The Massachusetts Legislature has approved a new law intended to bypass the Electoral College system and ensure that the winner of the presidential election is determined by the national popular vote.

“What we are submitting is the idea that the president should be selected by the majority of people in the United States of America,” Senator James B. Eldridge, an Acton Democrat, said as he introduced the bill on the Senate floor.

Under the new bill, he said, “Every vote will be of the same weight across the country.”

But Senate minority leader Richard Tisei said the state was meddling with a system that was “tried and true” since the founding of the country.

“We’ve had a lot of bad ideas come through this chamber over the years, but this is going to be one of the worst ideas that has surfaced and actually garnered some support,” said Tisei, who is also the Republican candidate for lieutenant governor.

The bill, which passed the Senate on a 28-9 vote, now heads to Democratic Governor Deval Patrick’s desk. The governor has said in the past that he supports the bill, said governor’s spokeswoman Kim Haberlin.

Under the law, which was enacted by the House last week, all 12 of the state’s electoral votes would be awarded to the candidate who receives the most votes nationally.

Supporters are campaigning, state by state, to get such bills enacted. Once states accounting for a majority of the electoral votes (or 270 of 538) have enacted the laws, the candidate winning the most votes nationally would be assured a majority of Electoral College votes. That would hold true no matter how the other states vote and how their electoral votes are distributed.

Illinois, New Jersey, Hawaii, Maryland, and Washington have already approved the legislation, according to the National Popular Vote campaign’s website.

The current Electoral College system is confusing and causes presidential candidates to focus unduly on a handful of battleground states, supporters say. They also say that the popular vote winner has lost in four of the nation’s 56 elections.

Presidential candidates now “ignore wide swaths of the country” they consider strong blue or red states and focus their campaigning on contested states, Eldridge said. If the president were picked by national popular vote, he argued, candidates would spread their attention out more evenly.

“That’s really what we’re talking about is making sure that every voter, no matter where they live, that they’re being reached out to,” he said.

Opponents say the current system works. They also point to the disturbing scenario that Candidate X wins nationally, but Candidate Y has won in Massachusetts. In that case, all of the state’s 12 electoral votes would go to Candidate X, the candidate who was not supported by Massachusetts voters.

Tisei also criticized the proponents for not following the normal procedures to seek a constitutional amendment.

“The thing about this that bothers me the most is it’s so sneaky. This is the way that liberals do things a lot of times, very sneaky,” he said. “This is sort of an end run around the Constitution.”

The measure passed both branches of the Legislature in 2008 but did not make it all the way through the process.

MARLBOROUGH -To keep hunger at bay, the city, with the help of volunteers and contributions from local companies, is once again offering its free summer lunches for needy children.

“There is nothing more important than our kids,” U.S. Rep. James McGovern said yesterday outside the Walker Building with several program volunteers. “Kids don’t automatically have food in the summer.”

In its fifth year, the program provides free lunches to children who stop by designated pick-up spots across the city.

“The need is greater today than it was last year,” said McGovern, D-3rd, co-chairman of the House Hunger Caucus. “There are many families that are struggling.”

The city’s Human Services Department has fielded many calls this year from people who need a hand, director Rosalind Baker said.

“This is a wonderful program that inspires other local communities to take hunger into their own hands, and I am honored to be part of it,” said state Sen. Jamie Eldridge, D-Acton.

More than one-third of the city’s public school students receive free or reduced lunches, but since that program ends once summer hits, the city offers the Children’s Summer Lunch Program.

If the program did not provide lunches, many children would likely just go without the meal, McGovern said.

The lunches contain 100-percent juice beverages, a meat and cheese sandwich, fruit and a snack.

Price Chopper donates a portion of the food. Marlborough Savings Bank sends volunteers. Businesses, organizations, churches and individuals also contribute.

People can volunteer, give checks or donate 100-percent juice boxes and peanut-free snacks.

All the donations go directly to the program, said state Rep. Danielle Gregoire, D-Marlborough.

“This is a great model for other communities,” McGovern said.

The program, run by the Mayor’s Youth Commission with volunteer help, started last week and runs through Aug. 30. It has grown every year, Gregoire said.

“(The children) really are so appreciative,” she said. “No child should have to be hungry because of the circumstances their parents are in.”

Children can pick up lunches at the Walker Building, 255 Main St., rooms 106 and 108; the police substation at 87 Broad St.; the First United Methodist Church, 52 Church St.; the South Middlesex Opportunity Council’s Marlboro Resource Center, 133 East Main St.; and the youth center at Countryside Village, 450-460 Boston Post Road East. The lunches are available Mondays, Tuesdays and Fridays from 10:30 a.m. to 12:30 p.m.

