Stop Chapter 135 (H.4885)
The Unconstitutional Massachusetts Gun Ban
Massachusetts Legislative Leadership Violates State Ethics Laws By Influencing Votes With Cash Rewards
According to a recent, August 4, 2024, Boston Globe news article, in the Massachusetts Legislature, nearly everyone is a leader, and 149 of them have the paycheck to prove it!
On Beacon Hill, legislators write their own pay into law, where every member of the Massachusetts Senate and the majority of the Massachusetts House [of Representatives] receive an additional stipend (additional money above salary) known as “leadership pay”. This practice both stretches the definition of “leadership” and puts the Massachusetts Legislature far out of step with its peers. From the powerful and influential Senate President to posts as modest as vice chair of little-known committees, in some cases, such stipends are generous enough to double lawmakers’ salaries.
According to the Globe, in 2013, 62 members of the 160 seat House of Representatives earned an extra “leadership stipend” for taking on such titles as committee chair or majority leader which has since nearly doubled to 109, or about two-thirds of the chamber in 2023.
Over the past two decades, with little transparence or public scrutiny, the legislature has dramatically increased both the number of paid leadership positions and the amount of the stipends for them. They range from $7,096 to $109,163, and come on top of the roughly $74,000 base pay that all lawmakers earned last year
The Chair of the House Ways and Means Committee earns an extra $88,468 while the ranking assistant minority member receives an extra $20,468, and the second and third assistant leaders in both parties got an extra $47,759 in 2023.
By inflating the ranks of leadership the House Speaker and Senate President have consolidated greater power by doling out lucrative leadership stipends to their Democrat underlings for which they expect loyalty in return…or else!
Last year, in the 200-seat legislature, 147, or roughly seventy-five (75%) percent of the lawmakers are stipend rewarded members of leadership, a far higher percentage than in the U.S. Congress or any other state legislatures.
On average, $1 in every $5 Massachusetts lawmakers earned in salary last year came from leadership pay. The Globe found that since 2023, the state has quadrupled the amount of taxpayer money spent on leadership pay, from $1.2 million to $4.9 million dollars.
Last year, in the overwhelmingly Democratic Massachusetts Legislature, House Speaker Ronald Mariano dolled out $2.3 million in extra pay among 134 Democrats, and Senate President Karen Spilka distributed $1.9 million among 37 Democrats.
Critics, including some who served in the Legislature, say the system forces lawmakers to choose between their own financial interests and what’s best for the people who elected them.
“If you have [a stipend], and you don’t respond properly to what leadership is expecting people to do, you risk losing it,” said Jonathan Hecht, a former Democratic state representative from Watertown. “This is literally about people’s livelihoods. The knowledge that your salary is going to depend on how you manage your relationship with the leadership is a very, very powerful influence on how people conduct themselves.”
Keeping your extra pay means “not questioning the decisions that leadership makes, not speaking out,” Hecht continued. “It means having to prioritize leadership’s decisions and the direction the leadership wants to take over what you know in your heart of hearts is best for your constituents.”
Spilka and Mariano each earned $203,142 last year, more than half from the $109,163 stipend that comes with each chamber’s top job.
The globe reported that while 12 committees - more that one in five - have not held [a single] hearing or considered a single bill in [this] session, some of those same committee members were still paid as much as $40,936 extra to head those panels.
State Senator William Brownsberger, a Democrat, one of the Legislature’s highest paid members, last year earned $182,674, including an extra $68,227 as Senate President Pro Tempore, and an extra $20,468 as Chair of the Senate Committee on the Census.
In 2017, after four years as Vice Chair of a legislative committee, Democrat state Representative Russell Holmes of Boston abruptly lost his leadership position. The Speaker at the time, Democrat Robert DeLeo, called it a routine shakeup. Holmes, who had recently made remarks seen as challenging House leadership, had another theory: retribution.
“It happened only because of my comments last week,” Holmes told the Globe at the time. “You really have to pledge your loyalty to leadership in order to be promoted.”
Current and former legislators were hesitant to speak on the record about stipends for fear of offending their collegues or angering leadership. In private, however, several criticized what they called a system of intense control by House and Senate leaders, under which one’s livelihood is directly tied to one’s loyalty to those in power.
