By State Representative Denise Provost (D-Somerville)

(The opinions and views expressed in the commentaries of The Somerville Times belong solely to the authors of those commentaries and do not reflect the views or opinions of The Somerville Times, its staff or publishers)

It has caught the attention of the Somerville press that legislation was passed this summer that will raise the limit on individual contributions to political campaigns from $500 to $1,000 per year, starting in 2015. Looking at this law only, it might appear that the legislature it is allowing more generous campaign contributions for everyone, even those who seem to benefit from particular electoral outcomes. This impression could make the “Pay to Play” ordinance recently endorsed by seven Somerville Aldermen seem at odds with the state law – here’s why it’s not. First of all, the increase in individual campaign contribution amounted to two lines in an eight page bill (about which there will be more later). It was included as a concession to the increased costs of printing, postage, and other campaign expenses since the $500 limit was adopted in 1994. It does not mean that state law treats all campaign donors in the same way, or subjects them to the same donation limits.

State Limits on Campaign Contributions: the Rest of the Story

The state’s campaign finance laws place different donation caps on different kinds of donors. These are aimed at reducing the role of campaign donations by those who might benefit from a particular election outcome more than the average citizen. Donor limits are based on assumptions about which sorts of donors may have such personal stakes.

Corporations, for instance, are prohibited from making campaign contributions to individual candidates in Massachusetts. This law – which was not changed by the recent legislation – applies not just to corporations, but also to trustees who are majority stockholders, partnerships, and limited liability companies. Conversely, candidates in Massachusetts are prohibited from accepting donations from corporations and other prohibited entities.

There are other kinds of vested interests in election outcomes which are subject to lower caps on campaign contributions. Holders of gaming licenses, and registered lobbyists, may contribute no more than $200 per year to an individual candidate. The recent legislation did not raise those limits, either.

Pay to Play: an effort to address “municipal lobbying?”

It seems to me that this is the kind of contribution limit that Somerville’s Board of Aldermen is aiming for with its “Pay to Play” ordinance. As I see it, the “Pay to Play” ordinance is an effort to restrict campaign contributions by those who are engaged in lobbying on the municipal level – which makes sense, since state law does not recognize such a thing as “municipal lobbying.” State law only addresses local lobbying “intended to carry out a common purpose” with “executive” or “legislative” lobbying.

Since state law does not address lobbying which is conducted purely at the local level, it would seem that a local ordinance is a reasonable response to concerns about the influence of property developers in Somerville’s local elections. And while in the ballpark with the state’s donation cap for lobbyists, the Board would be a little more generous than the Massachusetts Legislature, allowing donations of up to $250 per year, versus the $200 per year cap under state law.

So, I don’t see that the Aldermen are at odds with the city’s legislative delegation, or the Legislature as a whole, on the issue of avoiding undue influence – or the appearance of undue influence. State law already regulates executive and legislative lobbyists, with registration and reporting requirements, and imposes political contribution caps. It’s not unreasonable that our local government would be similarly motivated.

So, what is in the rest of that Law Which Raised Campaign Contribution Limits?

Readers may be wondering what’s in the rest of the eight pages of the law raising donation caps. House 4366, An Act relative to campaign disclosure and transparency, primarily addresses “independent expenditures;” the “dark money” raised not by, but in support of, political campaigns. The law requires more public disclosure about campaign donors in our money-flooded, post-Citizens United elections.

Under recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions, money raised by so-called “Super PACs” (political action committees) has been allowed to pour into media markets for spending to promote – or oppose – candidates for office. No federal law requires disclosure of the identities of donors to these committees. Massachusetts, however, now requires that “every individual, group, association, corporation, labor union, or other entity” that spends more than $250 in a calendar year for (or against) a candidate has to report their identity, address, and the amount, data, and purpose of the expenditure.

Passage of H. 4366 – and the immediate effective date of the PAC donor disclosure requirement – has meant that Massachusetts voters get to know the identities of PAC donors. We learned, for instance, that the chief donor of the PAC supporting the gubernatorial campaign of Steve Grossman was his mother, Shirley Grossman. It’s also become public knowledge that the top contributor to the “Commonwealth Future PAC” – a group which has spent more than $3.6 million to support Charlie Baker’s race – is the national Republican Governors Association.

Will disclosure of PAC donors help reduce the influence of “dark money” in political campaigns? Does reducing the annual amount of campaign contributions by registered lobbyists reduce the influence of money in politics? It’s not a bad thing to talk about how to achieve that goal – even in Somerville.