Yesterday, my faith was restored.

First, a little background.  The State Senate is currently working on complicated legislation to reduce health care costs. I believe on the whole it is a good bill worthy of support, but I also know it does not go far enough.  In the end, I think the only way to truly control costs AND ensure universal access to high quality health care is to implement a single-payer system, as is currently being done in Vermont.

Bringing single-payer health care to Massachusetts is a long-term movement, however, and I know we have a lot of work to do to convince a majority of my colleagues, and the Governor, of the wisdom of this plan.

In the meantime, I wanted to offer an amendment to the health care bill that would put us in position to transition to single-payer down the road. My amendment  would have directed the agency overseeing health care finance in the Commonwealth to study the cost of a single-payer system and regularly compare it to the cost of our current system. If by the year 2015 (or any year thereafter), the study determined that single-payer would be more cost effective, it would develop a plan for implanting single-payer in Massachusetts and submit it to the legislature for approval.

I firmly believe single payer is the best way to go, but I realize others are more skeptical. This is why I’ve proposed we study the issue – from an independent, unbiased perspective – and see what the numbers tell us.

So what does all this have to do with grassroots activism? My single-payer amendment was debated yesterday, and although we did not ultimately prevail, the vote (15-22) was much closer than I – or anyone else – had expected. Frankly, it’s rare to see an amendment that is opposed by the leadership of the Senate gain that much support. Every co-sponsor of my original single-payer bill stayed with us, and several more senators joined us. The vote caught people by surprise, and sent a message that support for single-payer health care in Massachusetts is strong and growing.

This happened because of grassroots activism.

Earlier this week, a number of grassroots advocacy groups, including Mass Care, Progressive Massachusetts, the Progressive Democrats of America, and the League of Women Voters, put out the call: it’s time to contact your Senator and ask him or her to support the single-payer amendment.

And people responded. Many of my colleagues told me the phone just kept ringing with single-payer supporters. Some legislators who may have been wavering stood with us because they knew their constituents were watching. Others gave the amendment more serious consideration after initially dismissing it.

Over 250 amendments were filed to the health care bill. The sad truth of the speed and complexity of the legislative process is that legislators simply can’t focus on and come to a thoughtful position on every single amendment. We have to choose which amendments to focus our energy on — and because of the calls and emails of grassroots activists, a lot of senators decided this was an amendment worth caring about.

We didn’t win on our amendment yesterday, it’s true. In the long-term movement to create a truly universal health care system in Massachusetts, however, yesterday’s vote was absolutely a victory – and it was a victory because of the grassroots.

This is how we do it, and how we should keep doing it. Looking forward, if we want to continue to see progress on this and other progressive issues, we need to work together to develop an agenda for next session, narrow in on a few key priorities, and execute a plan in a strategic, grassroots fashion. There’s power in the grassroots, so let’s use it!

BOSTON – A commission charged with studying the current state of Massachusetts’s water and wastewater infrastructure systems and financing released its final report today following two years of work and numerous public hearings and meetings.

The Massachusetts Water Infrastructure Finance Commission (WIFC) found that the state faces an estimated $21.4 billion funding gap for water and wastewater infrastructure over the next 20 years, and that substantial state, federal and local investments are needed to ensure the continued availability of clean, reliable drinking water for Massachusetts homes and businesses.  A copy of the report can be found at http://www.senatoreldridge.com/legislation/wifc.

“Clean water, delivered by a strong and reliable water infrastructure system, is essential for fostering ongoing economic development in the Commonwealth,” said State Senator Jamie Eldridge, who co-chaired the Commission. “Many companies rely on water to do their business, which makes a strong water infrastructure an important factor when deciding where to locate. The work of the WIFC will help ensure we have the reliable infrastructure we need to support economic growth and job creation, as well as protecting the quality of our water and streams.”

“Water is one of our most basic needs, yet we often take the infrastructure that delivers it to our homes and businesses for granted,” added co-chair Representative Carolyn Dykema. “By making investment in our water system a priority, we are also prioritizing economic growth, job creation, and the sustainability of our communities. This report highlights the work we need to do to fund and maintain this important public asset and lays out a road map for creating a 21^st-century water infrastructure system to meet the needs of our Commonwealth.”

