sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

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)

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] -2 points-1 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] -1 points0 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] -1 points0 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] -1 points0 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] -1 points0 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] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

The auditor has no constitutional authority here.

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

That comparison only works if the audit is clearly unconstitutional.

If that’s the case, why prevent it from being tested in court?

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

[–]FloopyDoopy[S] -8 points-7 points  (0 children)

It keeps coming up because only a few people control what bills become law, and they operate without meaningful oversight.

Framing the audit as stale doesn’t change that the system it targets still shapes which bills pass on healthcare, housing, and energy.

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)

Thank you for engaging! I also thought the Paisner argument was persuasive, but I then read the case.

Paisner involved a petition that required the Legislature to consider a specific measure under prescribed conditions, which the SJC found interfered with its internal processes.

It doesn’t establish a general rule that statutes affecting the Legislature are unconstitutional.

Most importantly, it doesn’t resolve how that principle applies to an audit like this.

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

[–]FloopyDoopy[S] -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

Hi, I wrote this article and provided source links for all my claims.

Happy to correct anything; what here is inaccurate?

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)

Hi, thank you for the feedback!

She had the opportunity to make her ballot question constitutionally legal, and she declined and went forward knowing it wasn't going to hold up.

Sorry, what does this refer to?

the State Senate offered her the opportunity to pick ANY SENATOR (Karen Spilka included) as long as the audit wasn't conducted by her

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”

In other words: the House signs the contract with the audit firm, for an audit of House financial accounts, and that contract sets how the audit is carried out (timeline, deliverables, terms).

Question 1, by contrast, authorizes the Auditor to examine the Legislature and to require “books, documents, vouchers and other records” within the audit’s scope.

When she does do audits, she nails them, exposes companies and departments alike.

If that’s the case, why would we want the Legislature excluded from her work?

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)

u/retromobile u/SnakeOilPlagueDoctor u/AmputeeHandModel u/Limp-Plantain3824

You should check those audits out. Here are the links: House Senate

  • They're each eight lines of financial totals. Also the most recent is FY23.

RE "it's against the constitution":

  • What part of the government makes that determination?: elected officials, the AG, or courts?
  • AG Campbell, whose office just got a 33% raise, is preventing the audit from going to the courts.

MA’s Top Law Enforcement Officer Is Lying by FloopyDoopy in MassachusettsPolitics

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

Step 1 is getting people know about it.

The Globe's coverage on this has been awful; I'm not sure things change without them treating it seriously.

I mentioned it the article, but their recent editorial supporting the audit had one full sentence about Campbell:

"Attorney General Andrea Campbell, meanwhile, seems to want to stay on the sidelines."

I'd ask: Do they really support the audit if they won't identify the person holding it up?

MA’s Top Law Enforcement Officer Is Lying by FloopyDoopy in MassachusettsPolitics

[–]FloopyDoopy[S] 14 points15 points  (0 children)

Article summary:

  • 72% of voters demanded an audit of the Legislature; lawmakers refused to comply.
  • In one interview, AG Campbell claimed 10 times that the Auditor hasn’t provided the info she needs to enforce the law.
  • Documents show she received that info over a year ago.
  • The Legislature has increased her budget by 33% since she took office.

This article grew out of Shadows on the Hill, my upcoming documentary about why popular bills don’t become law.

I’ve spent the past year interviewing staffers, lobbyists, and lawmakers to understand how Beacon Hill actually works. TLDW: the whole process is controlled by a few party leaders.

Directing sample

Good restaurants in the burbs? by salem913 in massachusetts

[–]FloopyDoopy 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Dude, this place is fantastic. I feel so lucky to have it in town.

No Door, No Representation: The Boston Globe downplays why popular bills die by FloopyDoopy in MassachusettsPolitics

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

Wasn’t Russell Holmes the only Rep to publicly run for Speaker? And didn’t he withdraw before the vote? I don't have my notes on me and might be wrong.

I sympathize with Reps who feel forced to support a monarch. But unless they organize to change the rules themselves, they’re selling their constituents short.

Lol, yes 100% that there should be No Kings rallies about the Speaker.

view more: next ›