Raimondo donate the People’s Pledge amount of the attacks on him over the Davey Lopes pool. When you make decisions that are part of your office, criticism of you by the people effected is expected (and justified). Just because you’re about the engage in political campaigning doesn’t mean you get to wave a wand and say “politically-motivated, don’t have to listen.” You take it, even if it sucks.
Political observers are free to read the tea leaves as they will. I’m sure pro-Raimondo partisans will read this as a political ploy on the Mayor’s part, attempting to handicap the Raimondo campaign (who seems most likely to benefit from outside spending). Pro-Taveras partisans will read this as unease on the part of the Treasurer, who even with a nearly 3:1 money advantage may be unsure if she can win a Democratic primary likely to tilt to the left without outside help.
I’m sure people think I’m marked in the Taveras camp because I write for RI Future and other reasons. But I want to be clear. I don’t see much, policy-wise, that differentiates the two candidates. I think Gov. Raimondo will make policy choices that a Gov. Taveras would also make, and vice versa. I wasn’t just calling for a People’s Pledge in this post last month, I was calling for a substantive (and civil) debate on issues. For one thing, I’d like for the RI Democratic Party to have a primary that wasn’t just a referendum on whether the 2011 pension reform is popular among Democratic-affiliated voters and Democratic primary-voting unaffiliateds.
What it appears to me is that there seems to be a personal animus between the candidates and their camps, which is more likely to scuttle anything than other issues. Which is why I fully expect this primary to devolve, though I sincerely wish it wouldn’t. Rhode Islanders deserve a good campaign focused on things more than bloody socks and telling the President to shove it.
Perhaps whoever triumphs in the Democratic primary will find candidates more receptive in the general election to a People’s Pledge, if this one sinks (Common Cause RI has already called for a general election People’s Pledge). Or maybe we’ll have to rely on down-ticket races to act as pathfinders for the big races and establish a tradition of People’s Pledges. As Rhode Islanders well know, an established tradition can be a powerful tool in enforcing compliance in a practice.
P.S. There’s also a media issue here, which is that discussion of the People’s Pledge gives the media a chance to remind us about the ol’ campaign finance scoreboard and tell us what it told us earlier this month. Guess what folks, we’re not voting on whether we prefer the $2 million candidate or the $690K candidate! Cash on hand does not equal a good governor.
Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387
Bob Plain has spent a lot of time in a back and forth with Ken Block about the issue of eliminating the straight-party option (a.k.a. master lever), even bringing in Speaker Gordon Fox to defend its place on the ballot. I’d like to move the debate away from questions of political motivation and toward some facts. My argument is simple; the straight-party option discriminates against the elderly, African-Americans, those with less-education, and those with less experience using technology.
Voting is the interaction of four factors; the voter, the ballot, the machine used to tabulate the results, and the institutions governing the election. Typically studies about how voters behave have to rely on aggregate level data because of the secret ballot. As I will show later we now have micro-level information about voter behavior that will demonstrate problems with the straight-party option, particularly for some groups of voters.
In Rhode Island state law dictates that a paper ballot be used and the names of candidates be arranged by office [referred to in the literature as an office bloc ballot compared to the older party-column design]. Paper ballots are the only way to produce a truly verifiable trail for recounts (though Carlos Tobon can attest other changes in state law are needed to ensure that) and RI shouldn’t consider moving away from their use. There is no better system for verifying the results than the use of paper.
State law also requires use of an optical scanner to tabulate the results. While there are advantages to touch screen voting, particularly for accessibility, optical scanners with the requisite paper ballots are much better than black box touch screen systems. Optical scanners are by no means infallible, just read this scary report from the Brennan Center to see why we need to start auditing the results of our scanners.
The final pieces of the puzzle are our institutional structures. Typically in a Rhode Island election you have a number of different offices (federal, state, local) and ballot questions (state and local) that are a result of the many institutions that govern us. This too plays into why the straight party option is harmful.
Straight-party voting becomes a problem because of the interaction of those four factors. Optical scanners, for all their positive properties, cannot tell the voter that they have made an inadvertent error on the ballot. One of the few redeeming qualities of the old mechanical voting machines (sometimes referred to as the lever machines) was that when you pulled the actual “master lever” the only way you could bullet vote was to physically undo your vote for an office and then bullet vote (see pictures) and if you undervoted for it was literally staring you in the face.
