What a week!

This was a tremendous week for our democracy and for the fight against corruption and authoritarianism nationwide. 

I had a first-hand glimpse of democracy at work on Tuesday, standing for hours outside a polling location in Cambridge to gather signatures for stipend reform. I stood alongside a school committee candidate, a city council candidate, and another petitioner who was getting ballot signatures for rent control. The school's PTA was hosting a bake sale on the sidewalk and I treated myself to a cup of chili for $5. Got my "I voted" sticker and went home to exclaim over the results with my roommates. Overall, an awesome day. 

This election cycle, most of the highly-watched races were out of state. In-state action was constrained to Massachusetts’ cities and towns, which Act on Mass doesn’t usually cover. However, the events of this week have important implications for those at the top of our state government. And at the end of the day, I’m a politics nerd. How about some takeaways?

---

State House Scoop

Takeaway: as usual, transparency and accountability a major (winning!) issue with Massachusetts voters

Just like in 2024, movements for transparency and accountability from elected officials played key roles in Massachusetts' municipal elections this week. 

In Quincy, a grassroots effort against corruption in city politics had a triumphant electoral showing Tuesday, with challengers prevailing against all but two incumbents. Local transparency organization “A Just Quincy” writes: “six out of nine council seats will now be held by candidates who campaigned on reform, transparency, and community-centered priorities.” 

Local advocates say these six new members will serve as a check on the consolidated power of 17-year Mayor Thomas Koch. The mayor made headlines with several recent high-profile scandals, including a 79% pay raise that would have made him one of the highest-paid mayors in the country. Successful candidate Maggie McKee noted in her pitch to voters that 99.4% of the last city council’s votes were unanimous, including the recent pay hike. Per last week’s Scoop, if unanimous votes is what they’re used to, the outgoing city councillors should seek work on Beacon Hill next! 

Up next: in Everett, a challenger running on “transparency and accountability” unseated 18-year incumbent Mayor Carlo DeMaria amid revelations that DeMaria had illegally padded his salary with “bonus” payments to the tune of $180,000. Both the length of incumbency and these additional “bonus” payments on top of salary reminded me of problems we face on Beacon Hill. 

These stories also prompted me to do some math. According to Act on Mass’ calculations, the average state legislator in Massachusetts has been in their seat since 2015. That’s 10 whole years! 5 whole election cycles! This is without counting members that were in the House for years before switching to the Senate, which is very common. The average amount of time current legislators have spent as an elected on Beacon Hill is likely much longer. 

This average legislator, elected in 2015, has borne witness to considerable consolidation of power and expansion of “bonus pay” during their tenure. They have seen the number of bonus “leadership stipends” in the House go from 66 to 109, to a point where a supermajority of representatives now receive bonus pay directly from the Speaker. They have seen term limits– an important check on the power of chamber leadership– removed for both Speaker of the Houseand Senate President. They have also seen the bonus “stipends” granted to the Speaker and Senate President more than triple, from an additional $35,000/year on top of their salary in 2015 to a mind-boggling $119,000/year stipend in 2025. 

Just like voters in Quincy and Everett, we’re trying to stop this system in its tracks. Like Quincy, we know that unanimous votes are a sign of an unhealthy democracy– one that needs strong challenges at the ballot box and a little more sunlight in its halls. Like Everett, we know that public servants should not be padding their salaries with unregulated “bonuses” on top of pay. 

Here’s the thing: public servants should be paid well for their work. One issue in the discussion around legislator pay is that salaries for state legislators in Massachusetts are relatively low compared to other full-time legislatures. Base pay for legislators in our state house is $82,046– a reasonable salary, but well below the state’s median household income of $104,828. By comparison, members of the full-time legislatures of California and New York make $132,703 and $142,000 respectively, in states that have similarly high costs of living as MA.  

MA's comparatively low legislator salary has consequences. For one, it makes the job less accessible for potential candidates that don’t already have personal wealth. $82,046 is not enoughto raise a family in the Boston area and is not competitive with the private sector. This could explain why the state legislature has more landlords than renters and why nearly half of legislators report having a second job– despite their full-time work at the legislature. 

Secondly, the low base pay incentivizes dubious workarounds. Right now, the only way to make more than base pay as a legislator is to ingratiate yourself to leadership and start making your way up through the 8 (!!) levels of “stipends” available. Or, you can take on a second job. Or, to save a little money off the top, you can solicit some lobbyist donations to your campaign account and start charging your morning coffee (or your car payment!) to your campaign card. 

