2023-05-17 00:00:00 - Joint Committee on Election Laws
2023-05-17 00:00:00 - Joint Committee on Election Laws
SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
SPEAKER1 - Morning, everybody. I'd like to welcome you to the Joint Committee on45 election laws. Public here, the Joint Committee will come to order Welcome to all of you who have joined us today. My name is John Tina of the senate chair of this committee. I'm joined by my colleague and friend, host Coach here representative, Ryan, with us today, the following senate, members of the committee at this stage, Okay, we don't have any senate members who have yet joined us, but we expect that they will. I'll turn it over to Cheah Ryan to to do setting house members at Navy President?
SPEAKER2 - Good, man. And everybody, thank you for your attendance here today, both in person and virtually. We have myself, Dan Ryan, chief vice chair, Tommy Vatolo, Sally Currens, Jessica Genino, and representative Dan Carey, also joining us remotely is a95 minority leader, Bradley Jones, in ranking member of of the committee, Paul Frost. And I think I get everyone covered? What?
SPEAKER1 - Today, Camille, we had testimony on Bill's relative to candidate finance. I think we have 23 bills in total being heard. In this category, Anybody who's listening who would not members of the committee or not sign up to testify may view a live stream version of this hearing on the legislature's website, MAlegislature dot gov an archived video today's channel will be made available on the site within a few days. For those watching on livestream, any individual organization may submit written testimony as supplemental information on any of the bills on the docket to the committee and139 the committee staff via email by this Friday141 nineteenth of May at 5PM That can be sent to bridget dot main at m a senate dot gov and colleen dot belotti at m a house dot gov. In terms of the order of testimony, legislators will be joining us during the courts of the hearing. They're in and out, testifying in multiple hearings. So we would take them out of turn as they appear and as is a tradition of the committee, and we'll then hear testimony from those that have preregistered. In terms of those who are testifying When I recognize you speak, please state your name. I mean, your audio state your name. You're affiliated with an organization. Please let us know that's helpful. To us. And then we indicate which bill you're testing -- testifying on what your position of concerns are relative to the bill. Individual will begin up to 3 minutes to speak, except for the case of panels, but more than 3 people, in those cases, will, at a maximum time of of 10 minutes and it'll be opposed to the entire panel. We will have some flexibility. We believe during the course of hearing because we're only, again, considering Billy limited number of bills 23, some of which there's nobody here to testify on. When an individual or panel has concluded the testimony, please, if you test my remotely remember to mute your microphone. During the testimony, members who wish to ask a question should ask be recognized by the chat function. We'll try to monitor that from up here. And just type in that you have the question if you are a member of the committee. With that, I think we will move on. And we have present a a panel of representatives and senators who's here to speak. They are Oh, I'm sorry. We have the MasterSoft campaign, political finance. We have the director, mister Campbell, who's here with us. And he will be testifying on 7418. And then what I'll do is announce next up will be a panel of legislators, senator Jaylin, formerly, and Rep Moschino. So you'll know what to come right up after The director has finished this time.
SPEAKER3 - Good morning.
BILL CAMPBELL - OCPF - SB 418 - Good morning Chair Keenan, good morning Chair Ryan, good morning members. Thank you for this opportunity to to present to you OCPF's position on S 418, an act relative to campaign finance reform. We are in support of that bill. I wanna thank the efforts of Senator Finegold in his office who we worked with in crafting this bill. I submitted written testimony yesterday that provides a number of examples of why the bill is important and why the bill would be effective. I just want to highlight a couple of the bigger issues this morning. Go right to it. Following citizens united decision over a decade ago, there was naturally a growth in independent expenditure political action committees known as IE PACs or super PACs. IE PACs do not file reports until they utilize the funds selected. That is an IE PAC can raise and spend money to influence elections do not report such activity until 7 days after deploying the advertisement, mail, or other activity.
Traditional packs report their receipts and expenditures each month. An example of how this plays out is a traditional PAC may pay for advertising that will not be launched for two months yet the public knows of the activity in the monthly reporting system. An IE PAC could make an advertising purchase in the spring for an October release, and the public would not know until seven days following the advertising launch. It is time to enhance the disclosure of IE PAC activity, and therefore an important part of the bill will require a group acting as an IE PAC to participate in the depository reporting system and disclose their activity in a manner equivalent to traditional PACs, while tailoring the reporting to recognize the unique manner in which the IE PACs operate.
There's a discrepancy in expenditure status for statewide candidates in all other committees. Statewide candidates can only spend money for reasonable and necessary expenses directly related to the campaign of the candidate. For all other political committees, funds may be expended to the enhancement of the political future of the candidate or the principal pushed committee was organized. Aligning these 2 standards to 1 standard will improve the administration of the campaign finance law, and provide equal treatment among candidates. And in my written testimony I gives some examples of how this is very cumbersome for candidates to operate whether they're statewide or not statewide. The bill would require more a timely disclosure of402 in kind contributions and liabilities by404 depository committees, which currently is not required until the year end report.
A committee could receive substantial in kind contributions for their a campaign, however, the public would not know the source until long after the campaign was concluded. The bill is a number of parts that will ease some administrative burdens on committees by allowing reimbursements to $1000 by a depository committee within a calendar year. Clarifying when a wire transfer and a electronic fund transfers429 can be employed by a political committee, and clarifying when a candidate may rent a publicly owned building on the same terms and conditions as oferred to a member of the437 public. Portions of the bill will improve439 security of candidates, political office holders, and supporting staff by clarifying what address information's required by filings, and allowing campaign funds to be used for cybersecurity of campaign related electronics and the purchase of personal security equipment.
Several portions of the bill address issues that will bring clarity and improve the administration of the campaign finance law, such as allowing the use of campaign funds for certain child care expenses, allowing host committees to receive contributions of up to $2000 during the defined 2 year cycle. Requiring the indexing of contribution limits biennial extending the time for depository reports to be filed from 7 days to 14 days and providing a consistent period of time after which candidate campaign financial reports may be disposed of by OCPF. The written testimony I have submitted provides more detail and information on each of these sections pointing485 out how they will ease burdens on and487 remove barriers to candidates as well489 as improving the administration of the campaign finance law by OCPF. Thank you for your consideration of the bill, and thank you for your time today. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
Great. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you for submitting the great material. That was very helpful, very thorough. So we appreciate it.
SPEAKER3 - Okay. Thank you.
SPEAKER1 - Any questions from another committee? Any questions from any team members that like to join us virtually? Seeing none? Thank you again. Have a great day. Thank you. Next up will be panel, and as I mentioned, Sanjayo representative Connolly representative of517 Casino.
SPEAKER2 - Close next because, yeah, the same.
SPEAKER1 - Morning. Good morning. Welcome.
SEN JEHLEN - SB 422 - HB 669 - Good morning, Chair Keenan, and Chair Ryan, and members of the committee. I'm Pat Jehlen and I represent the Second Middlesex district. And I'm here about Senate 422 and House 669, an act supporting parents running for public office. This bill allows candidates to use campaign funds which have been donated to them in state and local office to run four office by using the funds for childcare. Long and572 long ago, in a city not far from here, my husband and I were raising two small children. And they were the reason, a reason that I wanted to run for school committee. And they were a major contributor to my running for school committee because I had to take care of them while my husband worked, and he worked a lot. So luckily, one of my friends took care of my kids while I knocked on every door in, at least twice. I didn't just stop with registered voters. I didn't just stop with people spoke English. I worked really hard and I won. A little later, I took care of my friend's young child because I was not working full time. And she was able to run for alderman. The door to door contact is probably the most important thing you can do, especially in your local office.
We are used to, we're allowed to use campaign funds for mailings, for office space, and to pay staff to do other tasks that allow us to run, like making phone calls, like do even doing canvassing. But right now, unlike at the federal level, we can't use campaign funds to help us by providing childcare. Today, there are far fewer people available to volunteer to take care of children of candidates who are running. If the candidate can raise enough money to pay for childcare, and remember it's harder for women and people to color and low income people to raise money. If we can raise enough money, it should be one of the ways that that we can spend those funds to support our candidacy. So three years ago, we established a commission which was chaired by the ventures of this committee, which reported. And this revised bill is based on all the recommendations to make childcare an allowable expense. In conclusion, I hope you will report it out in a timely manner so we can get it done this session.