One current Democratic lawmaker, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, likened the House’s leadership pay structure as an escalator: Climb on as a freshman legislator, and you can expect to ascend to committee vice chair and eventually a more lucrative chairmanship. But it’s easy to get knocked off the escalator, the lawmaker said, listing a few common missteps: Criticize the speaker. Force a vote on a divisive issue, or vote “off” the Democratic leadership on a major bill.
Leadership stipends are just part of the culture of “carrots and sticks” that “keep this system in place,” the lawmaker said, citing also leadership’s power over office assignments and staff allocations. “And I think this one is particularly egregious because it’s literally a transfer of cash.”
Michael Widmer, a longtime fiscal watchdog and former President of the Massachusetts taxpayer Foundation, a non-partisan public policy research organization, helped write a 2014, state-commissioned report on legislators’ pay. According to Widmer “Broad based stipends simply as a means of increasing pay for many more legislators and to help secure alliance to the leadership is in my mind not justified and certainly a perversion of anything we recommended.”
The foregoing is an abbreviated version of the following Boston Globe article entitled: In The Massachusetts Legislature, Nearly Everyone Is A Leader. Just Look At Their Paychecks: Lawmakers have expanded the ranks of leadership, while concentrating more power than ever before in the hands of the House speaker and Senate president. The Boston Globe, by Emma Platoff and Laura Crimaldi (August 5, 2024). To see that original article, [click here] (Or here for the PDF version).
The Recent, Controversial Massachusetts Gun Control Law
In the summer of 2024, the Democratic controlled Massachusetts legislature passed a wildly controversial bill which many legal scholars describe as the most comprehensive and openly unconstitutional gun control law in the nation’s history.
H.4885 (initially House Bill HD 4420) (Senate version S. 2572) House and Senate Joint Omnibus Gun Control (the so-called “Act Modernizing Firearms Laws”) Act, was signed into law as Chapter 135 of the Acts of 2024 by Democrat Governor Maura T. Healey on July 25, 2024.
This bill was given top priority for passage by House Speaker Ronald J. Mariano (D-Quincy) and Senate President Karen E. Spilka (D-Ashland); under the heavy-handed “guidance” of other, top legislative leaders, including, but not limited to: Senate Majority Leader Cynthia S. Creem (D-Newton); Senator Karen Spilka (D-Ashland); and Senate Ways and Means Chair Michael J. Rodriguez (D-Westport); Chair Joint Committee on the Judiciary, Representative Michael S. Day (D-Middlesex); and Representative Carlos Gonzalez (D-Springfield); among others.
The legislature’s first attempt to pass the then 125-page bill (initially H.4135), in October of 2023, was met with heavy opposition, with every Republican voting against it, joined by two Independents and two-dozen Democrats for a 120 to 38 vote. For months it seemed as though the bill would remain stalled in the legislature until leadership pulled it out of the closet again in the slow summer news cycle, and put it up for a vote again in the dead of night.
Though it was extremely unpopular with the general public, in July of 2024, legislative leaders pressured their underlings to support and vote favorably on it or risk losing their valuable leadership sinecures and the lucrative stipends that go with them. The House and Senate versions of the bills ultimately received sufficient votes for passage (in the Senate 35 to 5 and in the House 124 to 33), almost exclusively along partisan, party lines.
Almost every Democrat legislator receiving so-called “leadership pay” [stipends] voted in favor of the recent controversial and wildly unpopular gun ban legislation, a fact that can not be mere coincidence. Many Democrat legislators have since confided with their angry, gun owning constituents that they had been pressured to vote in favor of the bill by leadership who could make their positions in the legislature untenable if they did not vote to pass it.
Legislators must be free to do the bidding of their constituents, rather than be bribed or extorted to blindly follow the marching orders of their leaders. They were elected to follow the will or their voters, not the dictates of a few privileged career politicians who have long since learned to disdain the citizenry in favor of their own perceived superior decision making abilities.
In the present case, however, it appears abundantly clear that certain members of the Massachusetts legislative leadership has bestowed upon certain other members of the state legislature, leadership titles that include lucrative financial benefits with the intent to influence the votes of those members on certain pieces of controversial and unpopular legislation deemed important to the top leaders of the Democrat party.
Clear State Ethics Violations By Legislative Leadership
Because of growing public concern regarding mounting political, government and public corruption, in 1978 the Massachusetts legislature established the State Ethics Commission. Prior to that, the conflict of interest law was enforced as a criminal matter under the jurisdiction of the state Attorney General and the respective county District Attorneys offices.