Our water infrastructure system suffers from a lack of investment, delayed maintenance, and insufficient resources, noted the report. Hundreds of miles of pipes are kept in service far past their useful life, leading to lost water, sewage leaks and, in the worst case, water main breaks. Our failure to maintain and upgrade our existing infrastructure threatens our ability to deliver reliable clean water and keep wastes and toxic chemicals out of our environment without service interruptions.

The Commission determined that a significant increase in spending, along with improved management to find efficiencies and cost savings, is needed to reduce the water and wastewater infrastructure gap currently facing the Commonwealth.

The WIFC final report lays out a number of strategies that state and local governments can use to achieve these goals, including:

• Sustaining current investments in Water and Sewer State Revolving Funds
• Establishing a Trust Fund, to be funded annually at $200 million, for a mixed program of direct payments to cities and towns, low interest loans, and grants
• Incenting all communities, authorities and districts to utilize rate structures that reflect the full cost of water supply and treatment
• Promoting best management practices to reduce costs and find efficiencies
• Assisting municipalities, districts and authorities in retiring the existing debt through a newly structured debt assistance program (to be funded at $50 – $60 million annually).
• Promoting environmental sustainability and innovation

The WIFC found that water utilities are currently facing many cost challenges, including aging systems in need of investments, improvements or upgrades required to meet stronger environmental or public health standards,  necessary security and redundancy investments, rising energy and labor costs, and growing municipal debt burdens.

At the same time, water infrastructure revenues are not keeping pace with needs, as  federal and state funding sources have steadily decreased. Unlike other utilities, municipal water and sewer rates often do not come close to covering the full cost of providing clean water and eliminating waste.

The result of the increasing cost challenges and the decreasing revenue is the water infrastructure gap, estimated by the Commission to be $10.2 billion in resources for drinking water and $11.2 billion in resources for wastewater projects over the next 20 years. These estimates include capital investment, repair and replacement, operations, maintenance and debt services, but do not include the cost of evolving regulatory requirements or investments to accommodate economic growth. As such, the estimates are more likely to understate rather than overstate the gap and the funding need.

More information about the WIFC and a copy of the report can be found at http://www.senatoreldridge.com/legislation/wifc.

###

The Water Infrastructure Finance Commission was established by the Legislature in the Acts of 2009. The Commission was charged with developing a comprehensive, long range water infrastructure finance plan for the commonwealth and its municipalities. Commission members included legislative and administrative appointees, representatives from the municipal, business, and engineering communities and environmental advocates.

“From his early days as a representative, Jamie prioritized the relationship with our community, keeping his door open, being receptive to our concerns and most importantly, urging us to use our strength to do good,” said JCRC President Bill Gabovitch. “We are thrilled to have the opportunity to honor Senator Jamie Eldridge for his shared values with the Jewish community on a wide range of issues over the years. We are especially grateful for his overall support to priority issues of the Jewish community and for being a passionate advocate on our behalf.”

Eldridge has worked with the JCRC/MAJF on a number of priorities over the years, including workforce development, support for immigrants, and programs to help the poor, the disabled, and the elderly.

“The Jewish community, JCRC/MAJF and I share the same values and believe in the need to continuously work for social and economic justice. I’ve been blessed to have JCRC as a partner in much of the work I do to preserve the social safety net and help low-income people develop the skills they need to gain meaningful employment, and I’m so honored to receive this award,” said Eldridge.

The Legislative Achievement Award is given to legislators who have made outstanding efforts on issues of importance to the Jewish community, and strengthened the bonds between key members of the Jewish community throughout Massachusetts and their elected officials.

###

Photo provided by JCRC of Greater Boston, taken by Garnick Moore Photographers.

JCRC promotes a society that reflects the best of American and Jewish values—in Greater Boston, Israel and around the world—by convening and mobilizing the Jewish community. Through advocacy, organizing, service and partnerships, JCRC pursues social justice, ensures a vibrant Jewish community, and builds a network of support for Israel.

The bill also includes a crucial provision to help expand clean energy production across the state, by expanding the state’s net-metering program and doubling the net-metering cap. This provision is based on legislation originally filed by Senator Eldridge last year in response to the warning of renewable energy businesses across the Commonwealth, who told legislators that if the cap isn’t raised, the solar industry will be unable to expand and growth in the clean energy sector will plateau, causing businesses to shrink their workforce, and look towards other states to continue to grow.