REP CONNOLLY - SB 422 - HB 669 - Well, thank you and good morning Chairs Ryan and Chair Keenan. Thank you for taking us out turn, and thanks as well for an early hearing this session. I'm delighted to732 be here with my fellow sponsors, Senator Jehlen and Rep Moschino, to speak in support of our bill, an act supporting parents running for public office. This bill would make childcare an allowable campaign expense. The concept was first brought to us around the year 2017. Lee Erica Palmer, a Somerville school committee member, called OCPF to ask if she could use her campaign funds to pay for childcare762 and was told that wasn't allowable under the law.766 She was going to attend a political function and it was reported that there were some male candidates who were told that they could rent a tuxedo777 to attend the function. But Lee, who was a single mom at the time, wasn't able to procure childcare. And so that was really how the bill came to us.
We filed it in 2017. At the time it was still a fairly innovative idea. There were only a handful of states that had done this. We came back in 2019. At that point, there had been 17 states that did this. And now, as of today, there are 28 states plus the federal election commission. As Senator Jehlen mentioned, the bill before you is the product of a legislative commission that brought OCPF and election law experts to the table to consider the feasibility of this. We have heard questions over the years, would it make sense to limit these expenses to a certain time of year or to a certain number of months before an election? One reason why I don't think our coalition supports that provision is when you consider the overarching principle of our campaign finance law.
We don't organize our campaign finance law around calendar dates. It's organized, as you850 know, around Section 6 of Chapter 55, which has to do with the enhancement of the political future of the candidate. So we don't ask candidates or we don't tell candidates that they can only do a mailing, or they can only host a dinner, or they could only do a poll during a certain time of year. And so we believe it's important to make childcare an allowable campaign expense and to put it on the same footing as other campaign expenses. So in conclusion, I would respectfully ask the committee to advance the bill favorably so that we can be intentional about advancing gender, class, racial, and generational diversity here in elected office. And with that, I'll pass it to our colleague Representative Moschino.
REP MOSCHINO - HB 669 - SB 422 - Thank you so much. So as my colleagues, uplifting my colleagues'904 remarks, if we want a more diverse body, we must be thoughtful and intentional about having a more diverse candidate pool, which means that we must take what action we can to bring forth and uplift a more diverse people running for public office. I think we all understand that childcare is, in fact, non, it's an economic expense. And it unlocks the economic potential of parents and women in particular because sadly there is still a real imperative on women in the home, and women and childcare. When we first brought this forward, uplifting my my colleagues' remarks up through the vetting process, there were a lot of questions. And at the time, Chairs Wong and Finegold put forward a task force, and it was right before the pandemic. And the task force was asked to look at 6 questions that really range from current law, federal law, other states, how this might work, what have you.
And they appointed the task force and met five times and then issued, right before COVID hit. And then they did issue a report that essentially said, answered each of those questions, looked at very thoughtfully, engaged all of stakeholders around, what the standards would be, whether or not we could do that. And in fact, what came back was a pretty clear995 understanding of that, yes, we can do this. And,1001 in1001 fact, recommended, yes, we should do this, and, in fact, recommended the language that is before you here today. So I just wanted to join my colleagues here today in urging the committee. We've really done all the work. It's the next right step. And the task force itself recommended the legislation that's before you.1023 So with that, I urge you to take favorable action on House 669 and Senate 422, an act supporting parents running for public office. Of course, we're happy to try to answer any questions that you might have, and certainly we'll refer you to the excellent panel of people that are following us to take up them more specifics of the bill. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
SPEAKER1 - Great. Thank you. Any questions? Center at the toll.
Set? Representative.1056 That's what I said.
SPEAKER8 - I thought you called me1058 this at
SPEAKER1 - it, please. No. No. My data is here. I know. Vice cheer.
REP VITOLO - I have a rhetorical question and then a more legitimate question. The rhetorical question is this, My wife's in Chicago right now and I have an 8 year old and a 12 year old. And last night, I raced home to pick up my 8 year old from school and managed my children and had a wonderful time. We ended up getting ice cream and it was delightful. On the other hand, I could have gotten a babysitter and stayed in the neighborhood and done more work related to my political career in May of an odd numbered year where I'm not even on the ballot again for 18 months. And the rhetorical question is how do we feel about me using my campaign finance money to hire a babysitter this time of a 2 year election cycle so I can, fundraisers and spend time with my colleagues? Like, how do we, like, I think it's a little bit awkward.
And I think we need to just figure out how we feel about using money for babysitting throughout the entire 2 year process. In the same way, I can use money throughout the entire 2 year process for all those other things. Right? I support this idea. I know we can get it done. This is a place where I think it is a little awkward and we need to, like, sort of talk about it and figure out how we as a society really feel about it. The actual question I have though is this, are you as filers, and I love that my chair on Elder Affairs is in this panel, are you as filers open to the idea of expanding care to adults who need care, whether or not they are in their 20s or 30s and they have special needs or they are people like my parents who need care? They're not children, but that doesn't mean that they don't need actual care that is a service that people can pay for, right? So that's my serious question.
MOSCHINO - Yeah. Well, no, actually, both are serious questions. Thank you, Rep, for those. So first, on your1192 hypothetical question, I think it is up to each candidate to decide. You raise your money, and those are your donors, it's your campaign. And every, at least as we've all learned as existing elected officials every single campaign is different and unique. And it is up to you as the candidate to decide what is the necessary thing to make your campaign successful. I don't have children. I will never use this. So it's not something that's particularly necessary to my campaign. But you might choose when you're next running that this is something that's going to unlock your potential as a candidate to really get out there. The second part to that is that OCPF participated in this task force with us. And they said expressly several times throughout the five hearings that they both can do this. And, of course, they would have to do it's like anything else. Right? They would have to do their rule making process.
But the representative to the, I'm blanking on his name, but the long time counsel to OCPF. I'm not gonna think of it. Michael, but anyway, the long time counsel to OCPF who participated said on several occasions expressly on the record, we absolutely can do this. We will do rule making processes And in fact, we heard Mr. Campbell, in his earlier testimony refer to this bill oh, well, it part of Senator Finegold's bill, and refer to this as something that they absolutely can1294 do and that fits within the standard of how they review any of our campaign finance expenditures. The second part that you asked the more serious question, I don't know if senator prefers to to answer that question. But, you know, as you're looking forward towards, I would, do you wanna say it again or just?
VITOLO - That, many of us or at least some of us have family members who are not under 18 who do require attentive care. And the question is, if this is good for my 12 year old is this also good for my 72 year old parent? Or if I have a young adult or a sibling, someone who I care for but who needs actual care rather than just can be left home alone, what about those people?
MOSCHINO - That did raise that issue and put forward that idea. So I didn't know if my Senate colleague wanted to say anything more on that. But I do think that it is a natural extension, and I do think that it begs for the inquiry. And I do think that some of us might find that could be useful. But that was not a specific recommendation of the task force. It was an action by the Senate, and it is something you should seriously consider down road but it's not specifically in this bill.
JEHLEN - This bill has been a bill that's been worked on a long time. It has a lot of support. I'm with, analysts. I'm not gonna let the enemy, perfect. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
Thanks. Yeah. Yeah.
SPEAKER3 - I don't let the seniors be the enemy of the children.
SPEAKER9 - But Yeah. Bye.
SPEAKER1 - You know, any of1409 these children, please?
JEHLEN - I would like to see this bill move forward. If it included other kinds of people who are being cared for, I would support that. But I would not support that have continual redrafting1434 and1434 slowing the bill down. Deposit spent through all of this process with the, I would support moving it forward in its current form and letting other, like the the vice chair to move forward with the bill that would expand the provisions.
SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
SPEAKER1 - for your patience. Thank you, Shubh.
CONNOLLY - Well, I mean, personally, I'm just gonna associate myself with everything my colleagues said. And if I could just take a1464 stab at, first the hypothetical, and I believe it was, you know, how would we feel about making childcare an allowable campaign expense, if it's 18 months before election. I know how I feel. I do not think you should write a discrepancy or an inequity into our law. I think we're here today because we want to be intentional about breaking down barriers to running for public office. And you know, we do not say to candidates, no, you can't host a dinner 18 months before an election. We don't say to candidates, no, you can't send out Christmas cards using your political account. That's not allowed. We don't make those distinctions.
