In Mass., lobbyists, special interests get around campaign finance laws by donating to nonprofits
lobbyists and business interests have a third, more secretive way. Donations to nonprofits don't require disclosure and are, therefore, essentially impossible to track.
The revelation spotlights a loophole in the state's 30-year-old
a lawmaker soliciting donations to their nonprofits — a practice that is prohibited
at the federal level and raises questions by experts about what should be disclosed.
It's a well-used path. As hard as such giving can be to pin down, a Boston Globe review found that some of the state's most influential lobbying firms and businesses with interests before the Legislature, are contributing thousands to some of the state's most powerful players on Beacon Hill.
Advertisement
A Globe review of IRS 990 forms found that a handful of state lawmakers actively run their own nonprofits, which hold fund-raisers
and events that solicit donations.
A developer building a massive housing project in East Boston, for example, donated to a nonprofit run by a state representative whose district encompasses the construction site.
Advertisement
'A donation like this is like a gift to the official and therefore should be disclosed,' said legal scholar Richard Briffault, a professor of legislation at Columbia Law School in New York City.
'The focus should be on things that are likely to lead to reciprocity and gratitude. If someone does something nice for you, there is a natural inclination to give it back,' said Briffault, who also served as chairman of the New York City Conflicts of Interest Board. 'Unless there is a specific rule on this, it's likely to slip through cracks.'
Because nonprofits are not required to disclose their donors, it's also nearly impossible to know who is donating and how much. However, a review of websites and social media accounts for nonprofits run by state lawmakers provides a glimpse into the practice.
Take for instance, Representative Adrian Madaro's 'Madaro Family Community Fund,' which
brought in $112,000 for its 2023 'Eastie's Elves' holiday fund-raiser, a community toy drive backed by
East Boston Neighborhood Health Center sponsored the fund-raiser with a $10,000 donation.
A dozen lobbyists from three different firms
donated to the fund-raiser and
also chipped in maximum $200 donations to his political campaign.
Other $10,000 checks came from Amazon and HYM Investment Group, a real estate company that is building
Others on the donor list included some of Boston's top lobbying shops: Commonwealth Counsel; Serlin Haley; Smith, Costello, and Crawford; Travaglini, Scorzoni, & Kiley; and Rasky Partners. None responded to a request for comment.
Advertisement
One week after the Globe inquired about the nonprofit's donors, Madaro filed an ethics disclosure with the House clerk to provide a list of donors and to 'dispel the appearance of a conflict of interest.'
'A reasonable person could conclude that a person or organization could unduly enjoy my favor or improperly influence me when I perform my official duties, or that I am likely to act or fail to act as a result of kinship, rank, position or undue influence of a party or person,' he wrote in the disclosure.
Madaro, cochair of the Legislature's revenue committee, continued: 'I do not make decisions about potential legislation, my involvement in community matters or the provision of constituent services based on whether particular individuals or entities have, or have not, contributed to the Fund.'
In the disclosure, Madaro didn't indicate taking any further action, and told the Globe 'donations to our nonprofit have no bearing on policy decisions at the State House.'
This sort of giving is not allowed elsewhere.
At the federal level, members of Congress who maintain or control a nonprofit can't solicit or accept monetary or in-kind contributions from lobbyists or foreign agents.
Under
While those laws don't exist at the state level in Massachusetts, the laws governing what candidates can accept and what they must disclose exist for a reason, said Delaney Marsco, director of ethics at the Campaign Legal Center, a Washington, D.C.-based watchdog.
Advertisement
'It's an area that is ripe for corruption,' Marsco said. 'By allowing a lobbyist or a contractor or an interested party to circumvent these approved channels and instead donate to nonprofits who do not have to disclose their donors . . . it takes away that transparency element and it allows lobbyists to do so in secret. That is very bad and a detriment to the public's trust.'
It's not just Madaro's events that solicit such high-profile donors. State Senator Sal DiDomenico, the chamber's assistant majority leader, hosts an
Sponsors of the Everett Democrat's 2024
event included pharmaceutical companies, real estate developers, and
casinos with a presence in the state. The list also included a number of high-powered lobbying firms such as Dempsey Associates and Serlin Haley, whose lobbyists are bound by the state's strict campaign finance law.
These firms did not respond to a request for comment.
To be sure, there are altruistic reasons to give to nonprofits.