The stated mission of the State Ethics Commission is to foster integrity in state, county and local (municipal) government, to promote the public’s trust and confidence it that service, and to prevent conflicts between private interests and public duties. Since 1968, the Massachusetts conflict of interest law, G.L. c. 268A, has regulated to conduct of public officials and employees. The conflict of interest law (among other things) govern what state, county and municipal employees may do on the job, and requires that public servants give undivided loyalty to the government they work for and act in the public interest rather than for public gain.
In the present case, the important sections of the Massachusetts Conflict of Interest law are set forth, inter alia (among other things), as follows:
M.G.L. Chapter 268A: The Conflict of Interest Law
Section 1: Definitions
- (a) “Compensation”, any money, thing of value, or economic benefit conferred on or received by any person in return for services rendered or to be rendered by himself or another.
- (h) “Official Act”, any decision or action in a particular matter or in the enactment of legislation.
- (q) “State Employee”, a person performing services or holding an office…by election…on a full, regular [or] part-time…basis, including members of the general court.
As a general rule, Section 2 of the state conflict of interest law (offers or promises to influence official acts) makes it unlawful for anyone to directly or indirectly, corruptly give, offer or promise, anything of value to any state (county or municipal) employee, with the intent to influence any official act of such employee, specifically enumerating “the enactment of legislation”.
Clearly, the enticement by bestowing a financially valuable leadership stipend upon select members of the state legislature with the intent to influence their strict voting compliance in lock-step with party leadership, falls within the definition of conflict of interest under Massachusetts statute.
Whether by enticement to vote favorably by bestowing those titles and correlating financial benefits, or by influencing by threat, either express or implied, through the removal of those titles and financial benefits for failure to vote favorably, either action is a violation of the state conflict of interest law, as what could also justifiably be called bribery or extortion.
In simple, laymen’s terms, what has gone on here is nothing more that bribery and extortion, terms not used by the State Ethics Commission, but describe conduct which is specifically forbidden under the state‘s conflict of interest law G.L. c. 268A.
A bribe is the giving of something of value (money) in order to influence the official action of a public official or employee. In this case, influencing or coercing a legislator in the enactment of legislation.
The definition of extortion is the practice of obtaining something of value (usually money but in this case a favorable vote on an important bill), through force, or in this case the threat of taking away of an official title and the increased financial compensation that goes with it.
The terms bribery and extortion are often used interchangeably as they involve similar elements including the coercion to influence the actions of a person in exchange for the offer of something of value or the removal and deprivation thereof.
In any case, what the Massachusetts legislative leadership has done here is nothing short of bribery and/or extortion of their underling legislators with valuable stipends, or the threat of the removal thereof, in order to influence them in their official duties in the enactment of legislation.
For legislative leadership to use taxpayer money to influence the votes of members of the state legislature is not only unethical, but are in clear violation of the state’s conflict of interest laws, is a blatant act of public corruption, and may also constitute criminal activity.
Federal Civil Class Action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983
The Democrat leadership in the Massachusetts legislature expressly acknowledged one of the reasons for promoting the recently enacted omnibus gun control law was in response to the U.S. Supreme Court decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022), in which the Court found virtually identical New York anti-gun laws were unconstitutional, in violation of the second amendment to the United States Constitution. In effect, by promulgating this bill, the Massachusetts legislative leadership were knowingly promoting unconstitutional firearms restrictions upon the citizens of the Commonwealth. Such conduct is not only unethical and corrupt, but is also in clear violation of federal law, in particular 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See U.S. Supreme Court decision of New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc., et al v. Kevin P. Bruen, Superintendent of the New York State Police, et al, 597 U.S. 1, 142 S. Ct. 2111 (2022), abbreviated: NYSRPA v. Bruen, (additional citations: 213 L. Ed. 2d 387; 2022 WL 2251305; 2011 U.S. LEXIS 3055).
Federal Code: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 creates a federal, civil cause of action against government officials or employees whose actions (or failure thereof), under the color of their office, title and legal authority, deprive any citizen of their constitutional and/or civil rights.
Any parties within the Commonwealth of Massachusetts who are aggrieved by the passage of this clearly unconstitutional anti-gun legislation, including gun shops, manufacturers; dealers distributors, gun and sportsman’s clubs and private citizens, have federal civil causes of action that can and should be pursued against the individual members of the Massachusetts legislative leadership pursuant to 42 U.S.C § 1983, as well as against any of the members of the legislature who voted in favor of that egregious, unconstitutional legislation.
