Elsewhere a grand jury is reportedly investigating the pressures brought to bear on Probation Department employees to give to political campaigns in order to advance their careers.

All of which makes a fundraising reform proposal by Sen. James Eldridge (D-Concord) both sensible and timely.

Eldridge’s bill would make it illegal for any legislator (or their political committees) to hold fundraising events during the Legislature’s annual budget deliberations.

“The reality is, inevitably, what happens every budget season, there is a story about how a particular legislator is raising money just before or during budget deliberations,” Eldridge told State House News Service, “and then sometimes something will be seen in the budget that might have benefited that particular person raising money at that event.”

At the very least it gives the perception of impropriety. Eldridge is right; the budget-time fundraiser, especially by those involved in the all-powerful Ways and Means Committees, is as predictable as the seasons.

Eldridge’s bill would not apply to supplemental budgets, which are a nearly year ’round fact of life on Beacon Hill. But his bill would provide a kind of “buffer zone” around budget talks — banning fundraising events one week before, during and one week after each branch takes up the state budget (the House and Senate deliberations are separate).

Any lawmaker found in violation would have to return the contributions and the case would be turned over to that branch’s ethics committee.

In addition to increasing public trust, Eldridge’s bill might have the unintended consequence of speeding up those budget battles on the Hill.

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.

BOSTON — State Sen. Jamie Eldridge is looking to make Beacon Hill a more ethical place.

The Acton Democrat has filed two bills he said will fight the public perception that campaign contributions taint the legislative process.

One bill would ban legislators from holding fundraisers during budget deliberations. Another would limit campaign contributions from those who do business with the state, a practice he said damages public confidence.

“We all need to raise money in order to compete for elections,” Eldridge told a legislative committee Tuesday. “But let’s move away from the perception that during budget time, fundraising is done in order to influence what does or doesn’t happen in the budget.”

Eldridge is also seeking to address public concerns that politicians award state contracts and tax breaks and pass legislation as favors to campaign donors.

His proposal would prevent lobbyists from soliciting campaign donations and ban contributions from business executives — and their immediate families — who have a state contract or are applying for one.

Eldridge, whose Senate district includes Shirley, found himself at the center of a recent debate over retired lawmakers taking casino-industry jobs, spearheading an amendment to the casino bill imposing a one-year ban on former lawmakers taking casino jobs.

Eldridge has also been an outspoken opponent of the Citizens United ruling that eased restrictions on unlimited campaign spending by outside organizations. He recently proposed a nonbinding resolution by the Legislature calling for an amendment that overturns the court’s decision.

He has also filed a bill that would force corporations to disclose their political-campaign contributions.

Eldridge’s efforts have won the support of good government organizations.

“It’s critical that the public has confidence that decisions are being made on their merits and not who is funding political campaigns and who is not,” said Pamela Wilmot, executive director of Common Cause Massachusetts.

Wilmot said the so-called “pay-for-play” bill is modeled on laws passed in nine other states.

Eldridge’s bill would also limit campaign contributions per election, rather than per year. He said that would put challengers on a more level playing field.

Wilmot said former House Speaker Salvatore DiMasi’s conviction last June for receiving kickbacks after helping to secure state contracts for a software company is seen as part of the pay-for-play culture on Beacon Hill.

“State contractors do give a fair amount of money to state elections, and they typically have the most to gain,” she said. “We need to protect the integrity of our public decision-making processes.”

Common Cause also supports banning lawmakers from holding fundraisers before and after deliberations.

“It does look bad when there are folks who are running off to fundraisers then coming back and voting,” she said.

STATE HOUSE, BOSTON, JAN. 31, 2012….Campaign fundraising receptions during state budget season, a practice that has turned heads on Beacon Hill over the years, would be prohibited for all lawmakers to prevent any real or perceived “undue influence,” according to the bill’s chief sponsor.

Sen. James Eldridge (D-Acton) said he wants to prevent any perceived problems of influence peddling by banning lawmakers from holding fundraising events one week before budget deliberations, the week during, and one week after a legislative branch considers the state’s $30 billion-plus annual budget.

The bill (S 1574) makes it illegal for a lawmaker or their political committee to hold fundraising receptions during annual budget deliberations, but it would not apply to supplemental budget debates that come up throughout the year.

Any campaign contributions received during the period outlined in the bill would have to be returned, and the matter would be referred to the appropriate ethics committee, the bill stipulates.

Eldridge said the bill would eliminate uneasiness by the public that the budget is influenced at fundraising events during those times.