DiDomenico said his family has been part of the Italian festival for more than 70 years, 'long before I was ever thinking about elected office.'
'There is absolutely no connection or influence by anyone associated with this community event on my work in the Legislature,' he told the Globe in a statement. 'This includes vendors, sponsors, attendees and society members.'
Senator Barry Finegold's annual benefit concert for Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, a 5,000-seat fête held at MGM Music Hall in Boston's Fenway neighborhood, had a similarly noteworthy list of sponsors.
Finegold, who chairs the Legislature's economic development committee, has
Advertisement
None responded to a request for comment.
In a statement, Finegold said his family has been hit hard by cancer, and that raising money for hospitals such as Dana-Farber 'is especially critical this year with potential federal cuts.'
'We are committed more than ever to do everything we can to beat cancer,' he said.
Republican state Representative Hannah Kane's nonprofit, '
Various banks, construction firms, and waste management companies sponsor the carts, caddies, birdies, and the barbeque lunch that follows.
The fund-raiser, which was started by former lieutenant governor Karyn Polito, sent $60,000 to three nonprofits in Shrewsbury and Westborough last year —Shrewsbury Youth and Family Services, St. Anne's Human Services, and the Westborough Food Pantry.
'The impact of the generous tournament donors is on the three nonprofit human service organizations who serve hundreds of residents in Shrewsbury and Westborough,' Kane told the Globe. 'The donors do not impact my legislative work.'
Matt Stout and Anjali Huynh of the Globe staff contributed to this report.
Samantha J. Gross can be reached at
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
7 hours ago
- Yahoo
Harrison: As Texas and California talk redistricting, there's no fight in Mississippi
Don't look for Mississippi to get involved in what appears to be an escalating redistricting war where states redraw their U.S. House districts to aid Republicans or Democrats ahead of a hotly contested 2026 national election. Mississippi most likely will not engage in the redistricting battle because Republicans already have been helped about as much as possible in the Magnolia State. Here, there are three safe Republican U.S. House districts and one safe Democratic district. In theory, the Mississippi Legislature could draw the congressional districts in such a manner as to make all four districts favor Republicans. But to do so, Black voters, who generally are more prone to vote Democratic, would have to be diluted to such an extent that the redraw would conflict with long-held federal court rulings. From a legal standpoint and even from an ethical and moral standpoint, it would be difficult to justify no Black-majority districts in Mississippi, where the non-white population is nearing 40%. Unsurprisingly, Texas fired the first shot in what is shaping up as a nationwide redistricting battle. The Texas Legislature, at the behest of President Donald Trump, who fears his Republican Party will lose the U.S. House in the 2026 midterm election, is trying to redraw the Longhorn State's 38 congressional districts to give the Republicans five more seats. They currently have 25. In California, Gov. Gavin Newsom is threatening to retaliate by creating more Democratic districts. California currently has 43 Democratic districts and nine Republican districts. There have been rumblings of blue New York and red Florida also going back to the redistricting drawing board to create more seats to help their respective party. Normally, redistricting is conducted every 10 years after the release of the U.S. Census. The last redistricting occurred after the 2020 U.S. Census. But it should be no surprise that Trump, fearing that Republicans will lose the House in 2026, asked Texas to eschew the norms and conduct a mid-decade redistricting. Both Democrats and Republicans are guilty of gerrymandering or of drawing districts to benefit their political party. The courts, generally, have said that is OK. But the courts — at least in the past — have also said their minority populations must be given opportunities to elect candidates of their choice. While the courts have said gerrymandering is allowed, a recent Economist/YouGov poll found an overwhelming 69% oppose the partisan drawing of districts, compared to only 9% who support it and 22% of respondents who are unsure. A plurality of 35% support states retaliating if another state draws districts to support one particular party. The retaliation is opposed by 30%, while 36% of respondents are unsure. A plurality also opposes Trump's call for the FBI to hunt down Texas Democratic lawmakers who have fled the state to prevent the Legislature from having the quorum needed to draw new congressional districts. For what it's worth, a study by the Princeton Gerrymandering Project found 15 states with failing grades in terms of non-partisan redistricting. Nine of those states failed because of their strong Republican tilt, while five failed because of strong Democratic leanings. Two — Tennessee and Louisiana — failed because of racial unfairness. Through court rulings, a new Black-majority district has been created in Louisiana since the Princeton study was conducted. Texas and Florida were among the states receiving failing grades. New York and California were not. Another large Democratic stronghold, Illinois, did get a failing grade. Mississippi is unique because of its racial makeup and voting patterns. Most white Mississippians vote Republican, but the large Black minority — the largest percentage of Black voters in the nation — tends to vote Democratic. While Republicans have won all statewide elections since 2016, the elections often are relatively close. In the latest redistricting, Democrats argued that because of the strong pro-Democratic minority population, one of the three heavily Republican congressional districts should be drawn in a manner to make it more competitive. But the majority-Republican Legislature rejected that argument. Hence, there is no need for the Republicans in the Mississippi Legislature to undertake redistricting now. This column was produced by Mississippi Today, a nonprofit news organization that covers state government, public policy, politics and culture. Bobby Harrison is the editor of Mississippi Today Ideas.