“Net-metering has proven to be a great success, and passing this bill will help ensure that success continues. I know that several towns in my district, including Harvard and Shirley, are interested in expanding their use of solar to take advantage of the net-metering program. Increasing the net-metering cap will allow these towns, and many others across the Commonwealth, to have more control over their energy future with proven and reliable methods as solar and other alternatives,” said Senator Eldridge

Senator Benjamin B. Downing (D-Pittsfield), lead sponsor of the bill, said: “This legislation builds on Massachusetts’ nation-leading clean energy policies and ensures those policies are advanced in the most cost effective way. It will continue the job growth we have seen in clean energy and energy efficiency, while ensuring rate payer dollars are being used effectively.”

Because of its ongoing commitment to renewable resources, the Commonwealth has the second-lowest greenhouse gas emissions of any region in the nation. It has positioned itself as a frontrunner in the clean energy economy, which currently employs 64,000 people statewide, and become one of the top states for innovation, investment, employment and policy.

The state needs to maintain this position without harming the many successful businesses for which electricity is a detrimental cost of doing business.

The average electric rate in Massachusetts is 14.24 cents per kilowatt hour – the seventh highest in the United States and well above the national average of 10 cents. Part of the reason is that Massachusetts, in comparison to other parts of the country, does not have an abundance of natural resources such as coal or gas. In fact, New England states in general have very little domestic sources of fuel for electricity.

But the high costs are also driven by the industry itself – a combination of aging transmission and distribution infrastructure, and a lack of accountability from investor-owned utility companies.

The bill passed in the Senate on Thursday addresses the high cost of electricity in Massachusetts in an effort to support job creation and economic recovery. It seeks to reduce the price of electricity by identifying cost-drivers, reviewing rates on a more regular basis, and demanding more competition.

To establish competition in the market, the bill would end the current long-term contract program under the Green Communities Act by December 2012 and require investor-owned utilities to competitively bid proposals from renewable energy suppliers for long-term renewable energy contracts. And by increasing the overall net metering cap from 3 percent to 6 percent, the legislation doubles the existing limits on municipal and privately-owned projects that generate their own renewable energy.

The legislation requires gas and electric companies to file rate cases every three years with DPU; increases from six to 10 months the time DPU has to review rate cases; prevents DPU from approving rate case settlements more than once every six years; and requires DPU to spread over a two-year period any rate increase that would exceed 10 percent in one year, with a first-year cap of 7.25 percent.

The bill also requires the Department of Energy Resources (DOER), when it intervenes on cases before the Department of Public Utilities (DPU), to do so on behalf of all commercial and industrial ratepayers.

The legislation also does the following:

• Clarifies current law regarding solar and wind property tax classifications;
• Expands DPU’s oversight to any transaction involving a regulated company, not just Massachusetts-regulated companies;
• Establishes a voluntary energy efficiency pilot program for the five largest electric and five largest gas users in each utility’s service territory; and
• Allows hydroelectric power to count toward the Commonwealth’s renewable and alternative energy generation goals under the Green Communities Act.

The bill now goes to the House of Representatives.

That same week, most legislative committees had to decide whether or not to advance many important bills that could improve the quality of life for the residents of Massachusetts. The differing fates of these often demonstrates the extraordinary amount of influence corporate interests have over which bills become law, and which die a quiet death at the end of each session.

Why do I mention these two seemingly unrelated news items in the same blog post? It’s because the problem of undue influence in state government goes far beyond who gets a job in the Probation Department.  Unfortunately on Beacon Hill these days, corporate interests often hold the trump card over the greater public interest when it comes to passing – or blocking – legislation.

The opinions of business owners on pieces of legislation that might affect their industry are certainly important and worthy of consideration – but they shouldn’t be able to single-handedly kill a bill that has both strong public support and strong policy reasoning behind it.

Let me give you two examples:

An Act Establishing Earned Paid Sick Time would allow all employees in the Commonwealth the opportunity to earn sick time so they can take care of a sick child or spouse, or simply take a day to get better themselves without fear of losing income – or their job.

Employees would earn one hour of paid sick leave for every thirty hours of work, up to 56 hours of paid sick time for businesses with more than 10 employees. (Businesses with fewer than 10 employees would have to offer less time and/or unpaid sick time instead, depending on their size).

