Newton’s board of Aldermen are scheduled to vote tonight on a resolution related to the Supreme Court’s landmark Citizens United ruling. The resolution, discussed in a TAB oped by Alderman Ted Hess-Mahan, asks Congress to restore fair elections by “clarifying that corporations are not entitled to the Constitutional rights of human beings, and that state and federal governments may place reasonable limits on both political contributions and campaign spending.”
There’s a discussion about the merits of the resolution happening on Wicked Local. But do you believe Newton aldermen should be voting on resolutions related to national issues?
[polldaddy poll=”6376857″]
>> But do you believe Newton aldermen should be voting on resolutions
>>related to national issues?
No. It’s purely symbolic (a cynic might say political posturing). It’s not what we elect them for. It inevitably and unnecessarily ratchets up partisan politics in a local body for no good reason and with nothing to be gained. It’s a waste of time and energy.
The concept is called freedom of expression. Consistent with most Newton elected officials – Ald Hess Mahan enjoys his inconsistencies. He repeatedly asked this blog to restrict posts of annonymous expression but he now stretches his role to enjoy his own style of the same freedom. Even if one calls this abuse of elected purvue — the constitution trumps everything.
@Hoss: Geesh.
I think it’s reasonable for them to vote on ones that directly affect Newton, which Citizen’s United does.
It seems that every once in a while, one of my colleagues will propose a resolution regarding a state or national issue to be voted on by the municipal government. That seems to defeat the purpose of having different levels of government. Of course all State and National issues would have impact to Newton as we belong to the State and to this Nation, but there is no specific city impact other than the individual impacts to our citizens.
I respect my colleague’s desire to bring more attention to a cause in which he believes, but I believe that this a misuse of the responsibility and access that we have as Aldermen. It seems to be something for our Congressman.
Our job is to see to the needs of our citizens at the municipal level and work with city officials to address the issues at the local level. Aldermen are citizens just like everyone else and when there are state and national issues, Aldermen should use the same channels or perhaps, help our constituents properly navigate the channels to address these issues. Nothing is stopping him from rallying citizens to petition our Congressman. His OpEd could have done that. I do not think an Aldermanic Resolution is appropriate.
I have no desire to take up more time on the floor to debate this issue. But I will not be voting in favor of this resolution. This is not what we should be spending our time on.
The older I get, the more I appreciate just how valuable both time and focus are. Newton Alderman voting on national issues seems to me to be both frivolous and irresponsible.
It’s like hiring someone to paint your house, and they paint a mural on your garage door. It may be beautiful, but not what you hired them to do. Spending time and energy on this is wasting taxpayer money.
from my post on this on Wicked Local
I am totally opposed to the what Citizen’s United allows, so in that regard, in most respects, I agree with Ted’s column.
But, the BOA was elected to manage Newton’s affairs, not to involve itself in other business, except as it directly affects them running Newton.
For the BOA to use its seemingly speaking for the citizens of Newton is no better than for a union leader or a corporate executive to promote his politics regardless of how union members or shareholders may feel.
Anyone can act politically on his own, through many avenues. That’s what the aldermen should do. Act on your own independently of the BOA.
When they campaign, it’s on what they can do for Newton. If they do that well, we can cross party lines, since party politics aren’t an issue. If they want to make it an issue, then campaign on this, and the voting results may be different.
If you read my oped in the TAB last week, then you know that the Citizens United decision eliminates the power of both Congress and state governments to prevent unlimited campaign spending by wealthy individuals and corporations that can conceal their identities through donations to 501(c)(4) organizations, which are in turn transferred to SuperPACs. Congress and the states have exercised this power for over a hundred years based on evidence that unlimited campaign spending can have a corruptive and corrosive effect on our democracy. In two short years, the Citizens United decision and its progency have led directly to an unprecedented escalation in donations to and spending by SuperPACs on mostly negative campaigning against specific candidates.
This is not merely a partisan issue. But it is an issue that has an impact on everyone in this city, state and country every time we open the newspaper, surf the Internet, turn on the television or listen to the radio, and read or see or hear political advertisements funded by anonymous sources who–unlike the candidates who are subject to spending limits themselves–are not accountable to the public. If that is not an issue that affects every single one of us here in Newton, I guess I do not know what is.
I have made no secret of the kinds of causes I stand for over the past eight and a half years, and I have been truly honored and privileged to be elected and then re-elected to the Newton Board of Aldermen for five consecutive terms. That is probably why I was asked by some of my constituents to docket this resolution in the first place. In short, I find it hard to believe anyone who follows local politics at all was voting for a pig in a poke that whole time.
