Somerville’s Attempt at Campaign Finance Reform Dies
Since the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision in 2010, a new wave of debate over the role of money in politics has taken hold—from the advent of Super PACs to polls showing public discontent with modern campaign finance laws to Senator Harry Reid’s failed attempt to introduce a constitutional amendment aimed at reforming how campaign finance works.
These discussions aren’t limited to the federal or state levels. Close to home, officials in Somerville sought to pass a law limiting campaign donations for those looking to build in or do business with the city.
That effort died Tuesday night, when aldermen attempted to override a mayoral veto of their so-called “pay-to-play’’ ordinance—and failed.
Other communities in the United States have passed municipal campaign finance reforms, but the proposed law would have been the first of its kind in Massachusetts. Among other things, it would have limited the amount of money real estate developers looking to do significant construction in Somerville could contribute in local elections.
It was passed last month, but was vetoed days later by Mayor Joseph Curtatone. Aldermen who championed the ordinance sought to quash the veto with an override vote, taking it up after a Tuesday night hearing in which 15 members of the public spoke in favor of the law, and nobody argued against it.
We wrote about the ordinance and the debate surrounding it last month. But here’s a quick review:
Under the ordinance, the maximum donation for those who met its criteria would have been $250—down from the current $500 maximum in Massachusetts (which will increase to $1,000 next year).
The aldermen who supported the law argued that it was a necessary, if limited, check on the power of builders at a time when Somerville is rapidly developing. They also argued it would be a good faith effort on the part of voters at a time when the role of money in politics continues to stir strong feelings.
Some aldermen also suggested that Curtatone was opposed to the ordinance because of the significant campaign donations he receives from real estate developers—especially considering he supported a different version of the law that excluded rules about developers.
Those opposed, including Curtatone, argued that the ordinance had loopholes and limitations that made it inadequate. (Alderman Bill White, one of the ordinance’s champions, said at Tuesday’s meeting that the law was written to ensure its constitutionality. Others who supported the law said it could be built upon to address those issues.)
The ordinance passed in September, 7–4, despite a threat of a veto from Curtatone. The mayor followed through days later, marking his first-ever veto of a passed ordinance after more than a decade in office.
Aldermen needed eight votes to override the veto, but only got seven on Tuesday night, as everybody repeated their September votes. (One alderman who voted against the bill the first time, Jack Connolly, sat out the override vote due to illness.)
Those who voted against it—Mary Jo Rosetti, Maryann Heuston, and Bob McWatters—said they’d be open to revisiting and improving the ordinance. A Curtatone spokesperson has previously told Boston.com that the mayor would be open to an improved version of the ordinance, even if it still addressed developers. Aldermen may well take the issue up again.
For now, however, one city’s attempt to limit money’s role in its governance has died on the vine.
To comment, please create a screen name in your profile
To comment, please verify your email address
Conversation
This discussion has ended. Please join elsewhere on Boston.com