Wednesday, August 6, 2014
Great News!
Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick signs super PAC disclosure law
"With no fanfare on Friday, Gov. Deval Patrick signed a law increasing individual campaign contribution limits for state candidates and requiring additional disclosures for super political action committees.
The bill passed the House and Senate by wide margins and was part of a raft of major legislation that the legislature sent to the governor's desk during the final days of the legislative session, which ended Thursday. Patrick has 10 days to consider the bills, which he can sign, veto or let become law without his signature.
The campaign finance law will have an impact on the 2014 campaigns, which are heating up right now in advance of the Sept. 9 primary elections. Beginning immediately, it requires that all groups making independent expenditures disclose their donors within seven days, or within 24 hours if it is 10 days or less before an election.
Currently, independent expenditure groups, often referred to as super PACs, only have to report their expenditures during that time frame. The law also requires that ads created by independent expenditure groups include the names of the group's top five donors in the ad, if the donors' contributions exceed $5,000.
Beginning in January, the law raises the amount an individual can contribute to a state candidate from $500 to $1,000. The law includes a number of other campaign finance provisions. It was supported by advocates of government transparency, who said it would make it easier for the public to know who is supporting statewide candidates."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Frankly, while I support the reasoning in a state as deep blue as MA other than the 500 dollar increase in individual contribution maximum this will have little to zero impact in reality
This is done primarily.for political considerations as the democratic pols know it won't impact the one way or the other. It simply plays well.
All that aside it is ethically the correct thing to have done.
Yes, Les. "Symbolism" always seems to hold sway over "Substance" in modern politics. The idea seems to be to do whatever may be needed to persuade the majority you are are accomplishing something when in fact you are doing everything possible to make sure no fundamental changes take place.
'Tis why politicians are so often derisively referred to as "gasbags." ;-)
President Obama, of course, has been a notable exception. History alone will have to judge the merit of what he appears to have accomplished. We'll certainly never get the truth out of his party, or the opposition party, -- and least of all from the media.
I changes nothing. Our elected elite are the best that money can buy. The problem they face are the same as everyone. Prices are rising so they need to gather a greater payoff to keep their elevated status.
Wouldn't it be terrible to go back to a citizen legislator instead of a career politician. They may actually work on behalf of the American citizen instead of the party.
It's all about numbers and the greater the numbers the politicians can hoodwink into believing their brand (party) is the best will govern. It is becoming increasingly obvious the democratic liberal progressives are better at hoodwinking the electorate than the republican conservative/libertarian.
Simply put, their brand is an easier sell because it has more mass appeal. We'll have to wait to see how long the shelf life is. Judging by history it will be quite long.
Post a Comment