So, I will vote for this resolution to roll back Citizens United tonight, proudly and without reservation. Because I am not afraid to stand and be counted.
Ted, let’s hope you’re the only one who votes for it, though I’m sure you’ll have company.
What you feel, what you stand for, and why you’re elected may and should be completely different things. I and others here seem to believe you are overstepping the boundaries of your duties and rights as specifically an Alderman for the City of Newton in making this a position of the City of Newton as opposed to a position of Ted Hess-Mahan, private citizen.
The Citizens United Resolution passed by a vote of 23-1 on first call. Thank you to everyone who showed up at City Hall tonight to support the resolution.
That vote tally is shocking. Although the vote suggests it is a partisan issue, it really isn’t.. Here is the ACLU position on this:
http://www.aclu.org/free-speech/aclu-and-citizens-united
I can’t believe 95% of the Board of Aldermen disagrees with the points raised by the ACLU.
Actually, I can’t believe even 5% of the Board of Aldermen (actually 4.3%) thinks corporations are people. Everyone knows Soylent Green is people.
Ted said he was approached by a constituent. Is he suppose to say no? I’m not 100% on board with the actual vote, but if he was approached, and it’s his duty to represent his constituents, doesn’t he have an obligation to go through with it? Aren’t we always talking about how the board doesn’t represnt us? He does and because of the actual issue everyone is upset. I think everyone’s anger is misplaced, it should be on the citizen(s) who sponsored it.
I like them voting on National issues because it exposes their political philosophies in a way that wouldn’t be seen on the local level. You get more insight into your representatives and how their core beliefs manifest themselves.
Ald. Tan Swiston — You said making a statement in this way is a misuse of municipal government, yet you voted? I don’t understand that one.
@Hoss By Board Rules, I have to cast a vote on the floor of the board. Abstaining is not an option (only in Committee). So my vote was “Nay” in my effort to make the point that I do not support the Aldermen offering this resolution.
@Kim — It depends on whether you understand the political philosophy that drove my vote. I follow the philosophy that local elected officials should not be making national policy.
If you are interested in my thoughts on Citizens United, that is a different discussion. As our President of the Board often reminds us … “that is not what is before us”
@Greer:
I’m interested, especially since you are running for state representative. Will you share your thoughts here? Thanks.
I generally prefer that local government deal with local issues, but the Citizens United case is an exception for several reasons. First and foremost, Citizens United has had such a significant and negative impact on our elections in a short period of time that I’m alarmed. When the effect of a law concentrates power and influence in the hands of a small, unelected group of very wealthy and relatively unknown individuals, then it’s the responsibility of the electorate to stand up and take action.
Secondly, people across the country are expressing similar concern about Citizens United and grassroots actions in opposition to it have been taking place, and growing in number, over the last the last six to eight months. Within that context, a resolution by the Newton BOA is completely appropriate. It adds our voice to what I hope will become a louder and stronger movement in the future. Thanks to the BOA for taking this action.
Ald. Tan Swiston — That is quite interesting (that a member can’t abstain). It very much suggests the charter didn’t anticipate this kind of vote. (I guess if one felt strongly about the type of vote taken, they cold just leave the floor, but I understand now why you voted)
To those who want to have a voice on this issue, whether you agree or disagree with the overwhelming majority of the Board of Aldermen, here is your chance.
Following last night’s vote, I was informed that, at the initiative of Common Cause of Massachusetts, which organized a petition drive, voters in the Middlesex 11th and 12th districts will have a chance in November to vote on the following question:
From similar petition drives around the state, voters in districts representing roughly 40% of Massachusetts will also be able to vote on this question.
Needless to say, I will be supporting this ballot question.
Greer,
Thanks for acting rationally.
Citizens United is not the issue. The role of the BOA is the issue, and this goes way beyond what they are supposed to do.
Maybe we can become like European countries or India or …., where people don’t accept the will of a Supreme Court, and take to the streets and burn buildings, confront police, and cause general havoc. Or maybe Ted is an avid supporter of the Occupy movement, which did just that.
@Gail, thank you for asking and I am happy to share it.
I reiterate that last night’s item and vote was not the proper forum to express my opinion on this matter. Our tools of the Board and votes on the Board are meant to address matters of the City. At the moment, I have not been elected to be a congressional voice for this city and so would not presume to represent myself as such.
I do not want to commandeer this thread either; however, since you asked, I will answer and assume that either Sean or Greg will start a different thread if they want the conversation continued else where.
