It’s been almost twenty years since we last updated our voter registration process, and so much has changed since then. These days, the news doesn’t stop, communication is instant, and search engines provide information at the click of a button. The state government has made great strides in keeping up with this trend, and residents can now renew their drivers’ licenses or access many state services online, saving taxpayers both time and money as RMV lines shrink and paperwork becomes electronic. Registering to vote should be just as easy, and technology allows us to do so while maintaining security, saving money, and increasing accessibility.

This session I’m proud to have sponosored An Act to Modernize Voter Registration, which would make it easier for eligible citizens to register to vote and ensure the accuracy of our voter lists by allowing citizens to register to vote online, ensuring that our voting lists stay up to date when voters move, allowing 16 and 17 year old citizens to pre-register to vote, and allowing eligible citizens to register and vote on Election Day.

In the last presidential election, more than 10,000 Massachusetts residents were denied the right to vote because they had not registered at least twenty days before the election. There’s no good reason for these citizens to have been blocked from participating – except for our outdated voter registration laws.

Same-day voter registration has worked successfully for three decades in Maine, Minnesota, and Wisconsin, and for almost two decades in New Hampshire, Idaho and Wyoming. In the past few years, same-day registration has also spread to Iowa, Montana and Wisconsin.  There’s no reason it couldn’t work just as well here in Massachusetts.

Allowing online voter registration will also help increase voter turnout and engagement – particularly among young people. Citizens between the ages of 18 and 30 have some of the lowest voter registration rates – and 95% of them are frequently online.  Allowing online registration and same-day registration will help foster a new generation of citizens actively engaged in our democracy.

It can also help save money. The average cost to register a voter in the United States is about $4, but in Canada, which allows for electronic registration, the cost is about $0.35. Arizona, one of several states that offers online voter registration, saves more than 90% per voter registered online. With the budget constraints currently facing the Commonwealth, every dollar saved in voter registration costs will help preserve vital programs.

Each year, about one in ten people in Massachusetts will move to another residence, where they will need to reregister to vote. This process could be made easier and more efficient by enacting “Permanent Registration,” which would let our Central Voter Registry get updated the same way businesses update their mailing lists, using data from the US Postal Service and the Registry of Motor Vehicles to make sure people are registered where they actually live – saving hundreds of thousands of dollars in annual costs.

Finally, we should enact “Pre-Registration,” which would allow young adults who will be eighteen by Election Day to register as early as age seventeen. Doing so would encourage civic participation among our youth and help students prepare for Election Day by making sure they’re registered before Election Day and before some of them head off to college.

Voting is one of our most important rights and duties of citizenship, and it’s vital that our voter registration process is both accessible and effective. By enacting these reforms, we will modernize our voting system and empower more citizens to participate while protecting and advancing the hallmark of our democratic system.

February 1, 2012
By State Senator Jamie Eldridge (Guest Columnist)

Over the past few years, frustration with the increasing power that corporations have on our political system has been growing across the country.

Whether it has been the debate over healthcare reform, financial reform and consumer protection, or clean air and water regulations, we’ve seen time and time again the very real impact corporate lobbyists and political spending have on our policymaking process, with corporate profits trumping the needs of average people over and over.

This problem was made worse two years ago, in January 2010, with the misguided and destructive Supreme Court ruling in Citizens United vs FEC. The decision struck down bipartisan legislation that had limited corporations from spending their general treasury funds on political advertisements. Now, for-profit corporations may spend unlimited amounts of their general treasury funds to influence elections at all levels of government and set the political agenda through anonymous, multi-million dollar advertising campaigns.

The danger is real: if Exxon Mobil had spent just 2 percent of its 2008 profits in the last presidential election, it would have outspent McCain and Obama combined.

In fact, we are already seeing the effects of the Citizens United decision on our elections. Just this month, Las Vegas casino tycoon Sheldon Adelson and his wife spent $10 million to support Newt Gingrich’s presidential bid. Super PACs — the political fundraising groups created in the wake of Citizens United — have already spent $28.5 million (and counting) on advertising in the Republican presidential campaign. At this point, Super PACs are overtaking the candidates themselves!

The danger of undue corporate influence isn’t only for national elections. Indeed, the biggest danger to our democracy might be at the local level. A large developer seeking a change in a local zoning law, for example, could spend tens of thousands of dollars to influence a board of selectman race — small peanuts to the company, perhaps, but a substantial amount of money for that small local race. A selectman who opposed the company could never compete financially with the flood of advertising.

