foggy window

Earlier this week, I officially launched the Beacon Hill Compliance Tracker to the public, with the help of local grassroots leaders.

A big question on my mind lately has been what constitutes ethical use of the tracker. Democrats have a supermajority on Beacon Hill, and it seems like people looking for a narrative to spin against them have a great new tool at their disposal. However, transparency reform has also been a rallying cry from the left in Massachusetts, making the issue more bipartisan than it might seem at first. As such, it seems important to look at the political landscape and develop a mature perspective as it pertains to responsible use.

Where does the right stand?

Massachusetts Republicans do have a track record of calling for transparency, broadly, especially on certain subjects:

MassGOP has called out issues that I have as well, so, it’s not unquestionable that they might see this tool as an opportunity to highlight Democratic opacity on Beacon Hill. However, these examples show the GOP invoking transparency most strongly in oversight or accountability contexts, rather than in internal legislative processes.

Where does the left stand?

Act On Mass, a major driver of transparency reform from a more progressive perspective, claims that the GOP has a vested interest in hammering transparency issues for partisan (not institutional) reasons:

Republicans in MA almost always support transparency measures because they are the minority party. The minority party, whether it’s the GOP here in MA or the Dems in Texas, generally favor increasing transparency and accountability measures because they are not the ones in power. The Majority party is usually less inclined to open themselves up to increased scrutiny. This doesn’t mean that these basic good governance measures are particularly Republican-leaning or partisan in nature.

I think that’s a bold claim worthy of scrutiny and evidence, but it’s also probably not in the scope of an FAQ to spoon-feed a full thesis on partisan transparency efforts on a statewide and national scale. As I’ve noted, neither party boasts opacity as a foundational party principle; it’s an emergent property of the offices they hold.

Republicans have historically opposed pro-transparency acts such as the DISCLOSE Act and supported anti-transparency acts such as the Don’t Weaponize the IRS Act.. History shows neither party harbors the sole champions transparency once in power.

Where do I stand?

If I rallied around this tool and flipped every seat in the Massachusetts Legislature today to the opposite party, the same power dynamics, rules, enforcement mechanisms, and outcomes would not change. The issues this tool shines a spotlight on are properties of the government seats themselves, not just the colors of the ties of the people occupying them.

Wherever you stand on the spectrum, your interests are best served when you can participate in the civic process. If Democrats are holding the seats, hold the democrats accountable. Appeal to those in power today for the change we want to see, and if those seats change hands (or need to change hands), then push for that.

In the end, we should be properly informed enough to cast votes for the people who will best represent us, and in turn, the people who represent us should relay enough information to make that decision possible. When we know how what our leaders are doing, we all win, and when they obscure or obfuscate their actions, it harms us all. We ought to advocate for solutions to the problem, not weaponizations of the problem for ephemeral partisan benefit.