“Let’s move away from the perception that fundraising is done for what happens or doesn’t happen in the budget,” Eldridge told lawmakers on the Joint Committee on State Administration and Oversight, which is reviewing the bill.

Eldridge last year was criticized by some Senate colleagues after he offered an amendment during casino legalization debate restricting lawmakers from working for casinos for five years after they leave office. The Senate ultimately agreed to a one-year cooling off period, which made it into law, but only after three senators ripped the five-year plan as an unfair indictment of the integrity of all elected officials.

The week prior and the week during budget deliberations are active periods when lawmakers are filing scores of amendments to the state budget, Eldridge said Tuesday.

“The reality is, inevitably, what happens every budget season, there is a story about how a particular legislator is raising money just before or during budget deliberations, and then sometimes something will be seen in the budget that might have benefitted that particular person raising money at that event,” Eldridge said Tuesday morning after testifying on the bill. “Let’s avoid that perception and undue influence by banning that kind of practice.”

During the hearing, Rep. Steven Levy (R-Marlborough) said he is not sure the bill would change anything.

“I’m not sure what we really change,” Levy said during the hearing. “How does this law fix the real problem of undue influence on the budget process?”

Rep. Michael Brady (D-Brockton), another committee member, said after the hearing he was “looking into it.”

“I know sometimes it is difficult to raise funds, but anything we can do to protect the consumer confidence,” he said.

Brady said he has never heard any complaints or concerns about fundraisers during budget season.

A few other lawmakers, who did not attend the hearing, thought the bill a good idea.

Rep. Marcos Devers (D-Lawrence) said he was not aware of the proposal, but thought was a good idea to help with “transparency” of the budget process.

“I think that would be a sound and healthy idea,” Devers said. “We have to be objective and fair.”

Rep. Alice Wolf (D-Cambridge) called it a “reasonable” proposal, but said she was unsure it would change anything.

“Will it make a huge difference? I don’t think so. Maybe with a perception problem,” Wolf said, adding that she typically does not hold fundraisers during budget week because it is too busy.

Another bill before the committee, dubbed the “anti-pay to play” bill, would prohibit corporate executives, whose companies are vying for state contracts, from personally donating to any statewide or legislative campaigns.

Eldridge, who also filed this bill (S 1577), said it would help restore public confidence in the wake of former House Speaker Sal DiMasi’s conviction in a public corruption case involving state contracts.

Eldridge first filed the bill in 2009 shortly before the DiMasi revelations, but it failed to gain any traction in the Legislature and was sent to a study.

After testifying on the bill, Eldridge said he has not received any indications it would make it any further this session. “I think the question we all have to ask is if the company seeking a contract with the state should be allowed, even legally, to make a donation to a campaign because of the perception that creates of undue influence,” Eldridge said after the hearing.

By Kyle Cheney
STATE HOUSE NEWS SERVICE

STATE HOUSE, BOSTON, JAN. 31, 2012…..Senate President Therese Murray said Tuesday that she would urge Congress to amend the U.S. Constitution to diminish the influence of corporate spending in elections, arguing the advent of so-called Super PACs is “destroying the civility of the political process.”

“It’s pretty scary,” she said, noting that Super PACs – shadowy, often corporate-backed entities that have plowed tens of millions of dollars into early presidential primary states – had pumped $15 million into attack ads in Florida, which is holding its primary Tuesday. “It’s too much money, and who are the people behind this, and what are the reasoning and why are they giving money? It’s pretty scary.”

Super PACs emerged in the aftermath of a 2010 U.S. Supreme Court ruling, known as Citizens United, in which the court ruled by a 5-4 majority that corporations and organized labor could spend unlimited amounts to influence elections in the form of independent expenditures, which aren’t directly affiliated with candidates or campaigns.

“The Government may regulate corporate political speech through disclaimer and disclosure requirements, but it may not suppress that speech altogether,” Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote.

During a morning radio appearance, Murray voiced her support for a constitutional amendment to undo the impact of Citizens United, saying she would support a resolution pending in the state Legislature that would memorialize Congress to act. Her public support for that resolution caught its lead sponsor, Sen. James Eldridge, off-guard, although the Acton Democrat welcomed the news.

“That’s wonderful … that’s great news,” he said. “I have talked to her a number of times and she has expressed a real concern over the Citizens United decision. I have been working with the Election Laws Committee for disclosure requirements on the state level. I’ve appreciated her support this session on that issue … I literally haven’t talked to a single legislator who opposes it. The challenge, as with many resolutions, is getting it prioritized.”