Corporate lobbyists and other powerful special interests are now able to threaten public officials at all levels with the possibility of unending negative campaign ads if their agendas are not supported — and the voices of ordinary citizens are at risk of being drowned out of the electoral process as a result.

I am troubled by the growing role of money — and especially corporate money — in politics for one simple reason: I believe that democracy should not be for sale. As the only Clean Elections candidate ever elected to public office in Massachusetts history, I understand the critical need to reduce the influence of special interest money on elections. In my time as a legislator, I have continued to fight the influence of money in our political system because it breeds corruption and takes power away from ordinary citizens.

Working with a coalition of good government and voting rights organizations, I’ve filed several pieces of legislation to address the problems created by the Citizens United decision.

In the short-term, I have proposed S304: An Act Relative to Disclosure of Political Spending, which would require corporations spending money in Massachusetts to disclose their political spending and identify themselves in advertisements that they fund. Additionally, I have filed S305: An Act Relative to Accountability for Corporate Political Spending, which would require corporations chartered in Massachusetts to receive prior approval from the board of directors before committing funds for political purposes, and to notify shareholders of those expenditures.

These bills would address some of the negative impacts of the Supreme Court decision here in Massachusetts. But ultimately, the only effective long-term solution is to pass a constitutional amendment, such as the one filed by Congressman Jim McGovern of Worcester, overturning the decision reached in Citizens United and restoring our ability to regulate corporate political spending. To this end, I’ve filed S722: A Resolution Restoring Free Speech, which, if passed, would call upon Congress to send such a constitutional amendment to the states.

Amending the constitution would make it clear that corporations are not people and are not guaranteed the same constitutional rights as we are. As citizens, we think about what is best for our country, our communities and our children. Corporations, on the other hand, are abstract legal entities created for people to conduct business with each other. They exist for the sole purpose of making profit — not creating a better society for all Americans. Their loyalties are to their shareholders and not the broader public.

By enacting these reforms we can ensure that elections are truly decided by “we the people,” and not corporate special interests.

State Senator Jamie Eldridge, D-Acton, can be reached at 617-722-1120 or email him at James.Eldridge@MASenate.gov.

Of all the unsettling information we’ve gained from the Sal DiMasi trial, one takeaway has been unsurprising: On Beacon Hill, money talks.

The only difference is that typically, money used to influence the legislative process flows through legal channels. Take two scenarios:

A legislator writes and passes a law, personally pocketing thousands of dollars in kickbacks from the company the law benefits. This is what Sal DiMasi was found guilty of doing.

Another legislator opposes a bill that would benefit consumers but hurt the business of a particular industry, and receives as a thank-you thousands of dollars — in $500 increments, payable to his campaign committee — from lobbyists and business leaders in this industry.

This legislator was doing something that happens all the time: Raising campaign cash from the people who have it and have a reason to give it. His actions are legal, but are they right? Is this really the best way to run a government?

One of the biggest problems with our campaign finance system is that campaigns are often funded by the exact same people who are looking for specific government action — a contract, a tax break or a piece of legislation. Regardless of whether donations are made with an explicit quid pro quo, the implication is the same: A campaign donation will improve your chances of getting what you want from your government.

Despite recent scandals, I firmly believe from experience that most elected officials are honest people trying to do the right thing. We ran for public office out of a desire to help people and make a difference for our communities.

That work is made harder, however, by a system that erodes public faith in government, as even honest elected officials look tainted when money seems to be greasing the wheels of government. High-dollar fund-raisers filled with lobbyists and corporate executives, often taking place in the weeks around budget deliberations, do little to dispel this notion.

It’s a message the public, as well as lobbyists, seem to have absorbed. Constituents calling my office for help will sometimes hesitantly note that they volunteered on or donated to my campaign, perhaps hoping this might improve their chances of success.

Although my staff knows what to tell these constituents — my office is there to help everyone, regardless of who they may or may not have supported politically — it’s alarming and sad that so many people believe that this is the only way to get a fair shake from their government.

But can you blame them? How many stories have there been about jobs in the Probation Department going to campaign donors, sweetheart deals for special interests, bribery and shady campaign donations?

