In defense of politics in the Massachusetts General Court
Push for greater transparency could backfire on advocates
THERE HAS BEEN a push by reformers at Act on Mass and the Mass Fiscal Alliance to make the Massachusetts General Court – our state Legislature – more transparent. At the top of their list is a reform to make votes in committees publicly available. This sounds good on its face. Transparency is essential for democracy and some see it as American as apple pie. But for the health of democracy, I urge the Legislature to pause.
While it is not popular to say, unbridled transparency can damage our most representative institutions. Don’t just take it from me. There is a long record of concern, including by Ben Franklin and James Madison, backed up by abundant research to demonstrate the pitfalls of “sunshine” in the legislative branch.
Paradoxically, an overemphasis on transparency may have the opposite effect of what reformers intend. It is likely to hurt genuine deliberation, strengthen interest groups that reformers decry, and may even give leadership more power to shape decisions.
First, deeper transparency tends to give power to interest groups – lobbyists — to press their demands. Lobbyists benefit from rules that enable them to monitor discussions and decision–making of elected officials in committees. With the slightest whiff that a member might not agree with them, they can mobilize their contacts to help stop potentially good legislation in its tracks. Ordinary citizens are no match for this. They can’t spend time on Beacon Hill — and often lack context to make sense of online information — to evaluate votes and organize with friends and neighbors. In short, sunshine reforms tracking the detailed internal affairs of the Legislature are typically more useful to insiders representing narrow interests than the broader citizenry.
Congress is an obvious example of where “messaging” has become more important to many than legislating. Using Twitter, members can score political points against opponents, shame colleagues, and try to torpedo discussions on policy. Calling out colleagues on committee votes or internal deliberations is especially valuable to extremists who value purity. The model here is the Freedom Caucus, whose members call other Republicans “RINOs” (Republicans in name only) and threaten to enlist primary opponents against them. This kind of behavior erodes goodwill and the ability to forge the kind of compromises that make democracy possible.
Finally, greater internal transparency has the potential to consolidate power in the leadership even more than it is today. For rank-and-file members to have power they minimally need private space to confer with colleagues in their assigned committees. Here, they can express views frankly, exchange creative ideas and consider those of people they may disagree with. This dynamic generates trust and the seeds of diverse coalitions created by the rank and file.
Today, much – though not all — of that negotiation is managed by central leadership. Paradoxically, additional transparency in committees may only increase the likelihood of relying on “backroom deals” in the offices of the leadership, since these spaces will remain one of the few private zones in the Legislature essential for building policy coalitions.
Reformers at Act on Mass say a lack of transparency is the reason the Legislature does not pass bold, progressive legislation. They claim that important bills discussed in committees get “sent for study.” This legislative norm, however, is a polite way of saying the bill is not ready for prime time. In other words, do some “politics” – a pejorative term to some reformers, but the essence of a functioning democracy.
It means putting together a majority coalition that wants the bill. Instead, advocates for more transparency believe the unwillingness to move forward with their favored policies is an act of corruption. This political messaging undermines trust in the institution when used indiscriminately.
To be sure, we want accountability. The public should know what the Legislature is deliberating, including information about the pros and cons of different pathways. Legislators and staff should also have time to consider perspectives of their constituents and review bills on the floor. At the end of the day, however, we hold the Legislature and our members accountable for the policies they make.
The Massachusetts General Court, dating from 1713, is the second oldest democratic legislature in the world (the British Parliament came first). We cannot take for granted that the deliberative norms developed over centuries will continue if we impose standards that sound good but function poorly. On balance, the General Court seems to be doing a reasonable job at addressing challenging issues related to criminal justice, climate, and health care. And they are doing it in creative and bipartisan ways that Congress and other state legislatures have not been able to accomplish. It must be one reason that the General Court has the highest public approval rating of legislatures in the nation.
Raymond La Raja is a professor of political science at the University of Massachusetts Amherst and a member of the Scholars Strategy Network.