The resolution is pending in the Committee on the Judiciary, which plans a hearing on it Feb. 28. Committee co-chairs Rep. Eugene O’Flaherty (D-Chelsea) and Sen. Cynthia Creem (D-Newton) were mum on the proposal.

“I’ve made an effort prior to public hearings to avoid comment on pending matters so all evidence can be accrued and evaluated,” O’Flaherty said in a statement.

Creem was not immediately available for comment.

Some Republicans have argued that Democrats’ attempts to limit the influence of corporations have ignored the impact of labor union spending in politics and were borne out of ideology rather than genuine efforts to preserve free speech for individuals.

Rep. Sheila Harrington (R-Groton), one of two House Republicans on the Judiciary Committee, declined to comment, saying she hoped to hear testimony at the hearing before finalizing her position. Rep. Daniel Winslow (R-Norfolk), the committee’s other House Republican, was not immediately available for comment.

Eldridge said concerns about union spending are a “red herring,” arguing that many unions are incorporated and would be subject to the same rights and restrictions as companies like Staples.
The resolution has the support of Sens. Stanley Rosenberg (D-Amherst), Daniel Wolf (D-Harwich), Katherine Clark (D-Melrose) and Benjamin Downing (D-Pittsfield), as well as Reps. Cory Atkins (D-Concord) Sarah Peake (D-Provincetown), William Pignatelli (D-Lenox), Cleon Turner (D-Dennis), Paul Mark (D-Hancock), Timothy Madden (D-Nantucket), Jonathan Hecht (D-Watertown), Kay Khan (D-Newton), Charles Murphy (D-Burlington) and James Arciero (D-Westford).

Attorney General Martha Coakley has also voiced support for the resolution.

The Supreme Court ruling stemmed from a dispute over a documentary critical of Hillary Clinton, which was set to air during the 2008 presidential primary season. The film’s sponsors pushed to advertise the film during the months-long primary stretch and make it available on-demand for viewers. When the sponsoring company, Citizens United, argued that restricting its promotion of the movie was unconstitutional, the case began making its way through the courts.

Corporations and labor unions are still required to disclose political donations. Voter participation advocates have called for lawmakers to amend state laws to ensure that if Super PACs attempt to influence Massachusetts elections, they are subject to disclosure requirements.

As a public servant and representative of the people, I hold the following truth to be self-evident: that democracy should not be bought or sold. As the only Clean Elections candidate elected to public office in Massachusetts history in November 2002, I understand the critical need to reduce the influence of special interest money on elections, and in my time as a legislator, I have continued to fight the influence of money in our political system because it breeds corruption and drowns out the voices of ordinary citizens.

Earlier this week, I was joined by a courageous group of state legislators and advocacy groups in support of a resolution – S722: A Resolution Restoring Free Speech — I’ve filed calling upon the U.S. Congress to send to the states a constitutional amendment that would overturn the decision reached in Citizens United and restore our ability to regulate corporate political spending.

You can watch video of the press conference here:

We are already seeing the effects of the Citizens United decision on our elections. Just a few days ago, Las Vegas casino tycoon Sheldon Adelson cut a $5 million check to support Newt Gingrich’s presidential bid. Super PACs have already spent $28.5 million on advertising in the Republican presidential campaign—and we are nearly a year away from the election!

If we are to live up to our ideal of a democracy of the people, for the people, and by the people, we must end the system of politics-to–the-highest-bidder.

In the short-term, I have proposed S304: An Act Relative to Disclosure of Political Spending, which would require corporations to disclose their political spending and to 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 to receive prior approval from the board of directors before committing funds for political purposes, and to notify shareholders of those expenditures.

The only long-term solution, however, is to pass a constitutional amendment overturning the decision.

Massachusetts has been a pioneer in progressive causes, from universal health care to gay marriage. Let’s make Massachusetts a first again—this time in calling upon Congress to pass this critical amendment.

If you support these bills and want to see them become law, please be sure to contact your representatives and let them know. You can look up your State Representative and State Senators and find contact information  here.

The bill will be heard by the Judiciary Committee on February 28th at 1pm.

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

For Immediate Release: Jan. 18, 2012

On Anniversary of Citizens United Decision, Massachusetts Pushes For a Constitutional Amendment to Overturn It

BOSTON – In the days leading up to the second anniversary of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, Massachusetts lawmakers joined state and national organizations and activists today at the state Capitol to support a state legislative resolution calling on the U.S. Congress to overturn the ruling and restore fair elections and constitutional rights to the people.