It’s no surprise the public would look at this growing list and conclude that government is for the rich and connected.

This is why it’s time we undertake bold reform.

I have proposed “An Act Restoring Public Confidence in Government by Eliminating Pay-to-Play Opportunities,” which would prohibit lobbyists from soliciting campaign contributions and prohibit principals of state contractors (with contracts of $50,000 or greater) and their immediate family from giving or soliciting contributions for statewide and legislative candidates for office. This legislation is modeled on Connecticut law, which is one of the strictest in the nation and was upheld by the courts in December 2008.

By limiting the impact of corporate money, we’ll have a better chance of passing important pieces of legislation that enjoy high levels of public support, but have been stalled for years by opposition from well-connected lobbyists and their corporate clients.

The public deserves to feel confident that their elected officials are making decisions based on what is best for the people — and not themselves. In the wake of the DiMasi trial, with all its disheartening revelations, the time is right for the Legislature to pass anti-pay-to-play legislation.

State Sen. Jamie Eldridge (D-Acton) represents the Middlesex and Worcester District.

By Sen. Jamie Eldridge
Special to the Worcester Business Journal
May 9, 2011

Now the company is saying — and the state seems to agree — that the company is only required to pay $3 to $4 million of that money back to the state.

The situation with Evergreen Solar has attracted a lot of attention, but it may not be an isolated incident. Every year, Massachusetts spends hundreds of millions of dollars on economic development subsidies — and yet we have no idea what return we’re getting on our investment because the state doesn’t have the information we’d need to properly evaluate the end results.

Tighter Controls

You can’t manage what you can’t measure. How much are we spending? Where is the money going? How many jobs are being created with those subsidies? How much are we paying for each job? These should be simple questions, but the answers are usually very hard to find, if you can find them at all.

This session, I’ve proposed legislation with Rep. Carl Sciortino (D-Medford) to change that. Our bill, An Act Promoting Transparency & Efficiency in Economic Development Spending, would require companies receiving discretionary state subsidies to make firm job-creation promises, increase reporting and tracking to make sure those commitments are being met, cap the amount the state will give out for the creation of one full-time equivalent job at $35,000, and require the state to recapture (“clawback”) a pro-rated portion of the subsidy if a company doesn’t meet its job-creation commitment.

Although some in the business community have traditionally opposed measures like these, I would suggest that is short-sighted — particularly for small-business owners who aren’t typically on the receiving end of these large state subsidies.

The state has a limited pool of money to spend on economic development each year. We can spend it on things that help all businesses — like education, workforce development, transportation and other infrastructure improvements — or we can spend it on large subsidies to help individual corporations.

Any business that made substantial investments like the one made in Evergreen without tracking the results and adjusting accordingly wouldn’t be in business for very long.

It’s often said the government should operate more like a business, and in this case that adage is right: it’s time the commonwealth starts collecting the performance management information about our economic development spending that we need to make informed decisions and ensure that our economic development dollars are being spent as efficiently as possible.

Teach young people the basics of financial management

By Senator Jamie Eldridge and Senator Barry R. Finegold

Today’s youth are bombarded with a multitude of financial options and responsibilities at an increasingly young age. One out of every three teenagers has a credit card, and even more have an ATM card.

Yet many teenagers are ill-equipped to make informed decisions about financial matters. They don’t understand the fundamental principles of money management and the larger economy. As a result, teenagers are at a disadvantage when making important first financial decisions: buying a car, taking part or full-time employment, and using credit cards.

New college freshman have an average debt of $1,500 on personal credit cards. Four out of 10 Americans admit they are living beyond their means, primarily because of their misuse and misunderstanding of credit. Americans under 25 are filing for bankruptcy faster than any other age group.

At the same time, financial transactions are becoming more and more complicated. As we saw with the recent collapse of the housing market, those lacking financially literacy can be steered into risky loans and mortgages by unscrupulous lenders.

It’s clear we need to do a better job of teaching our children financial education basics, from how to create a budget or manage a credit card to how to apply for a loan and understand a credit score.

Building on the leadership of former State Senator Sue Tucker, we have filed legislation in the Massachusetts Senate this session that would integrate financial literacy lessons into the current math curriculum of all students in the commonwealth, from kindergarten through grade 12. This will help give our students the tools to plot a course toward strong financial footing.