But here we are in this meeting contemplating, introducing the distinction that would be inequity, inequitable on the basis of gender, race, class and generation. So I think that's why the coalition that's here today, the Commission of the Status of Women and the Women's Caucus, Vote Mama, and several of these other groups. They're here because they see this as something we need to be intentional. On part two of your question, just referring to page 10, the use of campaign funds special legislative commission report. And so their findings were that we should move forward now in making child care an allowable campaign expense. And that from there, we should consider adding other potential things as time goes by. So I would agree with Senator Jehlen. I think when we first brought this bill before the committee, it was a fairly new idea. It was a fairly cutting edge idea. And here we are today, and the majority of states, as well as the federal election commission have moved forward. So I would respectfully ask the committee to work with all of us, you know, to move this concept SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
forward.
SPEAKER1 - Thank you. Any other questions? Yes, representative.
SPEAKER7 - Guys my lady's doing.
SPEAKER1 - Thank you. I love you.
SPEAKER7 - Awesome.
REP DOHERTY - Just a1601 question and perhaps it's been addressed. As I have followed this bill since it was proposed in the last session and I'm supportive of it. But I would ask the question about candidates who are the sole caregiver of the elderly or disabled, would those folks be able to take advantage should this law pass? Can the law be amended?
MOSCHINO - Oh, so that was actually the question part of what we were just responding to from our colleague, Rep Vitolo. And I think the short answer is, it's not included in this go. It definitely lays the precedence to expand it should someone choose to. And as always, we can follow the committee process and have that conversation, should the committee chair choose to expand it in those ways. But our goal is to take this first incremental step, get this on the books, and then show that it works, that we can do it. And then should we choose to we can certainly expand it and go further as, you know, certainly an important question as as our population in Massachusetts ages. So yeah. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
SPEAKER1 - Any other questions? I don't see any questions from anybody, mine. Thank you very much. Appreciate your test targets. Thank you. Bye bye. We had a little problem with Teams, but I'm told that we're it's back up and operating now. So we do have access to people who have signed up virtually. Next, we have a panel with representative Dan Hunt and representative Katelyn for Garabini.
REP LIPPER-GARABEDIAN - HB 3579 - Thank you Chair Ryan, and the members of the committee for the opportunity to testify today and taking us out of order. We're here to speak with strong support of H 3579, an act empowering parental participation in public office. We filed this, appearance. As you heard from the esteemed panel before, this legislation goes to the question of making a child care an eligible campaign expense bringing Massachusetts into alignment with 20 other states and a federal election. It's informed by the work of the special commission which you also heard about, which recommended that the commonwealth of Massachusetts allow campaign fund expenditures for child care. As a parent who sought both local and state office in recent years, I can speak directly to the impact of this bill.
During my first campaign, running for the then Melrose Board of Alderman, I had a full time job as did my husband. I had a 4 year old son at home and I was pregnant. There were many weekends when I would head out to Canvas and meet with my future constituents where I needed to secure childcare coverage for my son and we paid for that out of our personal expenses. When I ran for reelection two years, later, and then for state representative, there1782 were, again, times where my husband and other family members weren't available. And sitters1786 were necessary to watch both of our boys so that I could be out on the campaign trail. So the expense of child care is one that I've had personally. I can now use my campaign funds to purchase temporary tattoos for kids in Melrose at my July 4th booth, I can use them to buy pumpkins for children to decorate at my fall festivity. But I can't use those funds to cover the costs of1807 someone taking care of Harrison and Oscar while I attend those campaign events.
Thankfully, I'm very fortunate to have1813 an active co parent, to have family members who live in the region1816 who can assist, and to have1818 the financial means to secure paid1820 child care when no one else is available. And that's certainly not the case for many parents in the commonwealth. Enabling1826 parents to use campaign1828 funds for childcare coverage will empower more parents to seek elective office, removing one unnecessary barrier entry. It will help enhance the likelihood that parents are at the decision making table when local and state policies are being considered. And a state worker spending significant fiscal and policy time looking at our childcare ecosystem, and where we grapple with issues that are impacting our children and families generally on a daily basis. It's imperative that parents of all backgrounds are represented in our local elective bodies and state offices, and this bill aids in that pursuit.
I really wanna thank you for putting this issue on an agenda so early in the legislative session. And I certainly defer to the committee's expert review and determination regarding the precise approach for making child care an eligible campaign expenditure urging you to give the concept a favorable review. And I do wanna also1877 personally thank both Mama1879 Foundation, who will be testifying later with an esteemed panel1881 with their strong advocacy on this issue within Massachusetts nationally. Thanks in advance to your consideration, and I'll turn to my co-filer, rep.
REP HUNT - HB 3579 - Thank you. Chairs, esteemed committee members, thank you for your time1894 today and for taking us out of order. We'd like to thank the panel that testified previously Senator and Representative Connolly and Representative Moschino for their hard work on this issue. So, over the last several years, I've heard from a number of constituents relative to this issue. When Representative Ryan and I were elected, 9 years ago, the entire campaign was 8 weeks long we were like that on same day, and I was able to leave my job and commit full time to running for office. And as the father of a 5 week old extremely sleep deprived and a 3 year old who was jealous. Don't know1943 if I would be able to do the same today whether I could afford it financially or without that support.
And that's coming from someone that lives a mile from both my in laws and my parents. And I was immediately next to my brother Jim who has been a lot of family support. But this is a critical issue in breaking down some of those barriers that Representative Moschino highlighted, getting people into politics. And to the vice-chair, I would say, you shouldn't be spending money on that, and you should get home and buy those kids ice-cream everyday. So thank you1983 for your time, and I know that a lot of advocates are working on this. You have a couple bills relative to this in front1990 of the committee, and we just ask1992 that you give it a good consideration. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
SPEAKER1 - Thank you.
SPEAKER14 - Thank you.
SPEAKER1 - Any questions, including numbers? Seeing down the line. Thank you. Appreciate your testimony. It's some sleep. Yes. Okay.
SPEAKER9 - Yeah.
SPEAKER1 - See, tomorrow. Next, we have a panel with a former state representative, Jamie Zalloway, Boceto, and Boston City Council, Kendall Lau.
Is the cop. Counsel's not here. Do you want to hold for the council or? Thank you. We will come back to you.
Next would be senator Roche, testifying, senate 04:34 and senate 04:37. Morning senator? Nice
SPEAKER15 - to be all of you. We still care.
SEN RAUSCH - SB 434 - SB 437 - HB 718 - Mr. Chair, Mr. Chair great to see you. Thank you so much for hearing my testimony and taking me out of turn today. I will be brief. I am here to testify on two bills Senate 434, and Senate 437, as well as the House counterparts of 437, House 718, filed by Representative Scanlon. Taking them in turn, Senate 434 is a pretty simple bill. It would require any candidate seeking the office of the president of the United States to disclose 4 years of prior tax returns in order to appear on the presidential ballot here in Massachusetts. I think we're all fairly familiar with this custom. A bipartisan custom that went on for2085 decades and decades and decades until relatively recently, like the former president Trump who, of course, did not disclose. But since the time that I started filing this bill, California and New York, have both passed laws requiring presidential candidates to release their tax returns. And more than 18 other states are considering similar measures.
2109 So2109 this is quite timely. We know that it is not only a bipartisan custom, but that it provides voters with significant and important information about the candidates they are considering for the highest office in our country, whether the candidate has in fact paid any taxes in addition to possible conflicts of interest, corruption, entanglements with foreign businesses or governments, etcetera. The second bill, 437, pertains to supporting the folks who make our elections happen. Our clerks, local clerks, municipal clerks, in both our towns and our cities. Funding our election structures is always an important aspect a necessary aspect. We have persistently and and continuously supported all of that operation and administration of our elections. Retrospectively, the state provides reimbursement for election costs after those costs have been incurred and after our towns and cities have already expended those dollars from their own budgets.
Senate 437 would frontload those costs based on annualized estimates of recurring costs for towns and cities to operate our elections and implement our elections. Provide that money at the front end, so our towns and cities aren't left sort of figuring out how to fund it, and then waiting for that reimbursement sometimes for several months on end. So, again, that would support all the folks who make our elections happen. They are the front line of our elections operations throughout state, and it would cover all the same costs2209 that we've been covering, just shifting the timeline based on an annualized audited, understood estimate of, you know, where the costs are likely to fall out. And then any difference can be reconciled after the election cycle. So I ask for a favorable report on both bills, and happy to answer any questions. And again, thank you for considering my testimony and taking me out of turn today. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
SPEAKER1 - Thank you. Are there any questions? Seeing nothing on the line? Thank you very much.
