Good morning,

On this spring day, I am filled with gratitude! 

There’s two things on my mind. 

First, it was a banner week in state house reporting. In pulling headlines for this week's Scoop, I was overwhelmed with the number of creative and hard-hitting stories from the many wonderful news outlets that cover our state. Here are just a few to highlight: 

As a watchdog organization, the press is an essential partner in the fight to hold legislative leaders accountable. Strong reporting like this keeps the public informed and puts legislative and corporate leaders on the defensive about their shady practices. We’ll explore some of these stories more, but I wanted to give an extra “bravo” to the many fantastic reporters in our state. Consider following their work!

Secondly, with our spring fundraiser just two weeks away, I am so grateful to our grassroots donors. Between ticket purchases and donations, we have already raised about $4,500— more than halfway to our goal of $7,000! 

As a reminder, our musical fundraiser Raising Our Voices for Democracy will be taking place June 7th from 2-4 pm in Concord, featuring performances from protest chorus group BVocal and State Auditor Diana DiZoglio. Reserve your ticket today!

RSVP TO SING WITH THE AUDITOR ON 6/7>>

If you can’t join us in person, consider pitching in to help us reach our goal at this link. Thanks to the generosity of our hosts, donations will be matched!

CAN'T COME, BUT I'LL SUPPORT THE FUNDRAISER!>>

---

State House Scoop

Budget hot mic reveals elaborate charade of Senate budget “debate” 

This week, the Senate debated and passed their version of the state’s annual budget for 2027 (S.4). In doing so, they tackled 1,158 amendments filed by senators, 60% of which were earmarks for local projects. Like the House, the Senate processes amendments mostly by combining them into large “consolidated amendments” written by members of leadership. The success or failure of amendments is largely decided behind closed doors.

Nevertheless, as State House News Service’s snarky (and warranted) headline indicated, senators love to tout their budget “debate.” Following the Senate’s first budget session Tuesday, Senate President Karen Spilka claimed: “we had a very successful day yesterday, a lot of debate, a lot of floor questions and debate, many hours in the Senate chamber debating and adding some terrific items.” Did you hear her say “debate?” 

 Look, if you consider “speaking into a microphone” debate, Sen. Spilka might be right. The Senate does do a fair amount of talking during budgets. A few individual amendments are read and senators give speeches in favor of them. However, during the Senate’s “debate” on Tuesday, just one (!) amendment prompted a back-and-forth between senators. 

That amendment, proposed by Senator Cindy Friedman, ordered a study of the impacts of the loss of insurance coverage of GLP-1 weight loss drugs. It prompted a question from Senate Minority Leader Bruce Tarr (who had co-sponsored the amendment!) clarifying an aspect of the study. Senator Lydia Edwards also voiced her support for the amendment and it was passed on a voice vote—no recorded vote. Some riotous debate! 

The News Service also caught a revealing moment in the budget livestream. We know that the fate of amendments is decided behind closed doors, and that votes are largely symbolic. Still, it is hilarious and unfortunate to catch them in the act. 

Majority Leader Cindy Creem was chairing the budget session. A hot mic caught her conferring with a staffer, who confirmed to her that Amendment 302 by Senator Becca Rausch was going to be read to the chamber. Creem asked: "Even though it's a no?" 

Senator Rausch then gave a speech explaining her doomed amendment, entitled “Elections Not For Sale,” which would remove a exception in state campaign law that allows candidates for state election to donate an unlimited amount of money to their own campaigns. This provision has come under increased scrutiny amid a slew of wealthy Republican gubernatorial candidates who are primarily self-funded; the GOP frontrunner, Trump-linked Mike Minogue, has donated $13.5 million to his own campaign. 

Apparently, this reform was unpopular enough in the Senate’s closed-door discussions that it did not warrant public debate or a vote. On cue, Senator Rausch announced that her amendment was going to be withdrawn. This is a regular fate of amendments which do not have the support of leadership: members are pressured to withdraw amendments rather than force their colleagues to reveal their position on an issue. 

When real decisions are made in secret and meaningful discussion is kept to a minimum, constituents are left in the dark about how our legislators really stand. When rank-and-file members can’t push for a vote on a matter that’s important to them, their constituents are not being represented. For a cherry on top, it now appears that Sen. Creem’s “oops” moment has been edited out of the Senate’s livestream (Senate Session of May 19, 2026 - Part 3 of 3, 9 min in). 

This is why we’ll keep pushing for transparency and accountability from our legislature, as well as an end to top-down leadership. I’m proud that our movement is still growing, and excited to do more organizing this summer!

Experts agree: state needs more robust action on housing crisis 

Two weeks ago, we covered Massachusetts’ housing crisis and the lackluster response from state legislators. The state’s policy response has largely been restricted to policies rubber-stamped by the real estate industry like (loophole-ridden) zoning reform and placing restrictions on renter-paid broker fees. I’ll be transparent that that Scoop included some personal grievances from yours truly amid my own housing search. 

Seeing a few headlines this week, I felt vindicated in calling for “real action” from our state leaders.