The components of the personal financial literacy program outlined in the bill include: understanding loans, interest, credit card debt, and online commerce; the rights and responsibilities of renting or buying a home; saving, investing and planning for retirement; and banking and financial services. Additionally, the bill creates an advisory committee to investigate and study the development of curriculum and guidelines. We believe that by incorporating this material into the math curriculum, there will be a seamless transition for students.

Ensuring that our graduating seniors are financially literate is critical to the commonwealth’s economic future. In light of the economic problems facing our nation, we are reminded of how important it is to prepare our children to navigate an increasingly complex financial world. Finding their way in this marketplace will require more financial savvy than ever before. By teaching children the financial education basics in school, we will help them make educated financial decisions in the future, preventing future bankruptcies, foreclosures, and unmanageable debt.

This is a result that’s good for society as well as for individuals. Over the long term, the investment we make in teaching children financial literacy now will help strengthen our economy, prevent future economic crises, and improve economic security for all Massachusetts residents.

Importantly, financial education programs have a proven track record of helping working families. In Massachusetts, 7,707 foreclosure deeds were recorded in 2009 through October. Foreclosure-prevention education offered by community based organizations  have done significant work in improving local foreclosure rates. Introducing similar education through this legislation into our children’s curriculum will magnify and increase their financial success rate in the future.

We have heard loudly and clearly from dozens of teachers, financial institutions and students that the long-term health of our economy will be determined by how well we educate young people today. In an increasingly complex financial marketplace, we need to set a strong financial course for our youth. It is our hope that our colleagues in the House of Representatives and the Senate acknowledge the fundamental need for financial literacy programs and enact “An Act Establishing a Financial Literacy Curriculum” during this legislative session.

State Sen. Jamie Eldridge, D-Acton, represents the Middlesex and Worcester District. State Sen. Barry R. Finegold, D-Andover, represents the Second Essex and Middlesex District.

By Sen. Jamie Eldridge/Guest columnist
Apr 11, 2010

Proponents of expanded gambling in Massachusetts say it’s all about jobs for them — and I take them at their word. Indeed, there’s no doubt that bringing casinos to Massachusetts would create some new jobs.

But what gambling-supporters fail to mention is the jobs that will be lost as well as those that will be gained. They don’t mention the local businesses, especially restaurants and entertainment businesses, that will suffer when casinos come to town, nor do they mention the effect that sucking billions of dollars out of the local economy, and sending it out-of-state to wealthy casino developers, will have on our communities.

This is at the heart of why I will be voting against any proposal to bring casinos or slot machines to Massachusetts — because I believe they would be bad for small businesses, bad for families, and bad for our communities.

The fact is, people only have so much discretionary income, especially in a recession. This means that for casinos to make a profit, people either need to spend money they don’t have, or people need to spend money at the casino that they would otherwise spend somewhere else. When consumers spend less locally on clothing, sporting events, electronics, meals out or tickets to a show, small businesses suffer and jobs are cut. We’ve seen it happen in other states, and it will happen here in Massachusetts, too.

But you don’t have to take my word for it. According to a newspaper interview with casino owner Donald Trump, “People will spend a tremendous amount of money in casinos, money that they would normally spend on buying a refrigerator or a new car. Local businesses will suffer because they lose customer dollars to the casinos.”

Love him or hate him, Donald Trump clearly is a man who knows something about casinos, and something about business — and when even a casino owner acknowledges that local businesses will suffer, it’s worth paying attention to.

Small businesses aren’t the only ones that will suffer. Expanded gambling has been shown to cause increased crime rates, including embezzlement, robbery, aggravated assault, DUIs, and auto theft. Local crime victims, and municipalities facing increased public safety costs, pay the price. Despite the promises made in the House’s casino bill about funding local aid, these additional financial burdens are unlikely to be made up by projected casino revenues.

Increases in problem gambling leads to distressed families, child neglect, suicide and bankruptcy. Domestic violence rates go up, as do foreclosures. Families break apart, and thousands of people become addicted. Why would the Commonwealth, whose mission is “to promote the common good,” partner and promote a product that leads to such negative outcomes for thousands of its citizens? Given the financial strength that Massachusetts has due to the diversity of its economy, does it really make sense to bring in a product like casinos that damages so many parts of that economy?