SPEAKER8 - Thank you.
SPEAKER1 - You enjoy the rest of the day.
SPEAKER10 - Basically Thank you.
SPEAKER1 - Have a good shift. Bye.
I think this yeah. Go to all the teams is working again. So we have access to those who are participating remotely. Like to go on. Next would be senator Friedman on senate bill 420, and then next would be representative Bruno of any on, I don't have the build number, but it's better for you, man. Good morning.
SEN FRIEDMAN - SB 420 - HB 679 - Good morning. Thank you Chair Keenan and Chair Ryan and members of the committee for the opportunity to speak to you in support of S 420, an act promoting political participation to. And there's a counterpart bill, H 679, filed by Representative Donahue in the House. And I appreciate you taking me out of turn. While many residents across Massachusetts actively volunteer their time and energy for political and nonprofit organizations, some of these residents face substantial obstacles to participating2304 fully in political life of their communities because they don't have a credit card or a checking account. Without these financial mechanisms, which most of us take for granted or many of us have, these2318 residents are unable to contribute financially to social welfare advocacy organizations or political action committees.
We know today that so much of fundraising is done either online or through a credit card or Apple Pay or, you know, or a myriad of technical supports. This bill would provide a simple mechanism2339 to overcome these barriers and help level the playing field for low wage workers who want to participate in shaping public policy and supporting their communities financially. This bill would enable employees even if they don't have a bank account to make regular small voluntary contributions via payroll deductions to 50(c)(4) not for profit organization and PACs similar to other payroll deductions that employers currently process on behalf of employees.
The choice of whether to authorize a payroll, what organization it would go to is entirely the choice of the employee. However, the bill does specifically exclude use of this mechanism for dues or fees for any union or other employee organization. Through, the voluntary payroll deduction mechanism, low income residents will have the opportunity to fully engage in the political process and help shape the policies that affect their lives and their communities. Therefore, I respectfully request the committee to report the bill favorably. I thank you for your time and consideration, and for allowing me to do this via Teams, and I welcome any questions that you have. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
SPEAKER1 - Thank you, Sandra. Any questions?
Seeing none, thank you.
SPEAKER17 - Thank you.
SPEAKER1 - Next have a good day. And next representative, we do hope, and then we will have a representative who I believe is Now accessible via Teams. She'll be up next. Thank you.
REP UYTERHOEVEN - HB 722 - Thank you Chair Ryan and Chair Keenan, good to see you all, and esteemed members of the Joint2430 Committee on Election Laws. And thank you for2432 the opportunity to testify on H 722, an act to limit political spending by foreign influenced corporations. I filed this bill on the moral imperative of limiting, in the wake of Citizens United corporation's ability to shape our elections and laws. Without such limits, unlimited spending threatens to drown out the voices of ordinary people. More bills have been filed across the country and earlier this month, actually, Minnesota just passed a very similar bill into law. This issue couldn't be more urgent than today in Massachusetts. Right now, Uber, Lyft, DoorDash, and other gig economy platforms are actively fighting to pass laws to exclude their workers from basic worker protections and massively erode laws protecting the status of employees.
We already saw this corporate playbook recently in California when these companies spent over $224 million to overturn a law that would have protected their drivers and workers. This broke the record for money spent on a ballot initiative in California. When corporations are spending over 200 million to buy our laws, we need to ask the question whose interest are the corporate executives looking out for? The answer is that many of these companies are substantially owned and influenced by foreign investors. For example, the top largest investors in Uber, Lyft, and DoorDash include the Saudi government, British private equity funds, and other foreign financial firms and conglomerates. By law, corporate CEOs are obligated to look out for their investors, and as the CEO of ExxonMobil, famously said, quote, I am not a US company, and I don't make decisions based on what's best for the United States.
I want to address a common question raised when limiting corporate political spending, what about the US Supreme Court decision citizens united? This decision invalidated laws that banned corporate political spending. However, Citizens United's decision was based on the description that2550 corporations are associations of citizens. But for companies that are foreign influence, this simply does not apply. It2558 is worth raising that the issue of foreign influence has gotten worse over time. In 1982, foreign investors owned just2564 5% of US stock and today they own 35%, making the American corporations far more susceptible to their influence, particularly when their influence is not regulated by our laws. This straightforward legislation would ban independent expenditures, electioneering communications, contributions to independent expenditure PACs, also known as super PACs, spending on ballot questions or contribution to ballot question committees by a foreign influence corporation.
This legislation does not in any way impact other form of corporate activities such as lobbying, and it does not impact political activities or spending of individual employees or stockholders who are eligible to donate. Foreign influenced corporation is defined as any corporation, LLC, or similar business entity where any of the following three criteria are met. One, a single foreign owner owns 1% or more of the shares. Two, multiple foreign owners own 5% or more of the shares in the aggregate. Or three, a foreign owner participates directly or indirectly in the corporation's decision making process pertaining to the corporation's political activities in the United States.2631 So regardless of which side of the aisle you're on or how you identify politically, we can all agree that foreign entities should not be able to influence our elections. And polling shows that actually 73% of Americans, including majorities in both Democrats and Republicans, support limiting political spending by companies with any foreign ownership. As such, I respectfully ask the committee to report this bill favorably out of committee, and thank you all so much for consideration. Happy to take any questions. Thank you. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
SPEAKER1 - Thank you, representative. Any questions?
Thank you. Appreciate us today. Doctor and representative Shand who's joining us virtually and appears to be working. Good morning.
REP SHAND - HB 699 - Good morning. Chair Keenan, and Chair Ryan. Thank you for letting me appear virtually. I'm here to testify on behalf of Bill H 699, an act to promote campaign finances for childcare. I just wanna say, the freshman class has a surprising number of parents in it. They have very young children, and I'm sure many people are gonna give you lots of statistics about the importance of being able to use these funds, but it just makes life fairer for everyone in the family regardless of gender. And I'm sure the Vote Mama Foundation will also mention this, but former Congressman Joe Kennedy was also able to use his campaign finances to cover childcare in his last election. So we're just asking really, we'd like to be a little bit fairer for families because it's so important for them to be part of our conversations at the state house. So thank you so much for hearing me2728 out, and I have no doubt many people are2730 gonna come tell you many more stories about how2732 important it is to file this bill. Thank you. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
SPEAKER1 - Thank you. Any questions? Janan, thank you very much. And we will now go on Back to Jamie Zalway, Belcito, a representative she will be testifying. I think I don't know. I don't believe that councilor is here. Is that correct?
SPEAKER10 - That same as a as this would be -- Right. Thank you.
SPEAKER1 - --
SPEAKER10 - go out here, and when did submit. Thank you.
JAMIE BELSITO - MMHLA - SB 422 - HB 669 - Thank you very much for giving me the opportunity to speak at this important hearing this morning. My name is Jamie Zalhaway Belsito of Topsfield. I'm a former state rep for the fourth Essex districts and a former congressional candidate in 2020. I have submitted written testimony and am speaking today in support of bills S 422 and H 669, an act supporting parents running for public office. To the best of my understanding, I am the only former member of the Massachusetts Legislature that has utilized campaign funds for childcare. But by way of access through the federal law when I ran for Congress. During my run for Congress, I was and still am the primary caretaker of my 2 daughters. And at the time, they were ages. I should ask the Rep from Newburyport, I think they were 6 and 9. There were moments on my campaign where there was no help available to watch my children, and I'll also add while I was running it was COVID. So that was another2834 layer to the child care situation. But we were able to patch this together with family and friends and neighbors.
In order for me to be the best candidate for the seat I was running for I needed to be present at the campaign trail. And at that time, that was 38 communities. In order to be present, I needed to have safe and reliable child care. The safety and health and wellness of my children and access to childcare was essential for the campaign, both as a candidate for the communities I was running for and as a parent. It would have been extremely helpful while I was serving in this Legislature to have utilized those funds when I was running and when I was serving because as many of us know, the job can be 24 hours a day 7 days a week. And it takes you to many different places. An act supporting parents running for public office does nothing but change one's ability to expend their own funds that they have raised. We can use funds for things like postage or websites, why not something as common sense as child care.