New York Post
7 hours ago
- New York Post
NY Dems aim to de-mask ICE agents to scare them off their raids — NOT to protect the public
Supporters claim a bill introduced by Democratic state lawmakers last month banning ICE agents and police from wearing masks during raids will ensure safety and prevent authoritarianism. One backer, Sen. Patricia Fahy, fumes that ICE is 'operating like masked militias' and 'paramilitary secret police' and so must be reined in. Nonsense: The awkwardly and misleadingly named Mandating End to Lawless Tactics Act is actually little more than an attempt to thwart immigration enforcement by making ICE agents fear for their personal safety. It joins similar efforts in other states and in Congress to 'unmask ICE.' In the words of GOP Sen. George Borrello, 'This bill is driven by ideology, not a genuine concern for public safety.' The Left's hypocrisy on this issue is staggering. Progressives — including many of the MELT Act's supporters in the Legislature — have opposed mask bans for criminal suspects and rioters, such as Nassau County's common-sense ban, which has exceptions for law enforcement. Yet for all their sympathy for those involved with the criminal-justice system, they have no qualms about painting cops as criminals and subjecting them to mask bans. If these lawmakers truly cared about public safety, they'd go after the rioters and real criminals who've routinely hidden their identities to evade accountability following the 2020 George Floyd unrest and Oct. 7 demonstrations. ICE and other law enforcement don't mask up because they have machinations of becoming a 'paramilitary secret police.' They do so to keep themselves and their families safe from multinational gangs such as Tren de Aragua. Facial-recognition technology, now rapidly improving due to AI, gives anyone — including nefarious actors like Antifa or cartel members — the ability to reverse image search the unmasked face of an ICE agent. They can then obtain and post their names, addresses and information about their relatives to social media. While the Justice Department can prosecute those responsible for such doxxing, it is nonetheless a frequent threat to agents and loved ones. Addresses of hotels where agents stay during operations are routinely spread on social media so that protesters can harass them. Agitators are so well-organized that an app was created to report and rush to ICE raid locations, as seen in Los Angeles riots this year. The Department of Homeland Security has reported an 830% increase in assaults on ICE personnel this year, attributed to an increase in doxxing and rhetoric against agents. Worse still, even if the MELT Act passes, its effects would be largely symbolic. Lawmakers like Fahy clearly don't understand federalism. Because the Constitution gives federal law precedence, any federal regulation would immediately supersede the MELT Act if passed, rendering it largely symbolic. Additionally, federal agents are immune from state criminal prosecution when acting within the scope of their authority. The MELT Act would also require that all law enforcement agents display their names or badge numbers on their uniforms, hamstringing the plainclothes units of local New York police departments, which now must only provide this information verbally. Some of the bill's supporters mention a more realistic point that masking without wearing identification might allow for easier impersonation of ICE officers. They might also argue that a lack of masking deters possible police misconduct, despite the widespread use of body cameras. Those are valid concerns. But there are ways to protect the public even with masked law enforcement. Public-education campaigns should remind residents that ICE agents and other law enforcement are legally required to identify themselves as police as soon as it is practicable and safe to do so. New Yorkers under arrest should keep in mind their constitutional protections, such as the right to remain silent and the right to an attorney. Masked or not, imposters can still pose as ICE or any other law-enforcement officers. Requiring names or badge numbers does nothing if there's no reliable way to immediately verify the person's legitimacy. The answer isn't a largely symbolic law to neuter real agents; it's to strengthen identification through local cooperation. The only way to fully reassure New Yorkers is cooperation between local police and ICE, whether via collaborative task forces, such as through the federal 287(g) program already adopted by several counties, or by having nearby officers accompany raids to keep public order, which would help quickly debunk any imposters. This type of public partnership would not be a political statement about immigration, rather a commonsense way to put the public at ease and ensure all involved in raids are safe. The MELT Act is symbolic theater that punishes law enforcement while doing nothing to realistically stop imposters. New Yorkers would be safer if lawmakers scrapped this bill and instead fostered real cooperation between local police and ICE to deter fraud and protect both the public and the agents doing dangerous work. Paul Dreyer is a cities policy analyst at the Manhattan Institute.