Finally, there is the cost of missed opportunities. There are more effective ways we could be spending our money. Top economists, including Nobel Prize winning economist Paul Samuelson, agree money spent in casinos does not have nearly as much of a positive effect on the rest of the economy as spending and investment in other industries.

We need more jobs in Massachusetts, but expanding gambling is simply not an effective long-term economic development strategy. There are better strategies for creating jobs and promoting economic growth in the Commonwealth that don’t come with the significant downside that casinos bring.

I’m not insensitive to those who are currently unemployed, including many in the construction industry who are desperate for work. I understand that joblessness has social costs too, and it’s not easy to oppose a solution that would certainly help some families in my district.

But the job of the Legislature is to look at the bigger picture, and think about the impact the actions we take now will have on generations to come. Casinos might be an easy short-term fix, but we’ll have to live with the consequences for decades to come. I truly believe that bringing casinos and slot machines into our state is a bad gamble for Massachusetts, and that’s why I’ll be voting “no” on expanded gambling proposals this spring.

Sen. Jamie Eldridge is a Democrat representing the Worcester and Middlesex districts.

In a recent editorial, the Telegram & Gazette said that “Americans already blessed with clean water supplies can probably skip the bottled water debates.” Unfortunately, this line of reasoning assumes that we have an endless supply of clean water, and a well-maintained water infrastructure system to deliver that water.

We don’t.

This past March may have shown that Massachusetts is not lacking in rainwater, but the many floods, wells shutting down, and the release of untreated wastewater across the commonwealth demonstrates that Massachusetts faces increasing challenges with its aging water infrastructure – and an expanding bottled water industry will only make the problem grow larger. I would argue that if we ignore the effect that the growing bottled water industry is having on our water supply, not to mention the toll decades of underfunded maintenance has had on our water infrastructure system, we may not be blessed with a clean water supply for very long.

Clean water is essential to the quality of life of the residents of our communities, and is a vital element for growth and productivity in our economy. The integrity of our water infrastructure system has a large impact on our public safety and our public health. The ability to fight fires, provide clean water to residents and businesses, and the ability to deal with wastewater without negatively impacting our rivers, streams, and groundwaters are all services our residents take for granted.

But our cities and towns are facing a water and wastewater crisis created by antiquated infrastructure and a failure to properly invest in maintaining existing infrastructure. Massachusetts cities and towns are responsible for maintaining over 125,000 miles of sewer pipes and over 100 municipal wastewater treatment plants, many of which are aging. Cities and towns maintain thousands of drinking water wells and over 200 surface water supplies. It is estimated by the EPA that $8.5 billion is needed in Massachusetts to fund needed improvements to the state drinking water infrastructure.

And the longer we wait, the worse the problem grows. If we do nothing and maintain the status quo, the cost of protecting our clean water supplies – and thus, the cost of water – will only go up.

What does all this have to do with bottled water?

Up to 40 percent of bottled water comes directly from our public tap water systems. Dasani, Aquafina and other bottled water manufacturers take our tap water and sell it back to us at thousands of times the cost.

At the same time, the bottled water industry has built a $15 billion U.S. market by casting doubts on public drinking water systems, and convincing the public that bottled water is safer, cleaner, and better tasting. One effect of this campaign has been that people across the country are losing confidence in public tap water – even though bottled water is actually less regulated than tap water. As the bottled water industry has grown, the political will to adequately fund public water systems in the U.S. has diminished.

At the same time, Massachusetts spends a little more than half a million dollars a year on bottled water for state offices and public events. At a time our public water system in Massachusetts needs billions of dollars in improvements, we can’t afford to spend scarce public dollars on bottled water when we have clean, safe tap water readily available.

The Telegram & Gazette called this idea a “literal drop in the bucket.” Maybe so, but all these drops in the bucket add up. Why not invest this $500,000 a year in our public water system, rather than buying our own water back from bottled water corporations? It’s the fiscally responsible and environmentally responsible thing to do.

This is just one small example of the many creative ideas I hope will come out of the newly formed Water Infrastructure Finance Commission, which I am proud to be chairing. This commission is charged with developing a comprehensive, long-range water infrastructure finance plan for the municipalities of the commonwealth.

Given the economic realities of the present economy we will need to be creative and strategic in the investments we make and the ways we fund the desperately-needed improvements to our water infrastructure system, while also being environmentally responsible.

State Sen. Jamie Eldridge, D-Acton, represents the Middlesex & Worcester District.