This bill is necessary to address equity for future political candidates. Single parents, working parents, and often women pass up the opportunity to run for office due to financial constraints or lack of child care. I will speak off the cuff. We are still at gender inequity within our own legislature and a lot of this stems from that access. It was financially difficult for my household while I was campaigning and using funds in a prudent manner to address my childcare needs made a huge difference in ability to run for public office at the federal level. It should be available to all candidates across the Commonwealth. Based on my lived experience and direct utilization of campaign funds to pay for childcare, I urge the members of this Joint Committee on Election Laws to report S 422 and H 669,2961 an2961 act2961 supporting2961 parents running for public office, favorably,2963 out of committee. This is2965 common sense. Legislation for candidates, their families, and the communities that they wish to serve.
The commonwealth will benefit greatly by keeping all parents equitable ability to pursue public office by way of this legislation. I think my former house colleagues Representative Connolly Representative Moschino, Senator Jehlen, for introducing the legislation. Again, I thank former congressional candidate,2990 and my friend, Liuba Grechen Shirley of Vote Mama for creating this legislation at the federal level. I2998 thank the chairs and my friends for having me here today, considering my testimony. And for the time and commitment to the3007 commonwealth of Massachusetts election laws and procedures. This is a small win for many. I look forward to reading about it in the papers. And I'm happy to answer any questions one might have on this. Thank you so much for having me here today. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
SPEAKER1 - Thank you. Any questions?
1 second.
SPEAKER2 - I just3028 want to say welcome back.
SPEAKER10 - Thank you very much.
SPEAKER1 - Excellent.
SPEAKER10 - Good to be back.
SPEAKER1 - Nice to see you. No, I'm seeing no questions. We'll move on to the next 1. Thank you. Have a great day. On Jeff Foster from CommonCoUS.
Scheduled to b. He's scheduled to be virtual.3047 There he is.
GEOFF FOSTER - COMMON CAUSE MASSACHUSETTS - HB 722 - SB 430 - HB 669 - SB 422 - Good morning Chair Ryan, Chair Keenan, honorable members of the committee. Thanks for holding today's hearing and special thanks to your staff and the team at LAS for providing this virtual option. My name is Geoff Foster, executive director at Common Cause Massachusetts, and I'm here to testify in support of two important bills. The3066 first is an act limiting political spending by foreign influenced corporations. Even in these divided times, Americans can agree that foreign interests should not be able to influence our political system by pouring money into elections. Under current law, foreign governments and citizens are forbidden from3083 spending money in state elections. Yet a loophole allows foreign money to enter3087 our politics through political spending by corporations. S 4303091 and H 722 helped to close this loophole in Massachusetts.
The Supreme Court's 2010 Citizens United decision is largely to blame for a foreign3100 owned corporate loophole. Prior to that unfortunate decision, business3104 corporations were not allowed to influence elections directly or indirectly. Since Citizens United, for profit corporations, even those under foreign control or influence, can spend unlimited money in politics. This makes no sense. And to protect our public, we must close this loophole. S 430 and H 722 would do just that. They prohibit a corporation from making electioneering, communications, and independent expenditures in Massachusetts elections if a single foreign shareholder owns more than 5% of a company's share or if over 20% of the total ownership is in foreign hands. About 1 in 10 S&P 500 corporations have foreign shareholder owning over 5% of shares, and therefore can influence the corporation's political spending.
The numbers may be even higher for companies that are not publicly traded. For example, as you've already heard, Uber, which has spent millions on local level elections to fight safety regulations, has been over 5% owned by the Saudi Arabian government. The same Uber, who alongside Lyft, recently funded a campaign effort attempting to put a gig worker ballot question on the 2022 ballot last year. Our country's founders were rightly worried about foreign influence in our elections, fearing that Europe would try to corrupt and undermine, then our new republic's independence. Here, in Massachusetts at the birthplace of the American revolution, we should act now to protect our own state's democracy. We ask that you please give these bills a favorable report.
I'm also here today to testify in support of Bills H3195 6693195 and3195 S 422, an act supporting parents running for public office.3197 My predecessor, Pam Wilmot, was a member of the Special Commission on Family Care and Childcare Services, which released its report in December of 2020. The conclusion reached in that report was that Massachusetts candidates should be permitted to use campaign funds for childcare expenses that would not exist but for the candidate's campaign obligations. Common Cause Massachusetts is proud to support these bills that would remove a longstanding barrier for parents who seek to run for public office, make our democracy more participatory, and we respectfully ask that you give these bills a favorable report as well. Again, thanks for your time today. We plan to submit a more substantive written testimony, but I'm happy to take any questions if you have them. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
SPEAKER1 - Any questions.
SEN KEENAN - I have a question, and thank you for testifying. You're the first non elected person to speak on this particular piece of legislation. And so It may be unfair, but I do have a question for you because you are filling that role. And I fully support the idea of being able to use campaign funds for somebody who's running for office. And Representative Vitolo touched on this a little bit earlier. Is there a concern given your perspective, given that office holders, and I'm making the distinction between candidates and office holders or office holders who are running for reelection and actively engaged, is there a concern that office holders if they're allowed to use campaign funds for childcare, knowing that they're allowed to use them for automobiles, for instance, for meals?
Is there a concern that allowing these types of things removes or perhaps further separates the experiences of those who hold office to those who are private citizens? For instance, if there is an event off election year, let's call it a community event. An office holder can make arrangements to have childcare provided to a child as they go to that meeting. John or Jane Q public doesn't. Does it tilt things in a way that there is a further separation between the average citizen struggling and an office holder, again, distinct from a candidate or an office holder running for reelection, having these types of things permitted to be paid for up under campaign finance laws?
FOSTER - Sure. And thank you for your question. Appreciate it. Happy to give our thoughts on it, but excited. I know there's a lot of other groups here working on this, bill, that could speak to it as well. In short, our opinion is that came out of the report in the committee that any expense that could be used relative and incurred during a campaign should be allowed and should be extended now to childcare. And so I think as we heard from the sponsors as well, it would be important to treat these equally. Knowing that different candidates might announce or launch their campaigns at different times. And we see sometimes they happen early, sometimes they happen late, but we do wanna make sure that if someone's considering running for office, but they might not because of this particular barrier that there be no necessary clock that starts or stops on their ability to make the consideration when and if this bill becomes law. So appreciate3412 the thought and happy to continue working with the committee as you hear from more folks today and sift through it. But that's my initial reaction to your question. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
SPEAKER1 - I appreciate it. And there are some compelling arguments to make it available as suggested. A couple of earlier panels made those, I thought they were quite compelling. But given that you were the first non office holder to testify I wanted to pose that question to you. So, thank you for your response.
Any any other questions? Yes.
KEENAN - Right. Yeah, so the distinction would be, let's just say, at this time of year, for instance, we were recently reelected. We are now in the early months of this legislative session. Should child care expenses be treated the same now as they may be a year from now when we're out campaigning actively with nomination papers? And I understand the arguments, as I said, there were some compelling arguments. So, yes, it should be. But my question is, is there a concern or should we be concerned that allowing these type of expenditures in that off election year when we're not actively seeking office but serving, and I know those lines are sometimes blurred, that it separates us a little bit more, it separates elected officials a little bit more from the common experiences of the public that they represent, where there are struggles?
And I know the answer to that the biggest answer is we've got to do a better job of providing childcare in general. But is there a concern that if we are allowed to use money for vehicles, for car insurance, for gas, for meals, for childcare expenditures, somebody said earlier that somebody is allowed to use it for a tuxedo. Are we, is the gulf3531 that's people perceive to exist between John and Jane Q Public, those that represent them widened by this? And I'm not so sure it is, but I posed that question to get some feedback on it. Thank you. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
Any other questions? And thanks for asking. That'd be helpful. Thank you. Appreciate it.3554 Any other questions? Seeing none, we'll move on next
We have a
boat mama foundation, Sarah Hague.
Okay.
Oh, okay. Okay. Then I will call that panel. If that works. Is if everybody here at the panel is Nor Ben. I'm sorry if I mispronounced his Natatetia Hensy, Louisa Dougin and Brianna Elioso Savage. Everybody here for that panel. And again, I apologize if I've mispronounced.