Machine with straight-party option not selected.Machine with straight-party option selected.Machine with straight party overridden.
Compare the old machine to the current paper ballot (see pictures below). With the new ballots and scanners if you chose the straight party option nothing on the ballot will tell you what choices you made (or did not make) further down the ballot. And if you make a change, the ballot does not indicate what impact that might have on other parts of the ballot.
Paper ballot with straight party option not selected.Paper ballot with straight party option selected.Paper ballot with straight party option overridden.
Of course because of the secret ballot we cannot know what the voter was really thinking when they used the straight party option and whether what we perceive to be undervotes and errors are intentional.
Fortunately, social science comes to the rescue. Several political scientists conducted an extensive experiment funded by the National Science Foundation (funding attacked recently in an amendment born out of the ignorance of Senator Tom Coburn) using the same type of ballot and brand of scanner (albeit a newer model) that we have here in Rhode Island.[1] Because their work was experimental, they could interview voters and examine their ballots to determine if the voters’ expressed preference were captured in the tabulation and thus avoid the ecological inference problem. And because they were using an experimental design they used a diverse set of participants and could test for how the interaction of ballot [similar in design to Rhode Island], machine [same brand, newer model than Rhode Island], institutions, and humans worked.
The best way to present the results is to quote directly from the authors:
Our research demonstrates that ballot design matters. It influences the number of errors of commission—that is selecting an unintended candidate—and omission—so-called undervoting. Voters who use standard office bloc ballots make fewer candidate-selection errors than those who use ballots with a straight-party option. These are the most serious type of error because not only do they deprive a candidate of a vote, they also give it to one of the candidate’s opponents. Wrong candidate errors also occur with substantial frequency—as the 2000 presidential election showed. Ballot style does not have a uniform effect on all voters. Older, less educated, and Black voters, are more likely to commit wrong candidate errors when using a ballot with a straight-party feature than a standard office bloc ballot. The same is true of voters who are using a specific voting system for the first time.[2]
Put into plain English, the researchers found that when using paper ballots with optical scanners and an office block ballot design, older, less-educated, African-Americans and those with less exposure to the optical scan voting machine all had more problems casting the correct vote when the straight-party option was available. It’s not that they undervoted (failed to cast a vote down ballot), but they actually voted for a candidate other than the one they intended to vote for. There were instances where the presence of the straight-party option led to undervotes, but that problem was minimized by the optical scan system, and dwarfed by the problem of actual errors being committed by the voters.
In Speaker Fox’s interview with Bob Plain he says, “you have to presume that they [voters] know what they are doing and that they are using the master lever.” We believe that the analysis we highlight here shows that, unfortunately, many voters do not. The mix of voters, ballot design, machine type and institutions we currently have just doesn’t work.
Hopefully providing this analysis allows us to move past the arguments about political motivation for removing the straight-party option. Quite simply, its presence does a disservice to a significant number of voters by preventing them from having their true preferences recorded as a cast vote. The bill to remove the straight party option has been “held for further study” once again this year. We have provided all the “study” that is needed to prove that it’s time for it to go.
[1] Paul S. Herrnson, Michael J. Hanmer, Richard G. Niemi, The Impact of Ballot Type and Voting Systems on Voting Errors, April 2008, accessed at http://www.bsos.umd.edu/gvpt/apworkshop/herrnson-hanmer08.pdf.
Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387
Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387
Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387
Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387
Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387
Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387
Question 2 on Rhode Island’s ballot this election asks voters if the state Ethics Commission should have restored authority over state legislators that a 2009 lawsuit stripped away. While on its face it may seem like any increased oversight of the often ethically-challenged General Assembly would be a step in the right direction, there are free speech arguments against passing the amendment to the state constitution.
Jeanine Calkin, a progressive Democrat who is running against the 22-year incumbent, said that her husband, Daniel Calkin, received a similar call. A photo of her husband’s phone is on the left. Daniel Calkin, listening to the audio above, said he was “pretty sure it’s the same guy.”
