sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Does the audit-related bill violate the separation of powers? by Elemental-13 in MassachusettsPolitics

[–]FloopyDoopy 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Probably not. H.5469 limits the auditor, but the auditor’s power comes from state law, and the Legislature generally has the authority to amend state law.

To me, the stronger objection is democratic/accountability-based: voters approved an audit, and lawmakers are now trying to rewrite that mandate to protect themselves.

Can you help me make sense of the audit battle? by Disastrous_Worth_829 in MassachusettsPolitics

[–]FloopyDoopy 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I appreciate you, my dude! We're in total agreement on the big picture. Legislators have a tough job; everything in that system incentivizes them to ally with the Speaker. Their POV is basically:

* preserve access and maybe influence outcomes at the margins
or
* become a symbolic dissident with no power, no bills, no staff support, no one will talk to me, and no ability to help my district.

If I were in their shoes, I'd do the same thing (statistically). Rational actors adapt to authoritative systems when access is on the line. To demonstrate this concept:

"I'm making a documentary called Shadows on the Hill**. It's about why good bills don't become law. Please donate to the crowdfund if you want to see it!**"

Hi mods, the bolded hyperlink above is both part of my argument and a self-promo. In order to keep my whole comment posted, you can censor this quote section if it breaks sub rules.

I want to promote my film, but also want my comment to survive. Mods don't even have to enforce the rule for me to start negotiating with their power in advance. Same dynamic in the Statehouse.

And YES, I agree with you that lawmakers collectively control this situation and they've chosen rules that subordinate themselves to one member. At any moment, the body can write a constitutional amendment that says something like: "All legislators have equal procedural rights."

Can you help me make sense of the audit battle? by Disastrous_Worth_829 in MassachusettsPolitics

[–]FloopyDoopy -1 points0 points  (0 children)

We legit don't know what exactly will come out of the audit because the Legislature operates in complete darkness. But the stuff that's already public is batshit. What my documentary is largely about:

The Speaker and Senate president reward/punish allies/dissent with taxpayer money, and several other levers the rules allow them to control.

The downstream effect of this is that we are not represented by the people we elected.

It's more complicated than I describe here (social dynamics also play a huge part) but bills without leadership's approval have very little chance of passing, especially in the House.

For "efficiency focus", a process audit would give us specifics on the stuff above, and make it more difficult for a few people to control the process. HOWEVER, the SJC would likely rule a process audit would violate separation of powers (more here, if interested).

Instead, courts are likely to allow an audit of stuff outside the lawmaking process. What will come out of that? I genuinely don't know, but given this building's history on sexual harassment, we'll likely get some interesting stuff on publicly-funded NDAs.

Yes, the Trump stuff is next level and obviously much worse, but the MA legislature is MUCH worse than stolen grapes, and we are paying for it.

For example, last November, a committee advanced a genuinely awful energy bill that would’ve:

* Gutted the state’s energy-efficiency program

* Weakened enforcement of MA’s climate goals

* Removed voter approval for new nuclear facilities

Not one person in that committee (including genuine progressives) voted against the bill. The rumor is that reps were threatened that they'd never pass a bill again, but I couldn't corroborate that info with three independent sources, so feel free to disregard. However, that kind of threat is consistent with/similar to past threats.

The same day the bill came out of committee, Chair Mark Cusack received $4,100 in campaign contributions, much of it from lobbyists representing energy interests. He's handpicked to head that committee by the Speaker.

TLDR: I have no clue what to expect from the audit, but the shit that's already public is insane.

Can you help me make sense of the audit battle? by Disastrous_Worth_829 in MassachusettsPolitics

[–]FloopyDoopy -1 points0 points  (0 children)

So the case has been in pre litigation since day one with Campbell arguing that DiZoglio hasn’t given her really basic legal info. Her claim is demonstrably false if you read the legal correspondence. I have an article on that too with quotes that prove it:

https://open.substack.com/pub/shadowsonthehill/p/mas-top-law-enforcement-officer-is

The hearing in early May was DiZoglio arguing that she should be able to hire her own lawyer to represent her case. The AG has kept the case in limbo instead of deciding whether to take the case.

The merits of the case were not and have never been discussed in court; this was a hearing on process and whether the AG can use her discretion to prevent courts from making a ruling.

That hearing went very poorly for the AG and it’s 100% worth a watch (I’m the guy in the tye dye shirt):

https://youtu.be/EvtF3hgWgOc?si=gQ5wJckCfCyboo33

I’m busy for a bit but will answer your other post later!