Any names?
Morning.
SPEAKER13 - I don't speak Spanish.
SPEAKER1 - No. Whatever works for you folks is fine with us. Okay. Thank you. I'm sorry.
LOUISA DUGAN - VOTE MAMA FOUNDATION - HB 669 - SB 422 - Good morning. My name is Louisa Dugan and I'm here on behalf of Vote Mama Foundation in strong support with campaign funds for child care. I'm a proud resident of Brighton, Massachusetts, and I'm thrilled to be speaking with3637 you today on such a critical initiative that would make it easier for everyday parents to3641 run for and serve in office across the commonwealth. Child care obligations are one of the major factors families consider when weighing their decision to run for office. In many states, it costs more to send an infant to childcare than to pay a mortgage payment. This is not an expense working families can take on, especially when campaigning for office. In 2018, the Federal Election Commission approved Vote Mama Foundation's Founder and CEO's request to spend campaign funds on child care through unanimous bipartisan vote.
Since this ruling, over 50 federal candidates have used campaign funds to pay for childcare expenses directly related to campaign activity. House, Senate, and presidential candidates, moms, dads, Democrats, and Republicans have all used campaign funds to pay for childcare expenses. However, this ruling does not apply to state and local candidates. Vote Mama Foundation is working to approve the use of campaign funds for childcare by state and local candidates in all, states. As of today, 28 states both Democratic and Republic again have brought their state statutes in line with federal regulations. States like Vermont, New York, Connecticut, West Virginia, Arkansas, California, and Washington have all passed campaign funds for child care legislation.
And to take a moment to speak to Representative Vitolo's question, broader dependent care is not unprecedented, and in3721 fact, 6 of the 28 states do3723 allow for campaign funds for dependent care expenses. Dependent care is built on the foundation's gold standard of legislation, but we agree with the prime sponsors that we need to prioritize getting this bill over the finish line. In 2022, Vote Mama Foundation found that only 4% of state legislators in Massachusetts were moms with minor children. That number is lower than the national average of 5.3%. The Massachusetts state legislature ranks 32nd nationally in representation of mothers with minor children.
And we are missing a critical voice at the decision making table. Without everyday parents3756 represented at all levels of government, our policies will continue to fail families. This legislation is a bipartisan initiative for moms and dad. As with any other campaign finance allowance this bill creates an option for use and is not a mandate. Candidates do not have to use3771 campaign funds on childcare expenses if they do not want to. Even better,3775 this common sense solution is at no cost to taxpayers. Thank you for your time and consideration. I urge the Joint Committee on Election Laws to support this initiative and become the 29th state to allow campaign funds for child SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
care.
SPEAKER7 - This is chairman.
SPEAKER1 - Yes. We have questions. Just quick. Perfect.
SPEAKER4 - Because then I'll leave I don't ask now.
3795 REP3795 KERANS3795 -3795 Thank3795 you for your testimony. How many states are, how many states did you say state candidates may use their funds for childcare?
DUGAN - 28. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
SPEAKER4 - 28.
Yeah. Okay.
SPEAKER1 - Oh,
DUGAN - That require primary caregiving from the candidates or, you know, adults, parents grandparents, SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
SPEAKER4 - Excellent. Thank you.
NORA BENT - MASSACHUSETTS CAUCUS OF WOMEN LEGISLATORS - HB 669 - SB 422 - Morning, everyone. Thank you so much for having us here today. My name is Nora Bent, and I'm the executive director of the Massachusetts Caucus of Women Legislators. It's nice to see some of our caucus members on the panel today as well as all of the committee members and staff. Appreciate as some other folks have said an early hearing on this bill. I'm really pleased to be here today with many of our3855 partner organizations and colleagues to speak in support of H 669 and S 422, an act supporting parents running for public office, filed by rep Connolly, Rep Moschino, and Senator Jehlen. The Women's Caucus via our co-chair Senator Lovely, and Rep Kane, has submitted written testimony in support of this bill. So in the interest of time, I will not repeat that. And agree with what many of our colleagues have said earlier today.
As many of you know, the Women's Caucus is a bipartisan and bicameral caucus in this statehouse with 63 legislators comprising3890 about 31% of the Legislature. We are a3894 really unique group having that bipartisan3896 and that bicameral support. And we have chosen this bill after a really thorough process as 1 of just 5 of our legislative priorities this session. And I think that support from such a diverse group really shows how widely accepted this policy is. It's actually the second consecutive session we've prioritized this3916 bill, and are really glad to be here working with so many of our organizational partners and colleagues to be supporting3922 it. So we're really grateful for your review of this bill. And again, I don't want to repeat points that others have said, but look forward to working with the committee and happy to answer questions as we go through the process. Thank you.
NAITASIA HENSEY - MASS NOW - SB 422 - HB 769 - Good day Chair Keenan, Chair Ryan, and members of the Joint Committee on Election Laws. My name is Naitasia Hensey, and I am the president of the Massachusetts National Organization for Women also known as Mass NOW. I am pleased to offer this testimony on behalf of Mass NOW, an organization that has been leading the pursuit of equity and justice for those who identify as women and girls for over 50 years. Mass NOW would like to go on the record in support of S 422 and H 769, an act supporting parents running for public office. The proposed legislation in Massachusetts would amend the current campaign finance law to cover childcare expenses. Candidates who incur expenses relating to the provision of childcare services will be allowed to reimburse these3986 expenses with campaign funds that they have raised. Campaign funds may be used to cover costs that would not exist irrespective of a candidate's campaign. However, in Massachusetts, childcare during campaign events and activities as currently considered a personal expense, and therefore, not eligible for reimbursement.
Child care should be treated like other allowable expenses. Printing4010 literature, meals for campaign staff, Tuxedos, as we've already mentioned, for campaign events, an essential component of a viable campaign. Allowing candidates to use campaign funds to pay for a childcare need is a common sense and equitable solution to the barriers that working parent face while running for office. Now more than ever, as we work through a COVID-19 related recovery, toward a more resilient future, we need a wide ranging pool of talent at the table and a diversity of perspective identify workable4045 solutions. First, campaigns at the federal level in at least 13 other states are already allowed to use campaign funds to pay for childcare needs, and now I understand it's 28. There is an abundance of precedents demonstrating that this can be done ethically and effectively.
In addition, these cases help show that using campaign funds for childcare can be easily integrated into the current best practices for determining proper spending. Namely, campaign funds can be used for childcare expenditures only when the childcare would be necessary but for a candidate's campaign activities. Otherwise, the use of funds for these purposes would be considered personal use, the distinction made for all cases. We have the opportunity to encourage a more diverse candidate pool, women and people of color to run for office if this bill is passed. On the federal level, more than 73% of campaign funds were used for children in the 2018 and 2020 election cycles were spent by women. In federal races, more than 45% of funds in those cycles were used by people of color.
On the state level, at least 66 state and local candidates since 2016 have used campaign funds to pay for childcare. Massachusetts law does not expressly4127 prohibit the use of campaign funds with childcare expenses. The OCPF has a capacity to scrutinize the candidate's childcare campaign expenditures, and this legislation will not significantly increase total expenditures. This issue aligns with Mass NOW's mission of improving the lives of women by leveling the playing fields and easing their burden for child care encouraging them to run office. Mass NOW requests that you give a favorable report to an act supporting parents running for public office. I sincerely thank you for your time today. Thank you.
BRIANNA ALOISIO SAVAGE - YW BOSTON - SB 422 - HB 669 - Good morning chairs and members of the committee. I'm Brianna Aloisio Savage, and I'm pleased to represent YW Boston this morning to support S 422 and H 669, an act supporting parents running for public office. YW Boston is dedicated to eliminate racism, empowering women, and promoting peace, justice, freedom, and dignity for all. YWCAs across the country combine4188 programming and advocacy in order to generate institutional change in 3 key4194 areas, racial justice and civil rights, empowerment and economic advancement of women and girls, health and safety of women and girls. This is an equity issue. Caregiving services disproportionately fall on mothers. Women are 15 times more likely than men to be responsible for the majority of childcare.