I don’t know about you but I’d rather see our representatives fairly compensated by the public trust. We should know they’re really working for us– not for leadership, not for their other bosses, and not for their corporate donors. 

That’s a big part of our push to “End Loyalty Pay” by bringing stipend reform to the ballot next year. If we pass it at the ballot, this law would dramatically reduce the number of stipends controlled by leadership. Crucially, it would also boost salaries for all other members by adding a standard “base stipend.” This would reduce pay gaps, make the position of rank-and-file representative more competitive, and make our representatives less susceptible to “workarounds” that muddy their accountability. 

We have just a week left to reach our goal of collecting enough signatures to get on the ballot. If you haven’t signed up to support the campaign yet, please do so! 

But I know what you’re thinking. “Scotia, you promised us election takeaways. Can you shut up about legislative stipends for once?” 

Fine. One more!! 

Takeaway: nationwide, Americans voted in favor of standing up to Trump 

A major theme of Act on Mass’ work this year has been calling out our Democratic state leaders on their inaction against the threats of the Trump administration. 

If you’ve been a Scoop reader for a while, you can probably recite the main points by now: despite the Trump administration targeting the Bay State for devastating immigration raids, funding cuts in key industries, and blockage of important projects like offshore wind, our state leaders have been slow to act to protect Massachusetts. Governor Healey can’t stop repeating ICE talking points. The legislature is having its slowest session in 40+ years, with only one new law responding to the Trump administration. 

State leaders have defended this behavior with a number of excuses. On updated immigration policy: “not the right year for it.” On providing state funds to make sure Bay Staters don’t lose SNAP benefits: “we can’t afford it.” Despite our Democratic supermajorities, statements and actions by our state leaders make it seem like they’re governing out of fear of Republican backlash, rather than pursuit of Democratic values. 

This was not true of another high-profile Massachusetts politician: Boston Mayor Michelle Wu. In March, Mayor Wu inspired widespread appreciation for her testimony in front of Congress, where she rejected the Trump administration’s association of immigration with criminality and touted the storied immigrant history of Massachusetts’ capitol city. She has taken a notably more combative stance towards the Trump administration than any leaders on Beacon Hill. 

For those clamoring for a more proactive approach to the Trump administration, this year’s election was a good endorsement. Despite a challenger to her right, Mayor Wu surged to victory in the September primary with a stunning 72% of the vote. In Tuesday’s election, she won 93.23% of the vote. In Massachusetts’ largest city, it seems that a willingness to take on Trump was not a political liability, but an asset. 

This result was reflected in elections across the country. Despite tight polling, Democratic candidates for governor in Virginia and New Jersey won with 10+% margins against challengers endorsed by Trump. Voters in California voted overwhelmingly in favor of a change to the state’s congressional districting maps to favor Democrats, touted by Governor Gavin Newsom as a counter to Trump’s similar efforts in red states. And in New York City, voters elected democratic socialist Zohran Mamdani as mayor, in a campaign that centered immigrant communities and affordability in the face of Trump’s economic downturn. 

The writing is on the wall: Americans across the nation are struggling to afford basic needs and dissatisfied with the Trump administration. They need action to ease their suffering, not empty platitudes about why action is impossible. Exit polls in California, New York, New Jersey, and Virginia revealed that disapproval of Trump’s actions on immigration and the economy were decisive in the election outcomes there. In our state, where Trump’s approval rating currently sits at 35%, it is likely that these motivations are even more significant. 

With the close of this election season, legislators and Governor Healey will be focused on their own upcoming re-elections in 2026. Let’s hope they learn some lessons from this election season and kick things into high gear to defend Massachusetts residents. With less than two weeks left until the end of this year’s legislative calendar, tell your legislator: to secure our support in 2026, we need action!

TELL YOUR REP: WE NEED ACTION THIS SESSION>> 

---

Syd's Sprinkles

Syd’s Sprinkles: SNAP Benefits – What’s Going On?

Did you know that we are officially witnessing the longest federal government shutdown in United States history?

If not, now you do.

And this shutdown is impacting people in a number of ways. Chief among them being a lapse in Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits thanks to the Trump administration withholding funds from states. 

Are people going to get the funds they need to keep food on the table? Are daycares and pre-schools going to be able to stay open? Are people going to have access to the resources that they need and which are supposed to be regularly distributed by the government? 

Overall, it is hard to say, but I can share some information on what we do know as of right now. 