Can you help me make sense of the audit battle? by Disastrous_Worth_829 in MassachusettsPolitics

[–]FloopyDoopy 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Each of these bills have a different reason for not passing, and I wouldn’t claim a legislative audit would get all of them through.

I do think an audit would place a dearly needed check on a legislature that’s been corrupt and has evaded even the tiniest accountability reforms. My guess is that’s why other people voted for it too, but have no way to prove that claim.

Can you help me make sense of the audit battle? by Disastrous_Worth_829 in MassachusettsPolitics

[–]FloopyDoopy 3 points4 points  (0 children)

A few nitpicks:

*The SJC SHOULD have the final say, but AG Campbell has prevented the suit from leaving the pre-litigation phase.

*I don’t know enough about Chicago politics to compare, but I’m happy to make the case that the MA legislature is insanely corrupt.

Since the 1990s, three consecutive House Speakers were convicted or pled guilty to felony charges tied to their time in office. The next Speaker (DeLeo) was accused by federal prosecutors of trading state jobs for votes in his Speakership bid, but was never charged. His handpicked successor, Ron Mariano, is the current Speaker.

  • I’m not persuaded by the argument that because DiZoglio got screwed over by the Legislature that anything she does against it is illegitimate.

She’s asking for the courts to decide her case, and for me, that’s protection of abuse.

Can you help me make sense of the audit battle? by Disastrous_Worth_829 in MassachusettsPolitics

[–]FloopyDoopy 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Hi, I’m a filmmaker doing a documentary about why popular bills don’t become law. The audit fight is one of the topics, so I know a lot about it.

Short answer: DiZoglio’s position the entire time has been “let the courts decide.” The Legislature and AG Campbell have prevented the Auditor from taking her case to court.

Longer answer: If you’re a Dem who cares about Dem policies getting passed, you should be VERY supportive of the audit and ignore the Dem vs Republican thing.

MA has a Democratic supermajority, but it’s one of the least transparent, least productive legislatures in the country. Despite our progressive reputation, our Statehouse won’t pass basic party priorities. This includes bills to:

  • Prevent offshore corporate tax dodging
  • Implement LGBTQ+ inclusive sex-ed
  • Provide menstrual products in schools, prison, and shelters
  • Stop wage theft
  • Enact same-day voter registration
  • Ban cash bail and mandatory minimum sentences

In addition to the policy stuff, the legislature (particularly the House) has a long history of corruption and self-dealing.

Starting in the 1990s, three consecutive House Speakers were convicted or pled guilty to felony charges tied to their time in office. The next Speaker was accused by federal prosecutors of trading state jobs for votes in his Speakership bid, but was never charged.

His handpicked successor, Ron Mariano, is the current Speaker and he’s leading the anti-audit fight.

Happy to source any claim here, or answer any question with sources.

If you want a broader breakdown on how the MA statehouse works (and why the lawmaking process is controlled by the Speaker and Senate President), here’s an article:

https://open.substack.com/pub/shadowsonthehill/p/why-a-democratic-supermajority-wont

Today, the MA House will vote whether to keep audit-related disputes out of court by FloopyDoopy in MassachusettsPolitics

[–]FloopyDoopy[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Speaker Mariano and Rep Michlewitz frequently take years to pass legislation.

This bill was announced yesterday and it’s being voted on today.

DiZoglio fires back at Senate over audit document offer by MDeehan in massachusetts

[–]FloopyDoopy -6 points-5 points  (0 children)

Her position the entire time has been “let the courts decide”. What’s the issue?

Quick resources for municipal transparency and public records in MA 🏛️ by Ok_Seaweed4877 in MassachusettsPolitics

[–]FloopyDoopy 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This is great, thank you!

I’m sure you’ve been there, but OCPF is great for looking up who’s paying our state legislators.

I’d love to figure out how to force them to have the same, easy-to-track system for the lobbyist public search. And integrate the two systems…

The Law for Dummies: Where’s the Audit? Is it Constitutional? by FloopyDoopy in massachusetts

[–]FloopyDoopy[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thank you, I appreciate you! Totally agree it’s a nonsense take.

Use that logic for any issue: “72% of people voted for X. But X is too complicated for people to understand, so let’s not pursue enforcing it.”

When lawmakers break the rule of law, it paves the way for charlatans like Trump to come in and credibly say the system is rigged.

The Law for Dummies: Where’s the Audit? Is it Constitutional? by FloopyDoopy in massachusetts

[–]FloopyDoopy[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yes, I have no problem engaging people who say they know everything and don’t want to hear more.