In Massachusetts, over 1 million workers are not able to earn a single paid sick day. As a result, workplaces are less healthy and stable, workers are less productive, and – most unfortunately – many workers are unable to properly care for themselves or their families when sick. In a recent poll, 74% of Massachusetts voters supported establishing paid sick leave in Massachusetts.

This bill would make a huge difference in the lives of millions of Massachusetts families and enjoys strong public support, and yet I am concerned that this bill will go no further this legislative session. This is because the bill is opposed by an array of powerful corporate interests, who will claim that this bill – that could very well save money in regained worker productivity and reduced turnover! – will impose a substantial financial burden on business owners.

I suspect that these same corporate lobbyists and business owners have never given themselves a pay cut when they have to leave work early to bring their child to the doctor or stay home because they have the flu. Yet they argue against extending this same right to lower-wage  workers.

An Act Updating the Bottle Bill is another bill that received attention last week. This bill would apply the 5 cent bottle deposit to water, juice, and flavored drinks, expanding the fee beyond the current soda and alcohol products.  The Joint Committee on Telecommunications, Utilities and Energy decided to extend its review of the bill, which means it still has a chance of passing…but it remains an uphill battle.

The Bottle Bill is an excellent pro-environment and pro-community bill that also enjoys strong public support, yet has just as vigilant a group of corporate opponents slowing its passage.  In this case, the Massachusetts Food Association, Polar Beverage, Ocean Spray, Pepsi, Coca-Cola, and convenience stores are all opposing the bill, using the preposterous claim that adding 5 cents to a bottle on the consumer end (which can be redeemed, of course) will add to the “cost of doing business.” What about the cost in litter clean-up and trash disposal that our cities and towns face because water bottles and the like have no deposit incentive for people to recycle?

As a State Senator, I will be fighting hard to pass these two bills this session, while continuing to propose ways to reduce the outsized influence corporations have on our legislative process.

But a greater sense of outrage about these facts from the general public would go a long way towards upending the status quo, too. If the uncertainly over these two bills outrages you as much as it does me, I encourage you to become active in the movements to pass them:

Earned Paid Sick Leave: http://www.masspaidleave.org/

Bottle Bill: http://www.sierraclubmass.org/ubb/index.htm

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.

“No one should have to choose between their personal safety and finding or keeping housing – and yet all too often, this is the situation that victims of domestic violence find themselves in. This bill will help those victims who face a financial and/or legal barrier to leaving their home and prevent housing discrimination based on a past history of abuse. I’m proud to support this bill and look forward to seeing it passed into law by the full Legislature,” said Senator Eldridge.

“An Act Relative to Housing Rights for Victims of Domestic Violence” (S586/H386), filed by State Senator Cynthia Creem (D-Newton) and State Representative Ellen Story (D-Amherst) would bar a landlord from evicting a tenant or refusing to rent to someone because he/she was the victim of one of these crimes. A landlord maintains the right to evict if the lease is violated for reasons unrelated to domestic violence issues.

The bill would also allow a victim of these crimes, with appropriate documentation, to vacate their lease or rental agreements without financial penalty. This will make it easier for a victim of domestic violence or sexual assault to leave their home quickly if necessary. The bill also gives victims the right to have their locks changed.

Receiving a favorable report from the Joint Committee on Housing is an important first step in the legislative process. The bill will now be considered by additional committees before moving on to House and/or Senate floor for a vote.

The net-metering program is an important reason why installed solar electricity has increased 24 fold since 2008, the year the Massachusetts legislature passed the Green Communities Act.

The bill was filed by State Senator James Eldridge in response to renewable energy businesses across the Commonwealth warning legislators that if the cap isn’t raised, the solar industry would be unable to expand and growth in the clean energy sector would plateau, causing businesses to shrink their workforce and look towards other states to continue to grow.

“This bill will ensure that Massachusetts remains a national leader in the solar industry, helping grow clean energy jobs while reducing carbon emissions here in our state. Increasing the net metering cap will allow communities across the Commonwealth to continue to build on the work they’ve already done to increase their use of clean energy. It’s a great step forward, and I commend the Joint Committee on Telecommunications, Utilities and Energy for their work on this legislation,” said State Senator Jamie Eldridge (D-Acton).

