Pols & Politics: The money behind the effort to crack open Beacon Hill’s books

A ballot question that would grant the state auditor the power to crack open the books of the Legislature drew financial backing from across the political spectrum this year, including a $50,000 donation tied to a local billionaire, according to records filed this month.

The money behind Auditor Diana DiZoglio’s attempt to hand her office the authority to probe state lawmakers’ work and decisions ranges from dollars contributed by small-time business owners to a local conservative group that has consistently criticized top Democrats on Beacon Hill.

The ballot question committee spearheaded by DiZoglio, a first-term Democrat and former state lawmaker, raised more than $87,700 and spent nearly $123,000 since January, according to state campaign finance filings updated earlier this month.

The majority of funding came from a single $50,000 donation made in March by the EAB Business Trust, an organization that has the same address as Subaru of New England, the automobile dealership run by politically active billionaire Ernie Boch Jr.

A spokesperson for Boch did not provide a comment in response to a Herald inquiry.

DiZoglio said she was “very grateful” to supporters with varying political beliefs.

“We have support from folks across the board here in Massachusetts, and we’re grateful to folks like Ernie Boch Jr., who have made significant and sizable contributions to this effort to assist in signature gathering and getting the word out to the residents of Massachusetts,” she said in an interview with the Herald.

Other top donations to the legislative audit ballot question this year included $5,000 from Sandra Urie of Winchester, $5,000 from TidePool Press Partner Frank Herron, $3,000 from BrandGuard CEO Robert May, and $2,500 from Home Market Foods CEO Douglas Atamian, records show.

Those dollars have helped DiZoglio push to change a single paragraph in state law to give the auditor’s office the express authority to probe the “accounts, programs, activities, and functions” of the Legislature.

The attempt has been met with skepticism from many corners on Beacon Hill.

One study of the ballot question from the Tufts University Center for State Policy Analysis found that some legislative activities like votes, debates, or committee assignments will be “off-limits to executive interference, including from the auditor.”

“Even if (the question) passes, legislators will have a lot of leverage to resist investigations. They might drag their feet, refuse to comply, or use their budgetary power to handcuff or even defund the auditor’s office. If that happens, the fight may shift to the courts, where the outcome is hard to predict,” the report said.

DiZolgio’s campaign has generated a fierce battle with House Speaker Ron Mariano and Senate President Karen Spilka, both of whom stonewalled earlier requests to willingly participate in an investigation into the practices of the two branches.

Mariano and Spilka have argued that the activities and books of both the House and Senate are already regularly scrubbed and handing the auditor the power to look through internal files violates the state constitution.

Attorney General Andrea Campbell’s office has also floated a potential need “to consider whether, and the extent to which, constitutional limitations affect how the law would apply” if the ballot question were successful.

But even with the ardent opposition from legislative leaders and constitutional questions, no official committee has been filed to oppose DiZoglio’s ballot question.

Advisors to Spilka and Mariano said neither plans to mount a formal opposition effort, which was first reported last month by CommonWealth Beacon.

At the same time, Republicans and Democrats have struck an unusual partnership to advance the ballot question.

The Massachusetts Fiscal Alliance, a conservative watchdog organization, has so far spent over $10,600 this year for “signature mailing,” according to state data. The group also paid for more than $11,000 in services last year, records show.

Paul Craney, a spokesman for the group, said describing the partnership between DiZoglio and the organization as unlikely is an “understatement.” On a personal level, Craney donated to DiZoglio’s opponent in 2014 when she was running for the Massachusetts House.

But Craney said DiZoglio is one of the few politicians who has followed through on her campaign promises. Legislative transparency is also a top issue for the Massachusetts Fiscal Alliance, which has a long history of working with ballot question committees.

“People can put politics aside and agree on the issues, and that’s exactly what I’ve done personally. But as an organization, MassFiscal, we have always stood in support of some of these issues. It doesn’t matter who is saying it. We call a spade a spade,” he said.

DiZoglio also acknowledged that the group had previously opposed her candidacy for elected office.

“While I am a very proud Democrat, this is a non-partisan issue, and it’s going to take all of us putting our political differences aside in order to take on the power structure on Beacon Hill and make a difference regarding that accountability that’s needed,” she said.

The ballot question committee largely spent its money this year on signature gathering, shuttling $100,000 to Signature Drive, one of the top petition drive firms in the country led by Harold Hubschman.

Hubschman declined to comment on his work for the ballot question when reached by phone this past week, citing contractual obligations that prevented him from discussing the matter.

The ballot question also racked up more than $14,000 in charges with Verrill Law, a firm with offices in Boston that has a government and public relations branch, campaign finance filings show.

She said she plans to use the roughly two months before the November general election to “ensure that folks are aware that we have a unique opportunity to promote transparency and accountability in one of the most secretive Legislatures in the entire nation.”

“Here in the state of Massachusetts, we have a Legislature who is not subject to the public records law, not subject to open meeting laws, and has been balking at the idea of a routine audit that every other state entity complies with,” she said. “It is incredibly disappointing that a few people in positions of power are pushing back so forcefully.”

Read original article here