This bill would impact women specifically women of color who want to run and serve in public office. More than 73% of4220 federal campaign funds spent on childcare were4222 spent by women, and more than 45% of funds were sent by people color. This bill directly aligns with our mission, our programming, and our focus to create a more diverse equitable workforce. Without eliminating barriers that directly exclude parents, especially women, to be able to represent, advocate, serve, or, we will continue to marginalize and population that can positively impact our economy. According to the World Economic Forum's gender gap report, increasing the presence of women in politics, is correlated to wider economic impact. The COVID-19 pandemic has shown how critical childcare4257 is Massachusetts family and children and the economy.
Having legislation to allow candidates to apply campaign funds to pay child care expenses is a powerful way to allow more parents with a variety of experiences to seek political office. A broader candidate will result in a representative government which will endure effective policy and a successful economy. Federal law has allowed candidates to use campaign funds for childcare when running for federal office since 2018. As we continue to evolve in Massachusetts and lead the way for equitable legislation, we must not continue to leave women and especially women of color. Please report this bill favorably out of committee so all parents across the commonwealth regardless of their gender, race or economic status, have the ability to pursue public office without the constraint of childcare. Thank you so much. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
SPEAKER1 - Thank you. Are there any questions of4313 the panel? 9? What are you asking virtually? Thank you very much for your testimony. Have a great day.
Yes. Shoot. I just want to welcome Senator Oliver. Thank you for joining us. Here. Gonna get crazy schedules off in the queue. Okay, next we will move on to a panel
Master's Commission status, a woman executive director, and4348 I apologize, Shahida. Tipes. Yeah. Thank you. There's a lasting sprout. Spruals. All for sure. Thank you. Thank you for being here. And then also, along4360 with the mass political caucus, Executive Director, 5. Right? Thank you for continuing here.
SHAITIA SPRUELL - MCSW - SB 422 - HB 669 - Good morning. Thank you all for4377 sharing space with us today. My name is Shaitia Spruell, I'm the executive director of the Massachusetts Commission on the Status of Women and I'm also a mother myself. And a busy woman if you care to. On behalf of the Massachusetts Commission on the Status of Women, we want to convey our strong support for S 422, H 669, an act supporting parents running for office. This bill would, as you know, allow candidates seeking election to use campaigns for childcare. This bill has been a priority of ours for a long time and again, it is a priority4418 of ours this session. The mission of the commission is to4422 provide a permanent and effective voice for women in Massachusetts and advance women towards full equity in all areas of life. This bill helps us complete that mission.
This also would broaden the campaign finance laws to match up with the federal law that became up available in 2018. This would directly remove barriers for women and parents to run for office. We4453 hear often in our public hearings, more and more mothers that are active and passionate about their community but need support to do that. It makes sense to have people who know firsthand about the issue not only to run for office, but also represent the families of Massachusetts in all shapes and sizes in the commonwealth. As you all may know by now, the cost of child care services in Massachusetts is one of the highest in the nation, and it significantly impacts parents seeking election, and as we know, women are disproportionately impacted. For those with young children running a campaign, as you've heard from former Rep Belsito, it can be a challenge. In some cases, it's not feasible without that support.
Currently, the Massachusetts selection laws allows for or favors independent financial resources that allow them to privately incur the cost of childcare while campaigning. But those without those resources face an added hurdle. It's increasing demands on time of campaigning and making simultaneously, it makes simultaneously caring for a child very, very challenging. And oftentimes, we4530 hear about talented candidates from4532 running having to drop out and thus further entrench a lack of representation of indispensable voices in our state legislature that are truly for the people. Throughout the years, like I said earlier, almost every public hearing we hear about women's concerns about childcare, but also we hear about the thirst of wanting to participate locally in any way. I will wrap it up. But I was gonna go on to say, you know, currently, we have about 63 members of the Legislature that are women. And I just wanna remind folks, women represent over 50% of the Commonwealth. And if we really wanna see more women in elected offices, this bill would help us do that. So thank you so much, and please ask you all to report this bill favorably out of committee. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
SPEAKER1 - Thank you. Thank you.
KATHERINE CLARK - MWPC - HB 669 - SB 422 - My name is Kat. I'm the director of Massachusetts Women's Political Caucus. Thank you chairs for giving us this time to testify. I'm really fortunate to be here with a great fellow panelist and a legislator so I'll keep4601 it for you and avoid repeating ourselves. The Massachusetts Women's Political Caucus is a statewide organization that for 52 years has been working on getting more women into elected office and appointed public policy positions. I'm very thrilled that for the second session in a row our statewide membership voted to make this our top legislative. You've heard from the legislators and the other panelists about the important data that supports this bill and about the 2020 report. Making childcare an allowable campaign expense will make for a more diverse candidate pool in upcoming collections.
We work on recruiting and training women to run for office, and I wanted to share a little bit about how we hear about this issue day to day. We do get a lot of calls from folks who are interested in running for office. Maybe a seat on the school committee or on the city council, and they're not quite sure how to approach that. Or they're running in barriers for entry, and they wanna chat it through. This is one that comes up a lot. And every year, there are folks who decide to not run for office because they can't fit childcare into their family's budget. And we are missing engaged and talented folks who decide not to engage or not to run for office each year. So it just doesn't work for them. This is, I believe, the third session this has been filed, it's been 7 years. And over the course of those years, every not only every 2 years, when folks for state rep or folks not running every local election in between. The 2020 commission suggested a very plain solution the OCPF has said, implement it. I do hope that you will report this favorably out of committee and thank you so much SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
for your time.
SPEAKER1 - Great. Thank you. Any any questions?
No, please. Shenan, thank you. Have a great day. Appreciate it.4711
Next, is
Vincent Lawrence Dixon. He's Vincent Dixon here.
Point.
Good morning.
VINCENT DIXON - TOWN OF WINCHESTER - HB 675 - This is a, perhaps, a change of pace. This is dealing with election laws.4747 I strongly urge your support for H 675 as what is largely able to be described as good government metric. Political party officers appear on the public ballot at regular election intervals most often on the presidential preference ballot. Thus, a public will and choice are able to be exercised by a broad public electorate not just those elected to such political party offices, but those with opinions and or responses as to who may fill those particular positions. The Office of Campaign and Political Finance exists to help provide certain public transparency in political campaigns and the contributions that intersect with them. Over recent years, significant numbers of individuals running for and are being elected to political party offices have been public employees.
Other individuals have received significant amounts of contributions from various individuals and or interest groups. Just as surely as it is in the public interest to know of contributions to candidates and elected political party officials who do clearly influence and make decisions about government policies and legal inactions and public advocacy regarding these areas of public concern and interest. I believe that OCPF would not need to issue any substantial additional standards simply apply existing laws and regulations to all candidates for political party offices that are on the public ballot. And this would include, I think, the language word committees as well. There have been a significant evidence in recent years, various factions using monies in a cooperative way to take over ward committees, to take over state committees, or to influence them. And I think though they are nominally private organizations, they are public intersection. And being on the public ballot makes them an organization that should be basically complying with the general contribution laws. Thank you. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
SPEAKER1 - Thank you. Any questions?
SEN OLIVEIRA - Mr. Chairman, I do have one question. So thank you for testifying on this bill. I know that several of us in the Legislature have had not recalls but recounts where the recount account fund that is set up pretty much unlimited contributions to this. Would this apply to recount accounts as well?
DIXON - I appreciate the question. I don't think it would necessarily because we're talking about candidates on the public ballot. Recount is a separate operation, I know. I think Secretary Galvin certainly has great wisdom both before he was secretary and now on that. And the OCPF would deal with that, but I don't think it necessarily does. I will look at the language again and if there's a need to make a disclaimer to make out of that. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
SPEAKER14 - Great. Thank you very much. Thank you, mister chairman. Thank
SPEAKER9 - you. Thank you.
SPEAKER1 - So you have other questions. Thank you for your testimony. Thank you. Great day. Next is Nell Vogax and did I miss that name up as well?
SPEAKER26 - Thank you.
SPEAKER1 - I think I got all the difficult names.
I Mel, did I say that?
SPEAKER26 - Yes. Thank you. Thanks. Sorry.
SPEAKER1 - Thank you.
SPEAKER26 - Technical glitch. Thank you.