To donate money, drop off a check in the Walker Building, room 106, made out to the Marlborough Children’s Summer Lunch Program.

Volunteers assemble the lunches at the Metro Church, 401 Elm St., on Mondays, Tuesdays and Fridays at 9 a.m.

Any organization or housing community looking to request free lunches and anyone wishing to volunteer can contact Schwarz Ayres at 508-786-3040.

By Todd Wallack, Globe Staff  |  June 30, 2010

A state board that grants tax breaks to corporations is again withholding information about its awards before it votes on those requests, a move that critics contend leaves no time for the public to review and respond.

The Economic Assistance Coordinating Council is scheduled this morning to vote on requests by Boston Scientific Corp., Smith & Nephew, eClinicalWorks, and other companies for millions of dollars in state and local tax incentives, in exchange for increasing jobs and investment in Massachusetts. But the council refused to release the company’s proposals or the staff’s recommendations on the amount of money to award each company prior to the scheduled vote.

“It doesn’t make sense,” said State Senator Jamie Eldridge, Democrat of Acton, who has sponsored legislation that would make more information available about tax incentives. “The information should be public” so people can comment on them at the meeting or beforehand.

The state’s public meetings law requires the body to vote on the proposals in public, but is silent on whether they must provide the meeting materials to the public in advance. Eldridge said he plans to reexamine the meetings law next year.

Kofi Jones, a spokeswoman for the board, made up of state employees and gubernatorial appointees, said the Patrick administration considers the tax information to be internal documents until the board votes on them. She said the board would provide the documents after the meeting in response to a public records request from the Globe.

By contrast, local cities and towns typically make similar proposals public before voting on them.

“Just like we have access to the state budget, we ought to have access to information on tax credits,” said Deirdre Cummings, legislative director for the Massachusetts Public Interest Research Group in Boston. “From a transparency perspective, having the information ahead of time is important.”

The tax program typically provides a mix of local and state tax incentives to companies that promise to increase employment as a result. According to a copy of the meeting agenda released yesterday, the board is considering incentives for 13 expansion projects. Quincy last week approved a $320,000 property tax break for Boston Scientific, which must be approved by the state council. The Natick maker of medical devices promised to invest $55 million in its Quincy distribution center by 2013 and create five full-time jobs by 2018.

Boston Scientific has previously drawn criticism for receiving millions of dollars in tax incentives to expand in Marlborough, and then cutting jobs.

In March, the Globe reported that the state has given out hundreds of millions of dollars in state and local tax breaks to projects that would almost certainly have been built anyway. Recipients have created few quality jobs, or never delivered the jobs promised. But the state said it has made changes to the program to address those concerns.

By Michael Morton/Daily News staff The MetroWest Daily News Posted Jun 24, 2010 @ 12:18 AM

As the Senate began debating a proposed gambling expansion yesterday, one MetroWest lawmaker pushed for an amendment giving neighboring cities and towns a veto in any casino application.

Based on comments from residents, the outcome would be a foregone conclusion in Hopkinton, even with sweeteners from a developer, Selectman R.J. Dourney believes.

“The overwhelming sentiment is whatever we need to do to prevent a casino going into Milford we should do,” the board chairman said.

Milford has been targeted for a resort-style casino by developer David Nunes. While the town’s selectmen stopped short of pledging their endorsement under a deal signed Monday, they agreed to study the project’s viability with Nunes and promised not to consider any other proposals.

Nunes and partner Bill Warner want to build a 300,000-square-foot casino wedged between the east side of Interstate 495 and the north side of Rte. 16.

The facility would feature slot machines, gaming tables, 300 hotel rooms and four restaurants. All inbound and outbound traffic would use a new freeway ramp from day one, a concession from earlier versions of the pitch.

But Dourney and his Holliston counterpart, Selectman Andy Porter, still cited worries about the project, even as they acknowledge the potential for job creation.

Any increase in crime would overburden Holliston’s small, cash-strapped police department, Porter said. The site borders town conservation land. Local restaurants could lose customers. And visitors would likely use back roads to get to the casino, Porter said.

“They still have to get to 495,” he said.

While the proposed site is not ideal, Porter said, he is not looking to turn the project into a “not-in-my-backyard” situation. Instead, he wants infrastructure worries addressed and a spot for Holliston at the negotiating table should the plan proceed.

But Dourney said the response from residents has been unanimous: no casino. He said the potential negatives crime, traffic and hurt businesses appear to outweigh the promised positives, with Hopkinton’s carefully crafted finances and character at stake.