A new report by Boston Indicators was published this week on the legislature’s legalization of “granny flats” aka “accessory dwelling units” (ADUs). This zoning reform policy was tucked into the 2024 Affordable Homes Act bond bill and allows the by-right construction of one additional unit of housing on single-family lots. Reminder: the real estate lobby successfully pressured legislators to water down the policies in the Affordable Homes Act. The ADU policy was what survived. 

The report reveals that the policy change has led to a noticeable uptick in ADU construction, but less than projected and well below what’s needed. Since the law took effect in February of last year, there have been 1,600 ADU permit applications and 1,200+ permits issued. Meanwhile, the Healey administration estimates that we need to build 22,000 new housing units per year for the next decade to meet demand. To do that, we’ll need action beyond ADUs and, as we discussed the other week, beyond the MBTA Communities Act.  

The report offers two important lessons based on the ADU case. First, that state-level action is effective and necessary. As they put it, “state-level zoning reform accomplished more in one year than 50 years of local reform did.” Second, that zoning reform like the ADU policy is “insufficient to meet the scale of need for housing production.” They recommend state action beyond zoning reform, including regulatory reform, to boost the supply of housing.

Another investigation this week examined the impacts of the legislature’s ban on renter-paid broker’s fees, which is the only housing policy change passed so far this session. In separate probes, both WBUR and Boston Globe found that some renters are still being asked to pay broker fees, which usually total a whole month’s rent. 

This discrepancy appears driven by “gray areas” in the law as legislators wrote it, as well as insufficient enforcement mechanisms. The law allows for tenant-paid fees in cases where brokers have not been explicitly “hired” by a landlord, a loophole that brokers are using to charge tenants. Additionally, the policy change came without additional funding for enforcement. Tenants can file complaints with the Attorney General’s office for relief; in a tight rental market, initiating this process might simply result in the tenant losing the property. 

Long story short: we need meaningful action on the housing crisis, and our current responses are not cutting it. With only 10 weeks left for the legislature to pass major bills, I hope our state leaders take this message to heart.

---

Lily's Lowdown: Without regulation from state house, AI integration is "wild, wild west"

In the latest installment of the commonwealth’s weirdly enthusiastic push for AI, we’re covering the AI’s push into the state's workforce, the ways AI is infiltrating State House campaigns, and how communities are pushing back against data centers. 

As we’ve covered in previous Lowdowns, Governor Healey and her techie posse are really excited about integrating AI into the state bureaucracy’s workforce, even as reports signal that the technology could result in jobs lost across the state. The chief privacy officer of Massachusetts’ Executive Office of Technology Services and Security Thomas Myers, echoing the words of the Healey, has justified AI’s integration into the state workforce, saying that “better outcomes” and faster, more efficient service justifies its presence. Labor unions, however, like the National Association of Government Employees (NAGE) remain skeptical, even as the Healey administration insists that its integration of AI will help employees rather than replace them. 

And speaking of replacing real humans, AI is weaseling its way into State House campaigns in some odd ways. The issue was raised this week when Steve Leibowitz, a Democrat running for state representative in Barnstable, developed an ad that clearly used AI. The social media ad portrayed an AI-generated Senator Jamie Eldridge, who endorsed Leibowitz, with three fingers and a botched, obviously AI-generated face that looks unlike Senator Eldridge. 

Needless to say, the sort of humorous image is a testament to the wild, wild west that is the Massachusetts campaign landscape. In a number of other states, laws have been proposed and enacted to regulate AI in campaign messaging. Massachusetts, consistent with its anti-productivity trend, has failed to pass any legislation that would meaningfully regulate AI in campaign advertisements and thus, curb the spread of misinformation. Their inaction is especially bizarre given that it affects lawmakers and their campaigns directly. Healey herself was impacted earlier this year when Republican gubernatorial candidate Brian Shortsleeve released a campaign ad featuring an AI-generated Governor Healey, saying self-effacing things she hasn’t in real life. 

But even as state leaders and prospective state leaders embrace AI, seemingly with no qualms, residents are more skeptical. Largely absent from the glamorized narrative coming from the top is the fact that growing AI usage necessitates more data centers, which result in more pollution and disruptions in communities. In Lowell, where a data center run by the Markley Group has caused noise pollution and environmental concerns in a residential neighborhood, community members are continuing to fight back  in a lawsuit attempting to quash the expansion of Markley’s data center in Lowell. The lawsuit alleges that the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP) violated residents’ rights when it issued the permit for the data center. This would expand upon and make permanent the one-year moratorium on data center expansion approved in the city earlier this year. 

All of this is to say that the torpedoing force of AI is wildly outpacing the sluggish pace of the State House. That we can’t even trust hopefuls in the Legislature to generate an AI image does not offer a lot of hope for how they’re going to be able to regulate AI in the State House. In fact, that we are even talking about running AI in campaign ads is almost other-worldly, but also deeply concerning for the future of our democracy.

---

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

---

Take action

Join AOM for a spring fundraiser! - June 7th, 2 - 4 pm in Concord

Join Act on Mass, Concord Indivisble, and Indivisble Acton Area for our musical spring fundraiser, featuring Auditor Diana DiZoglio! 

SING WITH THE AUDITOR ON 6/7>>

---

Thanks for reading and for taking action! We'll be back next week! 

In solidarity,

Scotia

Scotia Hille (she/her)

Executive Director, Act on Mass