“Passing this bill is very important for the long-term growth of the solar industry in Massachusetts, and we couldn’t be more pleased that this bill has moved another step forward. We’re greatly appreciative of Senator Eldridge’s strong support of net-metering and the solar industry, and we want to thank him as well as Joint Committee on Telecommunications, Utilities and Energy for their work on this legislation,” said Steven Strong of Solar Design Associates, Inc. in Harvard, MA.

“Solar is an unlimited, pollution free resource with no fuel costs that will help Massachusetts meet our energy and environmental goals. We looking forward to working with the legislature to making solar a centerpiece of Massachusetts’ energy strategy,” said Ben Wright, advocate with Environment Massachusetts.

Michael Stone, Policy and Regulations Manager for My Generation Energy, a solar company based in Sandwich, MA said, “This legislation is significant in that leaders from across our Commonwealth have recognized the strong local demand for clean energy choice and the value, both economically and environmentally, of expanding clean energy access. This legislation will aid in reducing the hundreds of millions of dollars we send out of the state every week – for oil, natural gas and coal -, reduce future transmission expenditures and create more resilient communities across the Commonwealth as a result. For our customers – homeowners, businesses and landowners – net metering means having control over their energy future with proven and reliable distributed generation such as solar.”

SB1664, if passed by the Legislature and signed by the Governor, will significantly increase the Commonwealth’s installed solar by;

• Increasing the cap on the net-metering program to 3% of peak-load for public buildings and 3% of peak-load for private buildings. This will allow more residents, municipalities and businesses to install solar a sell their excess power back to their utilities at fair market rates, effectively reducing pay-back periods for installations and making solar more affordable for more people.

• Exempting small-scale systems (less than 10kw) from counting towards the cap.  The average residential solar PV installation is 5.5kw, so this provision effectively removes the cap for most residential solar.

• Creating more energy market competition with expanded clean energy choice, allowing allow clean energy companies throughout the Commonwealth the ability to continue offering the proven services their customers value with jobs that can’t be outsourced.

March 12, 2012

Framingham wants to remain the primary headquarters for TJX Cos., which has reached a tentative tax-break deal to relocate 1,600 employees to Marlboro.

“The town is engaged in ongoing discussions with TJX senior management and the property owners, Campanelli Brothers, to maintain their major campus at their current 770 Cochituate Road, Framingham site,” Valerie Mulvey, Framingham’s interim town manager, said in a statement. “We believe TJX will recognize the significant value of being in a world-class location in Framingham along with our other major corporate headquarters, including Bose, Staples, Genzyme and Cumberland Gulf Group.”

Under a proposed 20-year agreement that would give TJX a big break on property taxes, the off-price retailer would move 1,600 employees from offices at 500 Old Connecticut Path in Framingham and Westboro to two buildings it plans to buy at 300 and 400 Puritan Way in Marlboro.

Marlboro Mayor Arthur Vigeant, who drafted the preliminary agreement with TJX, said there was no “ultimatum” from TJX that its move would be contingent on the tax breaks. The concessions were warranted, he said, to fill the more than 700,000 square feet of office space being vacated by Fidelity Investments.

“I want to have a competitive tax rate so that we could encourage them to come over here,” Vigeant said, noting the influx of workers would spend money in the city’s restaurants, convenience stores and gas stations.

Vigeant characterized the TJX jobs as “1,600 jobs for my residents.” When it was pointed out that the jobs were merely being relocated from other towns, he said, “they’re not helping me in Marlboro.”

TJX, headed by Carol Meyrowitz, has said it may move all or a portion of its Framingham headquarters.

That kind of one-upmanship between communities is one reason why tax-increment financing, or TIF, deals are problematic, said Deirdre Cummings, legislative director for the Massachusetts Public Interest Research Group.

“The last thing we want to be doing is pitting one community against another,” she said. “Everybody feels like they just have to throw money at them just to compete, and the taxpayer loses in that scenario. There is absolutely no data and process by which we can evaluate whether or not these TIFs are successful in creating and maintaining jobs.”

The Marlboro City Council should take a close look at the proposed agreement, said state Sen. Jamie Eldridge (D-Acton), a skeptic of tax breaks for corporations, particularly when they involve a company just moving from one community to another.