S. 722, “The People’s Rights Resolution,” introduced by State Sen. Jamie Eldridge (D-Acton) and State Rep. Cory Atkins (D-Concord), decries the court’s ruling as a “serious and direct threat to our democracy.” If passed, the resolution would have the Massachusetts Legislature call upon the U.S. Congress to “pass and send to the states for ratification a constitutional amendment to restore the First Amendment and fair elections to the people.”

“The Citizens United decision dramatically dilutes the voice of every American who does not control a large corporate treasury,” said Eldridge. “The health of our democracy and the integrity of our political system are at stake, and the only effective, long-term solution is to pass a constitutional amendment that will overturn this misguided, destructive decision.”

The assembled lawmakers and organizations also urged the Legislature’s Joint Judiciary Committee to advance this resolution by scheduling a hearing next month as well as a vote to bring the resolution to the floor.

“Our democracy is at risk,” said Representative Atkins. “The Citizens United decision opened the floodgates, allowing unlimited corporate money to flow into politics. We must pass a constitutional amendment stating that people, not corporations, have a right to free speech. Only by preserving the voice of individual citizens can we protect our democracy.”

In the wake of the Citizens United decision, campaign spending by outside groups has skyrocketed. In the 2010 election cycle, the first since the Supreme Court decision, outside groups spent nearly $300 million.

“The fundamental question facing the nation today is whether people or corporations shall govern in America,” said John Bonifaz, the co-founder and director of Free Speech For People, a national campaign launched on the day of the Citizens United ruling to press for a 28^th Amendment to the Constitution to overturn the ruling and make clear that corporations are not people with constitutional rights. Free Speech For People has targeted Massachusetts as one of the first states to pass a state legislative resolution in support of such a constitutional amendment.  “With the passage of this resolution, Massachusetts can help lead the way in restoring American democracy to the people,” Bonifaz said.

Super PACs have emerged as a result of the Supreme Court’s decision, amassing huge amounts of money used for attack ads, such as those aired recently leading up to the Iowa caucuses. Super PACs are expected to spend hundreds of millions of dollars in the 2012 elections. All of this corporate money promises to help make this election record-setting.

“Big corporations aren’t run by the 99 percent – or even by the 1 percent. Rather, they are run by a super-wealthy 0.01 percent,” said Avi Green, Executive Director of Mass VOTE. “Politics should be for all of us – not just the super-wealthy and the big corporations they control.”

The press conference is part of a nationwide week of action calling for the Citizens United decision to be overturned. From Massachusetts to California, events are planned to highlight the need for the federal government to take action to protect our democracy from corporate dominance.

“The groundswell of national grassroots activity in support of a constitutional amendment we’re seeing is tremendous,” said Mark Hays, campaign coordinator for Public Citizen’s Democracy Is For People Campaign. “With this sort of momentum, we’re ready to write the next chapter of our campaign to ensure that democracy is for people, not corporations.”

Cities across the nation have voted to rid elections of corporate cash. In Massachusetts, local groups are planning actions across the state around the anniversary – including rallies and educational events on Jan. 20 and 21 – and are advancing local resolutions similar to S. 772 to build support for its passage.

“We need short-term responses to this disastrous decision, such as increased disclosure,” said Pam Wilmot, Executive Director of Common Cause Massachusetts. “But we can only reverse it and reduce money in politics with a constitutional amendment. Passing S. 772 will put Massachusetts on the forefront of that critical effort, which, as the cradle of liberty, is where we should be.”

To learn more, visit: www.FreeSpeechForPeople.org, www.DemocracyIsForPeople.org and www.United4thePeople.org.

###

BOSTON – The Senate on Thursday passed legislation establishing new employment rights for victims of domestic violence that will help victims keep their jobs and increase long-term economic productivity, State Senator Jamie Eldridge announced today. The vote was 34-0. The bill has wide support from advocacy organizations and the business community.

“No one should have to fear losing their job because they are the victim of domestic violence and trying to get help,” said Eldridge. “I hope in passing this legislation we help create an atmosphere where victims of domestic violence are better able to access the help and support they need. I’m proud to support it and hope to see it passed by the House and signed into law by the Governor as soon as possible.”