President Trump has decided to withhold federal funding for benefits that were supposed to be distributed at the beginning of this month. Despite having the ability to distribute funds – and being told multiple times by federal courts to distribute the funds – the Trump administration has decided to pass on the blame to the Democrats in Congress for forcing a government shutdown, which he says is the reason why he isn’t able to support benefit programs. 

The connection Trump has made between the Democrats and his own refusal to distribute funding to states is that without Congressional approval, he cannot distribute SNAP or other benefit funding. 

Ironically, this is one of the first times I’ve heard news about Trump caring about rules since the beginning of his second term back in January. 

So, an important question is, “will Trump distribute funding for SNAP?” 

Yes, no, maybe…

Different courts have come to different conclusions on what the President’s responsibility is when it comes to funding SNAP and other federal programs. 

A federal judge in Rhode Island ordered that Trump had to fully restore SNAP benefits within this past week, but just last night news broke that the Supreme Court granted Trump an emergency order that allows him to continue withholding funding from the states. 

This means that as of right now, the states are not receiving immediate SNAP funding, and the states are responsible for supporting their constituents’ needs.

Beacon Hill has been taking their time in considering how to address the growing crisis that is the loss of SNAP and other benefits. 

Particularly, debates over whether the state’s Rainy Day Fund of $8.165 billion should be used have come up since the federal shutdown started. 

Chief among the concerns over using Rainy Day funds – which are meant for times of crisis – is the state’s bond rating. But is that something lawmakers really need to be worrying about as their constituents are facing threats of hunger?

According to our lawmakers, yes. But according to advocacy groups and constituents going hungry, “the time for that degree of caution has passed.” 

But what is a bond rating? 

A bond rating is an assessment of the state’s creditworthiness, or the quality of the state’s bonds. It is a measure of Massachusetts' “financial strength.” When the state’s bond rating is negative, then that means it is harder for the state “to borrow money for bond bills in the future.”

So far, House Ways and Means Chair Aaron Michlewitz “wrote to ratings agencies last week asking how the state’s credit might be affected if it drew some money from the long-term savings account.” 

In other words, our lawmakers are asking rating services to decide whether or not the state should use its own funds that have been saved for times of emergency like these.  

Many of these rating services tend to be very conservative. This means that while many groups across the state have said that using the Rainy Day Fund would benefit Massachusetts residents, our lawmakers may choose to listen to rating services that do not have the best interest of the people in mind. 

Conservative rating services may tell our lawmakers that ensuring their constituents are fed is not as important as preserving our ability to fund different bond bills. 

Still, our lawmakers are concerned with the hypotheticals of how the state's bond rating would be affected, even though “they are not actively planning to draw from the rainy-day fund.”

Sure, Trump will eventually have to distribute the lapsed SNAP benefits that he has been withholding from his own country, but future developments do not address the crises happening right now. 

The Trump administration has been clear about intentions to cut federal funding across all areas, so what are our lawmakers here in Massachusetts going to do about it to protect us? 

For now, there are still no solid answers when it comes to the Rainy Day Fund or any other sustainable options coming from the Legislature. And, once the rating services make their most-likely negative decision, our lawmakers will be able to cite concerns over the state’s bond rating to defend why they haven’t taken action to protect their most vulnerable constituents. 

However, as a community, there are opportunities for us to help our neighbors in need. 

Reach out to your lawmakers and tell them you want to see the Rainy Day Fund used for the good of the people!

TELL STATE LEADERS: STATE FUNDS FOR SNAP>>

---

Worth reading: more stories from this week

Some other stories from this week relative to our state and our region: 

---

Missed a Scoop or two? You can find a full archive of all past Saturday Scoops on our blog.

---

Take Action

Boston area: upcoming event with the State Auditor! Nov 19th, 6 pm in Cambridge

Where's our audit? Our allies in the Cambridge Coalition for Transparency and Accountability (CCTA) are hosting an event with Auditor Diana DiZoglio this month in Cambridge! Join for the inside scoop on the long-delayed legislative audit. RSVP here: 

JOIN CCTA & AUDITOR DIZOGLION ON NOV 19>>

Take action to get stipend reform on the ballot!

We are a month out from our deadline to get 75,000 signatures! Help us get across the finish line by pitching in in your own community. 

PITCH IN TO GET STIPEND REFORM ON THE BALLOT>>

---

Thanks for reading, have a great weekend!

In solidarity,

Scotia

Scotia Hille (she/her)

Executive Director, Act on Mass