“We provide over $20 billion in tax breaks, and many of them go to large corporations, which are actually now more profitable than ever,” he said. “There’s a touch of irony here, because Fidelity was the recipient of very large tax breaks and yet, over the last 10 years, they have effectively moved most of their workforce out of state.”

A local legislator is at the forefront of a movement that is fighting back against the Supreme Court’s controversial Citizens United ruling.

State Sen. Jamie Eldridge, D-Acton, who represents Marlborough, is the co-lead sponsor on a resolution that asks the U.S. Congress to send to the states a constitutional amendment that would limit the right of free speech to citizens, not corporations.In Eldridge’s words, such an amendment would correct the decision reached in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the 2010 ruling that allows for-profit corporations to spend unlimited amounts of their general treasury funds to influence elections at all levels of government.

And he’s got some support.

A standing room only crowd last week crammed a hearing on the bill by the Joint Committee on the Judiciary.

“I think it’s an extremely important issue,” Eldridge said.

The state senator is appropriately concerned that the Supreme Court decision will drown out the voices of “ordinary people.”

“It’s fair to say you’ve already seen that in the Republican primaries,” Eldridge said, noting that candidates Newt Gingrich, Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum all have Super PACs, the political fundraising groups created in the wake of Citizens United.For example, casino mogul Sheldon Adelson has given millions of dollars to Gingrich’s Super PAC.

Dean Cavaretta, Eldridge’s likely opponent in this election cycle’s state senate race, agrees with the senator to a point.

“There is too much money in politics, and I’ve been very clear on the need to reform campaign finance laws on all sides,” including abolishing Super PACs, said Cavaretta, a Stow Republican.

But Cavaretta said he would rather the focus at this time be more on the economy and education.

Some Republicans think the resolution does not go far enough, and it should include limits on union spending.

Some unions are corporations, Eldridge said, and this effort would apply to those unions. Some unions, in which members vote on issues, are not corporations.

“The problem with corporate power is it’s not the companies themselves, it’s the ability of the CEO to make decisions in the short-term interest of the corporation,” Eldridge said.

Eldridge’s legislation, S.772, “A Resolution Restoring Free Speech,” would have the Massachusetts Legislature go on the record and request Congress send to the states a constitutional amendment that would essentially overturn Citizens United, effectively allowing state legislatures and Congress to regulate corporate political spending.

A local legislator is at the forefront of a movement that is fighting back against the Supreme Court’s controversial Citizens United ruling.

State Sen. Jamie Eldridge, D-Acton, who represents Marlborough, is the co-lead sponsor on a resolution that asks the U.S. Congress to send to the states a constitutional amendment that would limit the right of free speech to citizens, not corporations.In Eldridge’s words, such an amendment would correct the decision reached in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the 2010 ruling that allows for-profit corporations to spend unlimited amounts of their general treasury funds to influence elections at all levels of government.

And he’s got some support.

A standing room only crowd last week crammed a hearing on the bill by the Joint Committee on the Judiciary.

“I think it’s an extremely important issue,” Eldridge said.

The state senator is appropriately concerned that the Supreme Court decision will drown out the voices of “ordinary people.”

“It’s fair to say you’ve already seen that in the Republican primaries,” Eldridge said, noting that candidates Newt Gingrich, Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum all have Super PACs, the political fundraising groups created in the wake of Citizens United.For example, casino mogul Sheldon Adelson has given millions of dollars to Gingrich’s Super PAC.

Dean Cavaretta, Eldridge’s likely opponent in this election cycle’s state senate race, agrees with the senator to a point.

“There is too much money in politics, and I’ve been very clear on the need to reform campaign finance laws on all sides,” including abolishing Super PACs, said Cavaretta, a Stow Republican.

But Cavaretta said he would rather the focus at this time be more on the economy and education.

Some Republicans think the resolution does not go far enough, and it should include limits on union spending.

Some unions are corporations, Eldridge said, and this effort would apply to those unions. Some unions, in which members vote on issues, are not corporations.

“The problem with corporate power is it’s not the companies themselves, it’s the ability of the CEO to make decisions in the short-term interest of the corporation,” Eldridge said.

Eldridge’s legislation, S.772, “A Resolution Restoring Free Speech,” would have the Massachusetts Legislature go on the record and request Congress send to the states a constitutional amendment that would essentially overturn Citizens United, effectively allowing state legislatures and Congress to regulate corporate political spending.