I do not pretend to be an expert on this issue and do not presume to second guess the Supreme Court or our Congress, but based from what I’ve read, this was a very close decision and so I apply my own thoughts to the matter.
I do not equate corporations with people. I do recognize that our courts have had to recognize corporations as legal entities with similar rights to those of human legal entities for a variety of business reasons. However, corporations aren’t human. For starters, they potentially could live forever.
I respect the right for those to spend their own money on what they believe, but our democracy can only be preserved if we have transparency in our elections process. The money poured in by Unions, special interest groups, PACs and SuperPACs who do not have to disclose their sources would argue against political transparency which I do believe is key to preserving American democracy. I also respect the privacy of businesses, but the business of politics as it affects and impacts our government and taxes ought to be public. I do not believe that was the intent of recognizing corporations as legal entities. I do not feel this was how our democracy was meant to run.
An Aldermanic Resolution to Congress, however, is not how our democracy is meant to run either.
Thanks Greer.
Perhaps a lesson in history and civics is in order.
Citizens United and its progeny curtail the power of Congress and the states to regulate campaign spending limits. A number of resolutions to amend the Constitution to fix this problem have been filed in the Congress. In addition, a number of state legislatures, including the Massachusetts General Court, have adopted or are considering similar resolutions calling upon Congrees to adopt such a resolution and pass it along to the states for ratification.
The Board of Aldermen is a municipal legislative body. Many Massachusetts municipal governments, including that of Newton, were established by the British government long before there were independent states or a federal government. The relationship between the Massachusetts state government and the municipal governments of its communities were established through the Massachusetts Constitution during the Revolutionary War. Municipal governments are
Amendments to the Massachusetts Constitution (originally, the Declaration of Rights) have established Home Rule, which extends certain powers to cities and towns and reserves others to the state government. Among other things, municipalities may adopt charters without needing state approval. Municipalities may not regulate elections, collect taxes, borrow money, define civil laws or regulations, define felonies or set imprisonment as a punishment for any offense, or dispose of park land, except as provided by the legislature. Whether or not it has adopted a charter, municipalities may exercise any power that the legislature has the power to delegate to it, except in cases where the legislature has already acted, explicitly or implicitly. In practice, Home Rule very much limits the powers of municipal government, but allows municpal governments to petition for “special legislation” that grants additional powers that do not otherwise conflict with state laws or the constitution. Nonetheless, all powers not specifically limited by the state laws and constitution are vested in local government.
When interpreting our City Charter, it is always best to start with the actual language of its provisions. Section 1-3 of the City Charter says:
For good measure, Section 1-4 makes clear that:
With respect to the relationship between the local, state and national government, the Charter states:
The City Charter extends the broad powers of the city to the Board of Aldermen:
The only prohibitions on the exercise of that power are as follows:
So, contrary to the crabbed interpretation of some, the provisions of the City Charter grant broad powers to the city and its legislative body (the Board of Aldermen) to exercise all powers not otherwise prohibited by state law, and are to be construed liberally–not strictly–in favor of the city and its legislative body.
And that is the way it should be. All powers of government come from the people, and the people are closest to their local government. While local government may not exercise the powers of the Congress and the President, for instance to negotiate treaties between nations, there really is nothing that prevents local governments from having or exercising the right of the people to petition their government for the redress of grievances created by the state or federal government or the courts. Indeed, the right to petition the government for the redress of grievances is expressly enshrined in the First Amendment to the US Constitution.
Thus, adopting a resolution calling on the state legislature and Congress (as my resolution does) to support a constitutional amendment that would roll back the Citizens United decision, which 23 members of the Board of Aldermen and the legislative bodies of one in five Massachusetts communities have supported, is surely within our purview. And, come November, Newton residents in the 11th and 12th Middlesex districts will have an opportunity to approve a ballot question urging our legislators to support a constitutional amendment to restore the First Amendment and fair elections.
By the way, there is a very good editorial on this topic in the Newton TAB today.
Cheers.
Ted,
Nothing in what you quoted seems to confer a power to speak on behalf of the citizens of Newton as if there is concurrence with the personal political opinions of the Aldermen. You are stretching the interpretation of what you present, beyond what it seems to say.
I know it makes you feel good, in your liberal progressive mentality to speak out in any forum on issues you feel strongly about, but it’s not in my opinion a good or appropriate use of the BOA forum. We, the voters, didn’t authorize you to do that.
Greer is 100% correct on this.