“Too many jobs are lost and too many lives are being destroyed because victims don’t have the opportunity to get the help they need and improve their situations without fear of being fired and putting themselves in a more vulnerable position,” Senate President Therese Murray (D-Plymouth) said. “This bill requires reasonable employer considerations to help victims recover and continue to make a living. It will help alleviate the human costs, and the costs to businesses, that are associated with domestic violence.”

The bill requires employers with 50 or more employees to allow up to 15 days of leave, with or without pay, to any employee who is a victim of domestic violence or lives with a family member who is a victim of domestic violence.

Employees can use the leave to obtain medical attention, counseling, housing, protection orders and other legal assistance.

Employers can require employees to provide restraining orders, police reports, medical notes or other official documentation, such as a conviction record or victim advocate statement, to certify that the employee or employee’s family member is a victim of domestic violence.

The bill requires the employer to keep all information about the employee’s leave confidential. Employees must exhaust all available leave, such as vacation and sick time, before seeking leave established under this bill; however an employer may waive this requirement.

Similar legislation was passed by the Senate in the previous legislative session on May 13, 2010 but did not make it through the entire legislative process. It has the support of Jane Doe Inc., the Associated Industries of Massachusetts and the Retailers’ Association of Massachusetts.

The bill now goes to the House of Representatives.

###

Second in a series.

Although the Web has made some State House information and online videos of hearings a click away for interested citizens, the use of the Internet has become a double-edged sword, limiting other aspects of transparency.

Staff members on 15 of 22 major committees surveyed by the Boston University State House program said members sometimes vote via email.

Rules about public access to these emails are vague. Ten of the committee staff polled said the votes were not available to the public.

Lawmakers are increasingly absent from their committee’s public hearings. Many sessions are conducted with a fraction of the committee members present. Even sponsors of legislation are often no-shows.

The extent of the problem is hard to measure. Only six of 22 committees surveyed said they took attendance. Few make available the minutes of their sessions.

Some legislators and observers say shrinking attendance and roll call voting are symptoms of a trend that concentrates the decision making to the legislative leadership.

Peter Ubertaccio, professor of political science at Stonehill College, says this trend is a natural result of a firm political majority. Democrats have overwhelming majorities in the Massachusetts House and Senate

“It’s probably par for the course,” he said.

Ubertaccio said committee chairmen use their power to set schedules that decide the fate of a bill in conjunction with party leaders; the chairmen can sit on bills that are controversial or don’t fit into the leadership’s agenda.

“Typically, bills that the leadership doesn’t want to come to the floor don’t come to the floor,” he said. “They can do that in a variety of ways that are outside of the public viewing.”

There was an attempt, led by Republicans at the beginning of the session, to require all committee votes to be posted on the Legislature’s website. It was defeated.

Rep. Dan Winslow, R-Norfolk, plans to propose new rules that would require committees to meet in person and produce records that would illuminate the process of lawmaking for Massachusetts residents.

“It’s the democratic process. I mean, we represent people,” Winslow said. “I think it’s important for government to be open and transparent to the best (extent) that it can be.”

But it’s not just a partisan issue.

Sen. Jamie Eldridge, D-Acton, is sponsoring a bill that would make more public records available online. Eldridge said government transparency is important at all levels.

“There are decisions being made every day that impact people’s lives and businesses,” Eldridge said. “That information should be as transparent as possible.”

Massachusetts residents can find the full text of a bill on the Legislature’s website and follow its status. Viewers can watch live and archived webcasts of floor proceedings and selected committee hearings.

But Massachusetts remains behind the times when compared to other states, data from the National Conference of State Legislatures shows that all states except for Rhode Island offer live webcasts of legislative sessions, with 33 states archiving them and 35 posting live webcasts of committee hearings.

Twenty-one other states, including Connecticut and New Jersey, make it easier for interested residents to follow the process through bill tracking email subscriptions, which send out updates when a legislature acts on a particular piece of legislation.

The National Conference of State Legislatures also says 14 states offer other email subscription services, such as Maine’s list for notification of public hearings.

Twelve states allow people to create personalized lists of bills they want to follow, free of charge, with another five states offering the same service for a fee. Massachusetts does not provide this service.

Eldridge said inaccessibility of information is often an unintended consequence of cutbacks. Many of the legislative aides surveyed said they don’t have the staff to keep formal minutes.

Whatever the reasons, Eldridge said a lack of openness can foster cynicism.

“Unfortunately, the government is afraid of providing the information to the public or they don’t want to let them know all the reasons for why decisions are being made,” he said. “The fact that there have been some scandals at the government level contributes to that.”

The writers are part of the Boston University State House reporting program.