Senate hits back at Patrick on ethics

The Senate's measure, part of an ethics overhaul bill, is a pointed jab at Patrick. The governor, who released his own ethics legislation without any campaign finance changes earlier this year, has generated ire among lawmakers by criticizing them for moving too slowly on reforms.

Now that they are prepared to act, senators are attempting to scale back a practice of Patrick's that has been criticized by some campaign finance watchdogs.

"It takes away the influence of big business and dispels the notion that people can buy elected officials through campaign contributions," said Senator Frederick E. Berry, Democrat of Peabody and chairman of the Senate Committee on Ethics and Rules.

The Senate targeted a system that used a special account, called the Seventy-First Fund, to net $1.2 million in donations from lobbyists and wealthy Democratic contributors over the first two years of Patrick's term.

Named for Patrick's standing as the 71st governor of the state, the fund allows individuals to contribute $5,500 in one check - a combination of $500 for the governor and $5,000 for the state Democratic Party - allowing Patrick to maximize his fund-raising leverage over special interests. The party has used a large portion of the proceeds from the Seventy-First Fund to pay Patrick's political expenses, about $700,000 in all.

The Senate's proposed restriction would reduce the amount individuals can contribute to a party to $500, diminishing the combined effect significantly.

Patrick administration and Democratic Party officials were surprised the provision was included in the Senate's ethics package, but they downplayed its impact on fund-raising operations and said they welcomed all reforms.

"If it applies to all parties, we support it, " said Democratic Party chairman John Walsh, who was Patrick's campaign manager. "It limits the amount that anyone can give to the party, but most of the people who give to the party have nothing to do with the 71st Fund, which is just a joint fund-raising agreement."

Whether the House will adopt the Senate's bill was unclear yesterday. Seth Gitell, a spokesman for House Speaker Robert A. DeLeo, said the speaker "looks forward to seeing the final Senate bill and will work on the bill with the Senate in conference."

The Seventy-First Fund has collected contributions from prominent executives and entrepreneurs, including Cleve Killingsworth, chief executive of Blue Cross/Blue Shield; former Citizens Financial Group chairman Lawrence Fish; and Joshua Boger, chief executive of Vertex Pharmaceuticals. Patriots owner Robert Kraft donated $5,500 to the fund in December, just after the administration designated 500 acres near Foxboro Stadium as a growth district, making it eligible for fast-track approvals and infrastructure funds.

Doug Rubin, Patrick's chief of staff, said limiting donations to the party would actually hurt other candidates more than Patrick, who has a proven ability to raise millions of dollars from big and small donors alike. "The governor has the largest and most diverse base of support," he said. "That allows him to raise a lot of low-dollar donations."

The Senate has been slower than Patrick and the House to take up ethics law changes this year, and Senate President Therese Murray has come under fire for appearing reluctant to tackle the matter, even after former senator Dianne Wilkerson was indicted on bribery charges in November.

But in some ways, especially in the area of political campaign finance, the plan the Senate has now produced is stricter than either the House or the governor's version, which contained no campaign finance reforms.

For instance, it would prohibit lobbyists from making any political donations. Lobbyist donations are currently limited to $200 per candidate per year. It also defines lobbyists as anyone who is paid to advocate for a third party and requires them to carry ID cards.

Additionally, it mandates disclosure when groups other than campaigns pay for election ads, such as the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth ads, widely viewed as a deceptive attack on US Senator John Kerry.

"We were trying to address public concerns about lobbying and pay to play," said Berry, the bill's major sponsor. "When I was in college, I took an ethics course. Things were either right or wrong. We tried to use that as a barometer and say this is all about what is right and what is wrong."

Like the House bill, the Senate version stops short of a strong provision proposed by Patrick that would restrict lawmakers from accepting gifts.

Under the Supreme Judicial Court's current interpretation of law, which Wilkerson relied on to justify accepting tens of thousands of dollars from donors, gifts to lawmakers are forbidden only if they were given to influence an official act. The governor's bill outlaws most gifts and could make accepting them a crime. The Senate bill includes a gift ban, but violation of the ban would be a civil, not a criminal, violation.

With three ethics bills now in play on Beacon Hill, open-government advocates are hoping for a victory in 2009.

"There are some bold proposals here we're very excited about," said Pamela Wilmot, executive director of Common Cause/Massachusetts, who had not yet seen the measure. "The ban on lobbyist campaign contributions would have a huge impact in reducing special interest influence in politics."

The bill would give subpoena power, with a judge's consent, to Secretary of State William F. Galvin, whose office regulates lobbyists. By broadening the definition of lobbying, the bill would make it easier for Galvin to get information about who is seeking to influence government officials.

"People who are paying to influence public decisions will now have to come out from behind the curtain," Galvin said.