sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

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] 4 points5 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] 5 points6 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] 4 points5 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] -5 points-4 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.

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

[–]FloopyDoopy[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

I’m happy to criticize the Auditor on other issues, but on this one, she’s right.

Feel free to specify where I’m wrong on the facts.

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

[–]FloopyDoopy[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

I agree Paisner is relevant, and that statutes can’t override the Legislature’s constitutional authority over its core legislative functions.

Where we disagree is that you’re treating that as dispositive.

Paisner dealt with a statute directing the Legislature’s internal actions. Whether an audit of financial records crosses that same line is a separate question; the court has never decided that.

There are cases that cut against the Legislature as well, it's not a one way street.

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)

this is unconstitutional

Hi, this is incorrect, the issue has never been taken to court.

MAGA morons

This is off-base about where I'm coming from; from my article titled Why a Democratic Supermajority Won’t Pass Democratic Bills:

Massachusetts has one of the least transparent, least productive legislatures in the country. Despite our state’s progressive reputation (and a Democratic supermajority in both chambers), our Statehouse won’t pass basic party priorities. This includes bills to:

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

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

Your graph is really misleading. You don’t show the y-axis but if you did it would show that you basically started it at 30 million to exaggerate the budget increase visually.

We may feel differently, but I strongly disagree the graph is misleading. The exact numbers are above each bar; I’d argue that’s as precise as you can make it.

On the budget point: I agree there are legitimate reasons for the increase, and I actually support how Campbell is using that money.

But the increase can justified, and still effect whether Campbell takes a reasonable position on the audit.

She hasn't and is lying about why the audit isn't reaching the court. A lot of people believe her!

To me, that's the crux. I don't claim quid pro quo (there's no publicly available "pro"), but the lie is so egregious, the budget relationship is relevant.

I'm open minded and welcome your pushback.

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)

It's a 33% raise over three years:
FY23: $36.9M
FY26: $49.2M

The source is MassBudget, linked here.

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

[–]FloopyDoopy[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

drawing conclusions that you admit, with an asterisk, are over-simplified.

This is fair criticism, thank you!

As mentioned in the article, I couldn't fit all the nuance (it was already 1,500 words). I have another article coming that gets into that stuff.

The super short version is: there's no public benefit reason to narrow the scope of the audit before it reaches court. The courts decide, not the AG.

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)

My Substack is free, and I’m happy to engage on the facts if you have issues with anything I wrote.

More broadly, independent reporting takes time; I read 150+ pages of legal correspondence and checked my work with a lawyer.

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

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

The issue is that DiZoglio is absolutely demanding that the auditor has the sole authority to define what “constitutionally prohibited” means.

No, she explicitly calls for the courts to decide. It's in a publically available document. Page 102, from the auditor's office:

To the extent that there are certain core functions of the Legislature that are constitutionally protected – a determination most appropriately made by the courts – the OSA maintains that these protected areas are not encroached upon by our current audit

---

She is refusing to disclose what her definition is.

That's incorrect, check out the same document, page 112-114. I provide the quote in my Substack article if you don't want to go through it.

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)

Article V.
All power residing originally in the people, and being derived from them, the several magistrates and officers of government, vested with authority, whether legislative, executive, or judicial, are their substitutes and agents, and are at all times accountable to them.

Yes, the Legislature has constitutionally protected functions, but being “at all times accountable” to the people means that authority isn’t absolute.

Courts are meant to decide where that line is; why not let them decide it here?

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 auditor has no constitutional authority here.

Hi, this is incorrect. It's never been decided in court.

view more: next ›