Barry, in a representative democracy, voters elect others to represent them, in this case, the board of aldermen. Democratically elected leaders who adopt a resolution or a law are acting in that representative capacity. Not everyone who votes in a local election necessarily agrees with every resolution or law we pass, but that is what a representative democracy is about. And the Charter expressly authorizes the board to adopt “measures,” which are defined therein to include “an ordinance passed or which could be passed by the Board of Aldermen or an order, resolution, vote, or other proceeding passed or which could be passed by the Board of Aldermen.” So it is entirely consistent with our powers under the Charter.
Respectfully, you and Alderman Swiston are very much mistaken about this.
Ted, nothing there really supports what you are saying.
But, secondarily, or maybe primarily, we, especially I did not vote for an Alderman in the hopes that he/she would support my views on national-level politics. I want the roads pothole free, the schools repaired, the excessive spending in Newton in some areas reined in, and other mundane stuff like that.
The problem with Aldermen like yourself is that you really crave a say at a more significant level, like Supreme Court decisions, but you’ve only been elected for an office that is pretty insignificant on that grander scale which you crave (similar to your your boss, Setti Warren, who craves national office). So, you try to use this office as a way to proselytize about these grander and not so boring and mundane issues.
Stick to the roads and schools. You aren’t a Senator or a Congressman.
Barry, my last two (maybe three) cents on this topic.
First, Setti Warren is not my boss.
Second, while you may disapprove, a significant number of other people asked me to file this resolution. Some of the them showed up at City Hall the other night to add their presence and support. I serve them too.
Third, I have always believed that one should think globally and act locally; always have, always will. That doesn’t mean I have aspirations for higher office or grand illusions about the job I was elected to do.
Ta.
Ted,
I’m ashamed at you. “Think globally and act locally”. A real cliche from the hippie era.
It’s your prerogative to do so. Think about global warming or energy depletion and drive a high fuel economy car or turn your thermostat down in the winter. Fine.
Still doesn’t justify your taking valuable time from BOA meetings, so you can feel good about trying to solve national or international problems, even if some misdirected constituents asked you to do so. Politely tell them it’s not your job and they should write a letter to BHO.
As I said elsewhere, look at the cartoon in the TAB today. Pretty much on the money.
I thought the alderman had personal feelings about this — using the stale “significant number of people asked me to file” suggests otherwise. I don’t know why one can’t own their personal convictions and be willing to take the shit storms. This is getting really silly
@Barry thank you for your kind words.
@Hoss — sorry that I missed responding to your earlier comment about “stepping out side the rail” in order to miss the vote, but this was passing on “First Call” which meant that I would have had to “step out” for everything that was reported out on First call, and I was going for the least amount of additional effort to make the point.
Such fine points of the Aldermen’s process and procedure, but you seemed to be aware of the rule, so I wanted to be able to respond to you. Thank you for asking (your original question).
@Ted — I suppose we will simply have to agree to disagree. Just because you can do it, doesn’t mean you should. As Mike Ciolino points out in his example it’s “not what you hired him to do” … it not what we were elected to do.
That is not to say that he can not suggest a mural. That is not to say you would not hire him to paint the mural. However, until you’ve hired him to paint the mural, he shouldn’t paint the mural. In fact, you’d already hired someone else to paint the mural but no one else is painting the house and you’d hired him to paint the house. You’d rather he stuck with painting the house.
Ald Tan Swiston — I was not aware of those rules, thank you. I do know certain ethics rules allow (require) one to abstain from certain votes- I didn’t know you couldn’t abstain when the vote is not an issue you see a need to vote on (within the rules you outline) I don’t get the purpose of that rule, actually. Did anyone abstain in committee?
It was discussed in Programs & Services on June 20, 2012 here is the Reports Docket. The discussion of this resolution starts in the middle of page 3 and ends at the top of page 4. It was approved in committee unanimously.
In the past, other Aldermen have tried various methods to protest this misuse of Aldermanic process on State and National issues which have included simply abstaining from discussions and just voting in favor of avoiding extended discussion and with the idea that the resolution is only a gesture and was meaningless … to putting the item on second call and debating about it.
I was not at the meeting since I serve on a different committee that meets on the same night (and we were reviewing some new Traffic Council policy regarding parking, traffic and bicycling) so I don’t know what happened. It seems only 3 out of 6 actually spoke on the issue.
If alderman did vote because they were required, and if voting in favor was in some cases only to not appear difficult or not collegial, and further if the vote was called as a means of letting a “significant number of people” get their way, then would it not be more powerful and more genuine to help those people get the issue as a nonbinding matter on the Newton ballot?? As I recall, it doesn’t take much leg work to get that done and it saves alderman from bringing up issues like abortion, right to life, gun rights, etc, etc. Or maybe a ballot issue would be too late for the political purpose of calling this out?