“You put that at risk with the introduction of a casino in Milford,” he said, with Hopkinton not looking to simply “grease the skids.”

While casinos are now banned in the state, the Senate is considering legislation to sanction three resorts, one in the west, one in the southeast and one in the east, an area that includes Milford. A bill passed earlier by the House would license two casinos, plus slot machines at racetracks.

Among the 164 Senate amendments under consideration is a push by Sen. Jamie Eldridge, D-Acton, to give residents in cities and towns within a 15-mile radius a vote at the polls for any casino proposal. Approval from all the communities would be required for a project to proceed.

Eldridge cited studies showing additional business losses within 50 miles of a casino and higher gambling addiction rates within 30.

“I want to make sure that communities that are so negatively impacted have their right to weigh in,” he said. While Eldridge plans to vote “no” on the bill anyway because of the business and social impacts, he is also seeking amendments to ensure mitigation money for neighboring cities and towns.

“At the very least, let’s make it less bad,” he said.

During the House debate, Rep. Carolyn Dykema, D-Holliston, unsuccessfully sought a similar amendment establishing veto votes within a four-mile radius. She ultimately voted “no” on the bill in part because of the defeat.

“That was attempting to recognize that the impacts of this type of facility don’t end at town borders, she said.

“There’s very little support for casinos in general. People are very concerned.”

As chairwoman of the Joint Committee on Economic Development and Emerging Technologies, Sen. Karen Spilka, D-Ashland, said she secured protections for neighboring communities.

For example, she said, a casino application would be incomplete without the developer first negotiating mitigation deals with nearby cities and towns, a process that would see a state board intervene if consensus cannot be reached. Those same communities could also apply for money from a state fund.

But Spilka said she still needs to assess the amendments offered by her colleagues, and determine whether she will end up voting for the legislation.

“I need to see what the final bill is,” she said.

As debate continues, Dourney and Porter said their boards would work with local legislators and place the Milford project on future agendas.

Nunes said he is also waiting for the legislative process to unfold, and tried to ease the fears of Milford’s neighbors.

“Anything we do there is going to have to be approved by the Town of Milford,” he said. “I think there’s a great deal of comfort that local communities can take from that.”

By Jennifer Fenn Lefferts, Globe Correspondent  |  June 24, 2010

The Bruce Freeman Rail Trail received an unexpected boost last week when state officials announced $931,500 in funding to design its stretch between Westford and Concord.

Supporters said they had no idea the money, which will allow the next two phases of the multiuse recreational trail to be designed simultaneously, was coming through.

“I was not expecting it,” said Acton resident Tom Michelman, president of the Friends of the Bruce Freeman Rail Trail. “It would’ve been a long process to get both projects funded. Design should be going forward very quickly now.”

The money is part of a $3.5 billion authorization for bonds to pay for state transportation projects.

State officials said the funding represents a commitment from the Patrick administration to improve transportation services across the commonwealth.

“As we continue under Governor Patrick’s leadership to make improvements to bicycle and pedestrian access, recreational trails such as the Freeman are an important part of our investment strategy to support healthy transportation options,” Jeffrey Mullan, secretary of the state’s Department of Transportation, said in a statement.

The Freeman trail is proposed to follow the 25-mile route of the old New Haven Railroad between Framingham and Lowell, crossing through Chelmsford, Westford, Carlisle, Acton, Concord, and Sudbury along the way. The first phase, 6.8 miles in Lowell, Chelmsford and Westford, has already opened. Partial designs have been done for the Westford, Carlisle, and Acton phase and the stretch in Concord.

The funding announced Friday by Lieutenant Governor Tim Murray at an event in Acton will pay for the final design in the four communities. It will be combined with $500,000 that the state awarded late last year to Westford, Carlisle and Acton, said Roland Bartl, Acton’s planning director.

“It came as a surprise but it’s the result of intense advocacy for the rail trail that finally produced results,” he said.

Bartl said the four communities have signed agreements to complete the design together. Acton will serve in the lead role, Bartl said, but all four communities will have input as the project proceeds.

If everything goes smoothly, Bartl said, the design could take up to three years to complete. He said hearings will be held and the towns must submit plans at various stages to the state for approval.

“We want to make sure we don’t rush it and that everyone has their say,” Bartl said. “And there will always be a glitch.”

The design is for the construction of a roughly 12-foot-wide paved asphalt path along 13 miles, construction of a pedestrian bridge over Route 2A/119, and the rehabilitation of six rail bridges along the trail. A segment of the trail crossing Route 2 will be handled as part of the Concord rotary redesign project.

