Massachusetts Has More Lifetime Politicians than Any Other

Massachusetts has more "politicians for life" than any other state and more closely resembles an oligarchy than a democracy, according to a panel of politicians and policy experts at Suffolk University Law School April 3.

In the 2002 election, over two-thirds of incumbents in the Massachusetts House of Representatives ran unopposed, and 72% of Massachusetts senators ran uncontested.

"What is at stake?" asked Pam Wilmot, a self-described "campaign finance policy wonk" from Common Cause, in a Suffolk-sponsored forum called "No Contest: The Decline of Competition of Massachusetts State Legislative Elections.

"At the risk of sounding trite, our democracy is at stake," said Wilmot. "We have an oligarchy. The Soviet Union had an oligarchy, and while our situation is not exactly the same, it's still an oligarchy!"

Massachusetts is a case of single party control, according to Wilmot. While the state legislature of Rhode Island is even more heavily Democratic than that of Massachusetts, and Idaho is solidly Republican, both of those states consistently find enough members of the opposition parties to run contested elections and give voters a choice.

Massachusetts ranks 49 in states that are lacking in competitive elections, followed only by South Carolina. Massachusetts tops all 50 states in incumbent re-election rates.

"Massachusetts voters have a higher opinion of the United States Congress than of their own lawmaking body," Wilmot said, attempting to explain why, once elected, many politicians have a very long-term job. "Voters tell me, 'They're all corrupt! At least this incumbent fights for me and my interests.' In Massachusetts, people will wait for incumbents to retire. Rhode Island and Idaho don't show that kind of deference.

"As costs of successful campaigns increase, competition decreases. Incumbents draw the lion's share of money and campaign contributions. No senate incumbent has lost an election in the last 8 years."

"I got my start with the Knights of Columbus in Dorchester," said Lawrence DiCara, long-time Democratic Party activist and former president of the Boston City Council. "In those days [the late 1950s and early '60s], politicians met people in Kiwanis and Rotary clubs. Churches were full. If I went to the Knights of Columbus in Dorchester today, they would have a hard time getting 10 people there. People identified with institutions. Those institutions now own a lot of real estate, but they hardly have enough people to hold a meeting."

This concern was echoed by Louis DiNatale, pollster and director for the Center for State and Local Policy of the McCormack Institute of Public Affairs at UMass-Boston.
"Working-class politics is dead. As you raise money, you disqualify yourself," DiNatale said, referring to restrictions on campaign contributions. "You need to have somebody like Romney who is willing to put up his own money. The media should give us back the airwaves and stop making us pay for it!

"Television drives the debate today. It's going to be a smaller and smaller group of people involved, because people have to pay for airtime.

"In the old days, if you were willing to walk the district three times, meet all the voters in the district three times, you were likely to get elected. It was all name recognition. All you needed was a small group of volunteers."

State Senator Bruce Tarr (R- First Essex and Middlesex District), the only Republican on the panel identified as such, offered his own explanation.

"If you're an incumbent, you're going to meet more people exponentially. . Give them a chunk of cheese and a cup of kool-aid and they're yours."

DiNatale, who has managed several campaigns at the state and local level, agreed with Tarr. "In a local election, visibility is more important than issues," he said.

Suffolk Law School Professor David Yamada, who moderated the panel, asked Senator Tarr what role the Republican Party is likely to play in Massachusetts politics in the near future.

"We offer a different perspective," said Tarr. "Why get involved when it's all monolithic?"

Tarr said that while the Republican Party may remain a minority party in Massachusetts, "Now you have factions developing within the Democratic Party that reflect different segments of our society."

Tarr said that it is vital for voters to believe that they actually have alternatives. "If people don't think they can make a difference, not only do they not run, they don't vote and they don't care," he said.

"You have to come up with some candidates," he said. "There were a number of districts in the last election where Democrats ran unopposed, and where Romney took over 50% of the vote. Those people can vote for Republicans. It's not a religious thing for them the way it is for some us," he said. "We can't do it."