In the best scenario, one or more, large scale class actions should be pursued against the leaders of both chambers, as well the individual members of the Massachusetts legislature who drafted, promulgated, lobbied for, and voted in favor of this legislation.
The legislator defendants should receive no sovereign immunity protection for their intentional violation of the citizen plaintiff’s constitutional rights under the United States Code, and ex-parte real estate and other attachments should be sought to satisfy future judgments and to prevent the defendants from transferring their ownership rights in attempts to circumvent justice and restitution of damages to the plaintiff class.
A few experienced constitutional and tort Attorneys could make their names, and a lot of money for themselves, by taking on the task or putting together a major, class-action lawsuit in Federal District Court challenging the constitutionality of this gun control legislation, and by sewing the legislators individually for violating the constitutional and civil rights of the many gun owners in Massachusetts. With more than six hundred thousand (600,000+) licensed gun owners within the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, there would be no problem in identifying an aggrieved class of citizens who would actively support such litigation, including with their wallets. By charging even a nominal fee of a hundred dollars per-person to become a Plaintiff in such an action, the cost of litigation would pay for itself overnight and a few fortunate lawyers could become very wealthy men and women, in the process.
Anticipated Retaliation to Dissuade State Ethics Investigation
Because the state legislature also controls the budget of the Massachusetts State Ethics Commission, they will likely attempt to quash any legitimate investigation into violations of the state ethics laws by members of it’s leadership. The press, the Attorney General’s Office and the Office of the United States Attorney must be vigilant in monitoring any attempt by the legislature, particularly by the leadership, to interfere with a thorough investigation by the Ethics Commission into any allegations of corruption and malfeasance.
Any aggrieved legislators who wishes to cooperate with a State Ethics Commission investigation can, and should request anonymity and other whistleblower protections against retaliation by leadership, and would virtually guarantee themselves against being stripped of their stipends. Likewise, former legislators who wish to cooperate with such an investigation regarding past coercive misconduct by present members of the legislative leadership would be greeted as heroes by the public, for helping to put an end to this egregious, undemocratic and unethical political corruption, once and for all.
State Auditor Diana DiZoglio’s
Ballot Question # 1 to Audit the State Legislature
Massachusetts State Auditor Diana DiZoglio, a Democrat and a disenchanted former state legislator (House-14th Essex & Senate-1st Essex), campaigned for Auditor with the promise to investigate the state legislature. She started her probe in March of 2023, but the leadership to both the state House and Senate refused to cooperate with her investigation, as did the state Attorney General, Andrea Campbell.
In 2004, DiZoglio started a signature campaign to institute Ballot Question # 1 which would change the law, to enable the Office of the State Auditor to audit the accounts, programs, activities, and functions of all departments, offices, commissions and institutions, and the activities of the state legislature and any authorities and districts created by the state legislature.
In August of 2024 a Referendum Petition was initiated by aggrieved gun rights advocates seeking to establish a ballot question for the voters to have their voices heard about the legislature having passed this clearly unconstitutional gun control legislation, and whether it should be repealed, or not. If enough certified signatures are submitted to the Secretary of State’s Elections Division by October 23, 2024, the repeal question could be on the statewide 2026 ballot.
The patriotic, gun owning citizens of Massachusetts, and those who appreciate our second Amendment to the United States Constitution, would like to thank the Republicans, all of whom, in the House of Representatives, (and most in the senate with the exception of Bruce Tarr of Gloucester) voted against this unconstitutional gun ban legislation. We would also like to thank those few (7), brave Democrats who defied their party leadership and voted the will of their constituents, as well as the one Independent Representative, as follows: Representative, Colleen Garry (D-Dracut); Representative, Patricia Haddad (D-Somerset); Representative, Kathy LeNatra (D-Kingston); Representative, David Robertson (D-Tewksbury); Representative, Alan Silvia (D-Fall River); Representative, Jeff Turco (D-Winthrop); Representative, Jonathan Zlotnik (D-Gardner); Representative, Susannah Whipps (I-Athol).
Researched & Prepared by: P. Notwal
© September 2024
Sponsored by Outback Arms, LLC
for Gun Owners’ Action League (GOAL)