@Hoss — your guess is as good as mine. There many more effective ways to get the message through and objective met.
I appreciate the sentiment behind wanting to keep “corporate” money out of elections but those who have petitioned against Citizens United leave out two important considerations:
1) unions act similar to corporations (a group of people who pool financial resources and act as a single entity). Those who want to repeal the Citizens United decision do not object to union influence yet unions have often decided elections with the tremendous amounts of money they pour into issues and with funds used to back candidates they feel will best serve their own interests.
2) there are many corporations that use their money to sway voters yet are not perceived as “corporations” – media outlets in particular. For instance, General Electric, which supported the Affordable Health Care law and received tremendous financial benefits from the law, is a significant partner in NBC and its affiliates. Does not their media influence (and the influence of media outlets in general) deserve scrutiny?
If one is against powerful money influencing elections then certainly we need to consider the issue much more broadly and refrain from tagging only the familiar boogeyman – the nefarious but ill defined “them” – corporations.
@Hoss, Citizens United will be on the ballot.
And, with all due modesty, the fact that we are all talking about this speaks to whether an aldermanic resolution can have a salutary effect.
While I would rather argue with a dining room table (to coin a phrase), I do want to take issue with your suggestion I went to all the time and trouble to docket a resolution, draft the language, present it in committee, write and oped, and blog about, suggests I only did this because some of my constituents wanted me to. People come to me with things they want the BOA to take up all the time. When I agree with them and think it is worthwhile, I do so. And then I put everything I have into it. And, in this case, it got the desired result. I was gratified to have those folks in the chamber for the vote on the resolution. They come from all walks of life. Some I know through politics, others through my church, still others through some of the charitable organizations I have been involved with, and some are new friends I had not met before. But after the vote, they all thanked me and the other members of the board who voted for this for doing so.
Finally, not for nothing, I do own my own convictions, and the fact that I continue to participate on this blog with an anonymous blogger who cannot even own his/her own name should set to rest any question of whether I am willing to endure a (ahem) “barnyard” storm for having those convictions. When you have the guts to attach your real name to your comments, then we can talk as equals. Until then….
Mr Hess Mahan, This is called the internet. Again and again you need to be reminded. What blog has people responding with their real names? Can you please name just one? And you of all people, a lawyer, know that certain employers forbid professionals from using social media and blogs with real names. I cannot have a facebook or twitter or whatever else you have. And respectfully, I am a Newton voter and you are a vote seeker and my representative in City Hall. If one of my representatives in any position uses a cliche — i..e, “a significant number of people asked me to…”, I and others will certainly react to it. Using such a term cheapens a resolution or any other voting matter or whatever else one might want to later deny responsibility.
Ted, you can easily defend yourself against people that respond to your posts. You can easily and capably respond to people that oppose your viewpoints. In almost all cases I agree with your viewpoints because you and I attempt to follow a pattern of ensuring gov’t lets the weakest in our neighborhood participate in our community as comfortably as the most powerful, as much as possible. That is what gov’t is about. But when you go too far — like coming from a Newton-Wellesley Hosp meeting and the same day writing on the internet about it without giving details as to why you were invited there… Or you have a phone call with a developer and on the same day write on the internet that the developer will apply for variances on a controversial and stop short of saying what variances the developer spoke about. Or when you say your for us selling pot at stores but you oppose banks and further you don’t feel strongly enough about pot that you would aid two relatives in obtaining it even where pot position is a minor misdemeanor…. Yes, people on the internet respond to those things.
@Hoss, as I say, I would rather argue with a dining room table.
So it appears tens of thousands of our Newton voters will get to vote on this issue. Tens of thousands of among the most intelligent voters in this state. Yet 23 alderman thought their vote is more powerful.
Alderman Tan Swiston– thank you for rejecting the thought that your vote is greater than mine. You’ve done your job most admirably
Lynne is correct.
The issue is not limited to the power of business corporations. Any individuals that can exert undue influence on elections by virtue of excessive contributions directly or indirectly to political campaigns need to be constrained. Companies, labor unions, Sheldon Adelsons and George Soroses through PAC’s. This is all wrong.
And how can people pay over $30,ooo to a campaign, like for Obama’s dinners, if the legal limit is $1000. This society cannot function as a true democracy or constitutional republic, whatever it is, if fat cats and groups can sway public opinion, and we don’t know they are even doing it or why.