Boston Globe
10 hours ago
- Boston Globe
Trump administration presses Boston to ditch ‘sanctuary' policies
'We know where this is coming from and we know why. Unlike the Trump administration, Boston follows the law and it's as simple as that,' Wu said Friday night in East Boston, according to a recording of her remarks provided by her staff. Bondi outlined her demands to Wu and the leaders of other jurisdictions that the Trump administration believes are impeding his immigration enforcement efforts in letters dated Wednesday. Related : Advertisement 'This ends now,' Bondi wrote, according to a copy of the letter shared with the Globe. US Senator Edward Markey, a Malden Democrat, on Saturday accused Bondi of picking a fight to score political points. 'I know Mayor Wu and Boston leaders are working hard to keep Boston one of the safest big cities in the country, to uphold state and local laws, and to treat all residents with dignity and respect,' he said in a statement. Advertisement US Senator Elizabeth Warren, a Democrat from Cambridge, said Boston is 'Instead of dividing and distracting, he should be focused on lowering costs and making life better for people across the country,' she said in a statement. US Representative Ayanna Pressley, a former Boston city councilor and Democrat, said Boston is welcoming and expressed support for Wu. 'This authoritarian Administration does not care about keeping our communities safe - their strategy is to divide, fear monger, and target vulnerable people as they distract from the fact that they're ripping away healthcare and giving taxpayers' cash to billionaires,' she said in a statement. Related : In March, Related : The city's Nearly 80 percent of Boston voters said they have at least a somewhat favorable view of that policy, and more than 62 percent said they have a 'strongly favorable' opinion of the Trust Act, the poll found. Josh Kraft, a Democrat who is challenging Wu in this year's mayor's race, said Bondi's demands are 'just another unhinged and bigoted attack targeting our nation's immigrants.' 'We cannot yield to Donald Trump and his band of thugs,' he said in a statement Saturday. Advertisement City Councilor Ed Flynn of South Boston said the city is proud of its immigrant roots, but he supports the prosecution of people engaged in criminal behavior regardless of whether they're in the country legally. 'Boston is an international city, and we must have a close working relationship with state and federal law enforcement partners and necessary resources to address any and all public safety issues,' he said in a text message. Boston This is the second time Trump officials have included Boston on such a list. In May, the US Department of Homeland Security published a The New England states of Rhode Island, Vermont, and Connecticut made the list, as well as the state of New York, New York City, and Rochester, N.Y. In revealing the new list on Aug. 5, the Justice Department pointed to an array of policies that it sees as impeding the federal government's efforts to enforce immigration law. The examples include local governments declining to cooperate with US Immigration and Customs Enforcement, establishing offices to advise 'illegal alien communities' on evading federal law enforcement, and public declarations that seek to undermine immigration enforcement. In statements on Friday, Connecticut Governor Ned Lamont and Attorney General William Tong, both Democrats, accused Bondi of falsely identifying the state as a 'sanctuary' jurisdiction. Advertisement 'Connecticut is not a 'sanctuary' state,' Lamont said. 'That term has no legal definition, and it is not an accurate description of our laws and practices.' 'This generic, non-specific form letter lacks any meaningful detail and does not merit a response,' said McKee in a statement to the Globe. Bondi's letter to Wu doesn't specify the potential consequences the city could face if it doesn't comply, but signals the administration's willingness to consider funding cuts, criminal prosecution, or civil litigation. Trump outlined possible sanctions in an April Wu told reporters that legal challenges to Trump's threats to cut off funding have been successful. 'Boston does not back down in the face of threats, certainly when the threats and the tactics cross the line and seem to be against the law as well,' she said. A In February, Advertisement This year, Globe correspondent Emily Spatz contributed. Laura Crimaldi can be reached at