MEL FORGAS - LWVMA- HB 669 - SB 422 - HB 3579 - So good morning. Yes. Thank you so much. I'm Mel Forgas, legislative co specialist for elections and voting for League of Women Voters of Massachusetts. Thank you for hosting us virtually and for the opportunity to speak with you today. The League of Women Voters of Massachusetts strongly supports S 422 H 669, an act supporting parents running for public office. And H 357,9 an act empowering parental participation in elected office. Both of these are simple bills that would allow candidates as we've heard today for state and local office touse campaign funds to pay for childcare expenses. As all of you know very well, running for office requires a significant commitment. And for candidates who are parents or caregivers, as the sponsors of these bills have testified today, this commitment often involves the need for additional childcare or other dependent care expenses.
As noted during testimony today, currently federal candidates running for Congress in Massachusetts can use campaign funds to cover childcare expenses, but candidates running for state and local office cannot, and this includes candidates running for state Legislature. This5029 proposal would modernize the uses of campaign funds to include the many families with working parents and shared child rearing duties serving our commonwealth and its communities. The FEC clearly recognizes the value that working parents can provide to our society by participating in governments and we hope that Massachusetts will recognize this value as well. I wanna point out that in the 2020 federal election cycle, 14 dads used campaign funds to pay for the cost of childcare. The league also encourages the legislature further modernize campaign finance by amending these bills as previously suggested by the vice chair Representative Vitolo to expand the allowable uses of campaign funds to include dependent care services for aging parents, spouses, and adult children with disabilities, or any other person for whom5083 the candidate is a primary caregiver.
This would support candidates in the sandwich generation. Those who are caring for both their children and their parents, as well as those candidates whose spouses or adult children require exceptional care. No candidate should be prevented from participating in government and serving the commonwealth or their community because they cannot afford the dependent care services required to campaign. I wanna emphasize that passage of these bills will not involve any taxpayer money being used to pay for child care for the Massachusetts candidates. It simply makes childcare an allowable use of funds by their campaign. The league has been supporting this proposal since 2019, and it's time for Massachusetts to join the growing number of states that have modernized their uses of campaign funds for childcare and dependent care. I hope that the Massachusetts legislature will do the same for Massachusetts. The league which represents 44 local leagues from Cape Cod to the Berkshires believes that it depends on informed and active participation of citizens, and we urge you to amend this proposal to include dependent care and to report a version quickly and favorably out of committee. Thank you for your consideration and have a wonderful afternoon. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
SPEAKER1 - Thank you. Are there any questions?
KEENAN - I have a question, actually and I5170 appreciate the testimony. There's been so much that's been5172 brought to light. There's been a few times I mentioned and you mentioned it as well at a very interesting point that there's no taxpayer money involved in this. And I'm just literally thinking out loud here, so excuse me, if it doesn't come across as all that cogent. But if we believe in the value of encouraging people with children to run for office, and I think that's something that we should encourage and value and and support. And again, I support full of the idea of allowing childcare expenses during an active campaign period. But, beyond that, has there been any thought to the influence of campaign dollars as it stands now being broadened, if there's another allowable expense? And if that is a concern, might we be better off having some sort of taxpayer funded way to encourage people to run for office and to provide reimbursement for childcare expenses? If we value it as a society, might it be something that's less susceptible to influence if it's done through taxpayer dollars as opposed to campaign contributions that may come from lobbyists and PACs and a whole lot of other places?
FORGAS - I appreciate the question. I certainly think that the Legislature could explore the potential for that and look at potentially a bill. It's obviously outside the four corners of this particular bill, which the league does support. We really feel that although you could certainly modernize separately in the future. It's really important to implement this modernization now so that we do support all of those people who are wanting to run for office. And as we said, we really feel that dependent care funds should also be included in this bill so that as has been pointed out today, this incorporates a wide variety of candidates who are running for office who have different needs in their families. And I know we've heard from some representatives today who had exactly those sorts of expenses to take care of during their campaigns. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
SPEAKER1 - Thank you.
SPEAKER26 - Thank you.
SPEAKER1 - Any questions. Sorry about it.
SPEAKER25 - Mister Cameron,
OLIVEIRA - Just on this on this very issue, I just wanted to point out one small fact. There are five of us that joined the Massachusetts Senate this year as new members, over 12.5% of the Senate turned over, 5 new members, 0 children among us. It just shows how difficult it is to campaign when you have children. And it, you know, allowing this is, you know, to me something, you know, is very acceptable. But we were comparing stuff and we said, wow, it's unusual to have an entire class of new members without any children. So just to highlight some of the points maybe how difficult it is to run for public office with kids. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
SPEAKER1 - Thank you. Any other questions? Appreciate your testimony. Have a great5358 day. And next is Courtney HOSTetler?5362
She run virtually, I believe.5366 There you are. Good5368 morning.
COURTNEY HOSTETLER - FREE SPEECH FOR PEOPLE - HB 722 - SB 430 - Good morning. Good5370 morning Chairman and honorable members of the committee. Thank you very much for allowing me to testify virtually today. I am here as senior counsel at Free Speech For People, which is a national nonpartisan nonprofit organization that works to renew our democracy and limit the influence of money in politics. I'm here to testify in support of H 722 and S 430, an act to limit political spending by foreign influenced corporation. Earlier this month, similar legislation actually became law in Minnesota, as part of its Democracy for People Act. We very much hope that Massachusetts will become the next state to adopt this important legislation. Why do we need it? It really comes to the 2010 Citizens United decision, which brought a sea change to our elections. It allowed corporations to spend unlimited money on our elections and they have spent that. Representative Uyterhoeven and Mr. Foster both gave stark examples of this.
And these corporations serve the interests of their investors. Including foreign investors. And so that leaves us with a question of what it means for our elections. The United States has long prohibited any spending either directly or indirectly by foreign nationals, governments, and corporations in our elections. That law was actually upheld in a post Citizens United decision, Bluman versus Federal Election Commission because that law protects our process of democratic self government against foreign influence. But then Citizens United opened the floodgates to corporate5460 political spending creating a loophole in this long standing law, giving powerful foreign entities a foothold in our elections. These entities can't spend a single dollar on a Massachusetts election but they can invest in a US based corporation that can then spend unlimited money on the same election to benefit its influential foreign investors.
The proposed bill closes this loophole. It's constitutional under the same logic that applied in Bluman, which was affirmed by the Supreme Court, and it's narrowly written to address this pressing problem. It does not, for example, impose any new restrictions on immigrants or individuals who want to be involved in Massachusetts elections. It only discusses and limits corporate political spending by corporations with significant foreign investment. It does not preclude any of these companies or any investor or anyone, or5514 any5514 entity from speaking on issues or candidates by social media, giving interviews, op-eds,5520 or testifying before legislative bodies such as this. It does not put any significant burden on corporations or committees because the bill proposes a simple but effective self certification process.
What it does do is set a reasonable ownership threshold in its definition of foreign influence corporations. Experts widely agree that holding 1% of a publicly traded company is enough to influence that company's governance. In fact, the SAC recently lowered the ownership threshold for shareholder eligibility to bring shareholder proposals to a vote. And they lowered that to a5559 level below 1% in recognition of the fact that right now, shareholders can5565 hold significant influence with actually well below 1% equity. In other words, the thresholds ensure that this bill applies to those companies with significant levels of foreign ownership. I'm gonna stop here. I will also submit more detailed written testimony I urge you to support this bill, and I thank you for your time. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
SPEAKER1 - Great. Thank you. Are there any questions? Nunn, thank you for your testimony. Have a great day. Enjoy the weather. And the last person who's signed up, I believe, is Nancy Brumbach,
who joining us virtually. House 3579, senate 422.
Is Nancy Brown back?
There?
Don't see her unless she was the 13.
SPEAKER15 - Woman.
SPEAKER1 - Oh, there you are.
SPEAKER4 - Tested for the league instead of me.
SPEAKER1 - Okay. You're all set?
SPEAKER4 - Yes. Thank you.
SPEAKER1 - Great. Thank you very much. I believe that's it in terms of anybody who signed up prior or during the course hearing. So I want to thank everybody for offering their testimony and remind people again that if they want to submit written testimony, they can do it up until May nineteenth at 5PM and they can do that by submitting it to bridget dot main it at m a senate dot gov and colleen dot belotti at m a house dot gov being no further business before the committee and gaining a motion to adjourn. So who Motion made, second. All those in favor say aye opposed no. The ayes have it. We are adjourned. Thank you very much.
© InstaTrac 2025