The estimated construction cost of the trail through Acton, Westford and Carlisle is $7.7 million.

Barbara Pike, Concord’s representative on the Friends of the Bruce Freeman Rail Trail board, said the project is listed on the state’s plan for transportation construction funding in 2020, but that can change.

“We’re hoping once this thing is designed and is ready to go, it will move up,” Pike said.

Pike said the funding announcement came “out of the blue.”

“It’s thrilling that this project has gotten this level of support from the state in this economic climate,” Pike said. “It means we’re ready to take that next step.”

State Senator Jamie Eldridge, a Democrat from Acton, said the first section of the trail provides a scenic and safe transit option and is already a popular venue for bikers and pedestrians.

“The additional funding . . . will help us take the next step forward in extending this project into Acton, Carlisle, Concord and Westford, making it accessible for many more biking enthusiasts,” Eldridge said.

BOSTON —  With the state Senate appearing on the verge of approving legislation to open the state to casino gambling, the shrinking number of opponents in the Senate yesterday made a final pitch to stop the bill, saying casinos would be a menace to seniors, a cancer on the state’s economy and “a tax on the poor.”

Six members of the Senate took turns laying out their concerns at the Statehouse Tuesday, led by Sen. Susan C. Tucker, D-Andover, who said the legislation, slated for debate today, will promote the most predatory forms of gambling.

She said the Senate legislation aims to maximize profits for the state and casino owners, without regard to other economic and human costs.

Proponents of the three-casino plan have pointed to an $80,000 Senate-funded study by the Innovation Group that estimated three casinos would produce up to $460 million in annual state revenues and create more than 9,645 permanent casino jobs.

Ms. Tucker said that study was prepared by a firm with ties to the gambling industry and was used to justify parts of the bill that would waive the state’s workplace smoking ban for casinos; allow identification and tracking of potential gambling addicts for free promotions; allow free alcohol; and extend credit to those who lose all their money. She said job estimates do not count jobs at restaurants and other businesses competing with casino resorts that would be killed by gambling.

“We are here to question whether the role of state government is to encourage our citizens to gamble and gamble more,” Ms. Tucker said. She said she fully expects whatever safeguards are put in place now will be lifted by the state at the behest of influential casino operators once casinos are established.

“This is a bad deal for the commonwealth,” said Sen. James B. Eldridge, D-Acton. He also complained that the Senate study was tainted by ties to the industry, and said relying on that study to design casino law was like having foxes design the security system for a henhouse.

“The study is based on the idea that our only goal is to maximize jobs and revenue for the commonwealth, which apparently to them means first maximizing profits for casinos,” Mr. Eldridge said. “We should care about common-sense protections to prevent people from spending their life savings, retirement and Social Security checks,” he argued, instead of trying to maximize losses by casino customers.

Mr. Eldridge said the human costs will be high. “Every region where a casino has been legalized in the country there is an increased rate of domestic violence, divorce and crime and of assaults,” he said. He and other opponents complained that there has been no study on the social and economic costs of the Senate plan.

Sen. Patricia D. Jehlen, D-Somerville, who is chairwoman of the Elderly Affairs Committee, said casinos would have a major economic impact on the elderly. Even without casinos in the state, she said, gambling, including bingo, has displaced lunch with friends, movies and golf as a favorite leisure activity of seniors, even though four out of five people over 65 years old are not financially secure.

“When gambling is more available it becomes even more of a source of enjoyment and pleasure and financial ruin,” she said. Ms. Jehlen said seniors will get their money to gamble from reduced spending on consumer goods and from their savings, which she said, “will mean they have a less secure retirement.”

Sen. Susan C. Fargo, D-Lincoln, described casinos as “a cancer” on the state that would hurt other tourism. She said the state should not put profits over the health of the public by allowing smoking in casinos.

Sen. Sonia Chang Diaz, D-Boston, cited a study that showed lower-income working families will lose a larger percentage of their incomes to gaming, and the casino profits will be fueled by the paychecks of working men and women.

“The fundamental truth about this bill … is that it is a tax on the poor,” Ms. Diaz said. “We have the resources and the brainpower in Massachusetts to do better.”

Casinos will damage Cape Cod’s tourism brand, and that of the rest of the state over time, said Sen. Robert A. O’Leary, D-Barnstable.

The debate takes place as the state is scrambling to fill a potential $600 million hole in the budget for fiscal 2011 that begins July 1, a shortfall caused by congressional inaction on additional Medicaid funding for the state. Two days have been set aside for the debate, which will include action on 164 amendments.