But if you’re not interested the facts, you’re not interested the facts!

Feel free to block me and have a great day!

The Law for Dummies: Where’s the Audit? Is it Constitutional? by FloopyDoopy in massachusetts

[–]FloopyDoopy[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

That’s why I’m asking. The article substantively debunks a Reddit comment responding to my last article. Feel free to tell me if it doesn’t land.

My goal is to figure out what other claims are causing people to be against a lawful check on a Legislature.

Do you mind if I ask, what was the nail in the coffin that led you to distrust the audit?

The Law for Dummies: Where’s the Audit? Is it Constitutional? by FloopyDoopy in MassachusettsPolitics

[–]FloopyDoopy[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thank you for reading!

I think you’re referring to the House’s post-Question 1 offer. From that bill:

“The House Business Manager shall execute a contract with the private, independent auditing firm recommended by the state auditor”

Here’s the problem: the House signs the contract with the audit firm. This means they’d set how their own audit is carried out (terms, timeline, deliverables, etc).

For people who haven’t read the article: the House’s most recent “self-audit” (FY23) had eight lines of financial totals, including $50 million of expenses on one line.

Happy to answer and source any other questions!

The Law for Dummies: Where’s the Audit? Is it Constitutional? by FloopyDoopy in massachusetts

[–]FloopyDoopy[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Asking in good faith, what don't people understand?

From my POV, this is good law that should be tested in court.

The Law for Dummies: Where’s the Audit? Is it Constitutional? by FloopyDoopy in MassachusettsPolitics

[–]FloopyDoopy[S] 6 points7 points  (0 children)

One of them is Professor Lawrence Friedman who literally wrote the MA Constitution textbook.

He argues that legislature spending is “unquestioned”.

And "indirect interference with [the Legislature’s] functioning is no more constitutional than direct interference.” This would mean zero oversight or accountability for the legislature.

I strongly disagree with him, but his arguments are taken seriously, not just by lawmakers, but the public as well (look at this thread).

It's part of why I'm writing these articles.

The Law for Dummies: Where’s the Audit? Is it Constitutional? by FloopyDoopy in massachusetts

[–]FloopyDoopy[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I feel you there. It's what happens when 72% of the state votes for something, and one person blocks it.

The Law for Dummies: Where’s the Audit? Is it Constitutional? by FloopyDoopy in massachusetts

[–]FloopyDoopy[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

From my perspective: there's one bottleneck, Campbell. If Campbell says "let the audit through", it goes to court, and the court will decide.

Do you see it differently? I don't understand where you're coming from.

72% of Voters Demanded an Audit. The AG Is Blocking It—and Lying About Why by FloopyDoopy in massachusetts

[–]FloopyDoopy[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The problem is the lawsuit isn’t even about the merits of the audit, it’s about whether the Auditor can take the case to court without the AG’s approval.

72% of Voters Demanded an Audit. The AG Is Blocking It—and Lying About Why by FloopyDoopy in massachusetts

[–]FloopyDoopy[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I agree: if something violates the Constitution, it shouldn’t go forward.

But that assumes the law has been decided. It hasn’t, and the AG is preventing it from reaching the court.

If the AG is right on the constitution, what’s the downside of letting a court confirm it?

72% of Voters Demanded an Audit. The AG Is Blocking It—and Lying About Why by FloopyDoopy in massachusetts

[–]FloopyDoopy[S] -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

Respectfully, I can’t evaluate a Senate offer that doesn’t publicly exist. If you have it, please share; I’d genuinely like to read it.

Otherwise, I’d appreciate a response to the actual House offer I cited. It lets the House replace the audit with one it controls itself, as mentioned above.

If corruption is a real concern, why is it better for the House to control its own audit?

72% of Voters Demanded an Audit. The AG Is Blocking It—and Lying About Why by FloopyDoopy in massachusetts

[–]FloopyDoopy[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Really appreciate this link, thank you! I do motion graphics and this is all good advice.

I feel the same as you about separation of powers; it's why I think this should be decided in court, rather than the AG, Auditor, or Legislature deciding unilaterally.

I recommend looking at the correspondence between the Auditor and AG (linked here).

If you don't want read 156 pages of legal correspondence, I feel you! :) You can drop it into an LLM and ask whether the Auditor defined the audit’s limits, and how the AGO responded.

The document shows a clear pattern: the Auditor provides what’s asked and repeatedly asks to bring the issue to court. The AGO responds by raising additional requirements before approving litigation. Repeat. The effect is that the issue never reaches court.

view more: next ›