The House has approved a bill for three casinos and racinos at each of the state’s four racetracks. Senate passage would set up a six-member joint House-Senate committee to work out a compromise bill.

Gov. Deval L. Patrick yesterday said he wants and expects to see a casino bill on his desk by the end of the month.

By Matt Murphy, mmurphy@lowellsun.comUpdated: 06/22/2010

BOSTON — Two local lawmakers are spearheading an effort on Beacon Hill to “blunt the impact” of the Supreme Court decision that opened the door to unlimited corporate spending in political campaigns.

Sen. Jamie Eldridge, an Acton Democrat, introduced legislation yesterday co-written with Rep. Cory Atkins, D-Concord, that would impose a series of public-disclosure requirements on corporations that spend money for advertising to influence elections.

The bill is a direct response to the Supreme Court’s Citizens United v. FEC decision in January that struck down prohibitions against corporate spending on campaigns.

The 5-4 ruling essentially found that corporations are entitled to the same First Amendment rights as ordinary citizens.

“The bill is about protecting the integrity of our democratic system from the corrosive influence of profit-driven political spending,” Eldridge said at a Statehouse press conference.

Eldridge worked on the bill with Atkins and Rep. William Straus, D-Mattapoiset.

Atkins did not attend the announcement after being hospitalized Sunday night with pneumonia, according a member of her staff. She was being treated at Emerson Hospital in Concord.

The bill, titled the Massachusetts Corporate Political Accountability Act, would require the CEO of any company to appear personally in ads paid for by his company to state that he “approved this message,” similar to requirements for candidates.

The legislation also requires the top five contributors to an organization making an independent political expenditure to identify themselves, and requires the majority of the board of directors or shareholders in a public company to approve political spending.

Lastly, the bill bans foreign companies from trying to influence Massachusetts elections with independent spending, and prohibits state contractors or prospective state contractors from making campaign contributions or funding advertisements on behalf of a candidate for public office.

Crafted primarily to increasing transparency around corporate spending in campaigns, Eldridge and other supporters acknowledged that their bill could do little to curb the potential for large amounts of corporate dollars to be spent in upcoming elections. An amendment to the U.S. Constitution would be necessary to reverse the Supreme Court decision.

“It’s just a first step,” said Eldridge, who is hopeful he can persuade his colleagues to pass the bill before the Legislative session ends July 31.

Advocates said they were concerned the court decision would not only impact high-profile congressional and state races, but trickle down to local elections as well.

“We fear this will unleash a flood of corporate money into our election,” said Pam Wilmot, executive director of Common Cause Massachusetts.

Eldridge envisioned a scenario in which deep-pocketed developers would begin to run advertisements to try to influence local races for boards of selectmen and zoning boards to curry favor for their projects.

There are four bills pending in Congress that take similar steps to curb corporate political influence at the federal level.

Eldridge, Atkins and other lawmakers plan to call for a resolution to be passed by the Legislature urging Congress to begin the process of amending the Constitution to overturn the high court ruling.

LISTEN NOW

As Massachusetts’ campaign season gets underway, three legislators are trying, preemptively, to reign in corporate spending on elections. The move comes in the wake of last year’s landmark Supreme Court ruling on Citizens United v. FEC, which gave corporations and special-interest groups broad leeway to participate in political speech.

The bill, called the Massachusetts Corporate Political Accountability Act, would place restrictions on corporations and other special-interest groups that choose to participate in political advertising, as well as ban certain state contractors from making campaign contributions.

As similar federal legislation struggles in Congress, we talk about how the Massachusetts election season will be affected by the Supreme Court ruling and what the proposed legislation would change.

Guests:

• Sen. James Eldridge, co-sponsor of the Massachusetts Corporate Political Accountability Act
• Andrew Kingsley, assistant director of Common Cause Massachusetts
• Rep. Paul Frost, member of the state Joint Election Laws Committee

BOSTON - Massachusetts legislators are introducing a bill to offset changes in campaign finance laws.

The moves comes after the Supreme Court struck down legislation in January that limited corporate spending on election campaigns. In that case, Citizen United v. the Federal Election Commission, the court held that independent political broadcasts during elections cannot be limited under the First Amendment.

Massachusetts state Sen. Jamie Elridge will introduce legislation Monday that would require corporations to disclose what, how much and to whom they are giving their money.

“There is the chance that corporations can spend millions of dollars this fall to influence elections,” Eldridge said. “And we want to at least to have that be disclosed to the public so that the public knows where all this money is being spent and how it might influence elections.”

The proposed legislation would require a vote of corporate boards before money could be given to a candidate, ban foreign companies from giving and disclose what ads are paid for by which companies.