Friday, December 21, 2012
DiMascio denies any libel or wrongdoing in asserting that Woodland backed the measure to ask the Town Council to reverse the Citizens United ruling.
- GOVERNMENT
-
Friday, December 21, 2012
To the editor, In his letter to the editor, District D Councilor and Law Student Kenneth Woodland, implies that someone has committed libel and slander when commenting on his involvement vis-a-vis the Citizens United Resolution which the Town Council wisely rejected. [Editor's Note: the Town Council did not vote on the resolution.] He accuses people promoting conspiracy theories about backroom arm-twisting. And then he threatens to prove his “legal skills.” These are the facts. I wrote a letter to the editor in which I said a group of people encouraged by Kenneth Woodland used a charter provision to bring this matter before the Council. The fact is; encouragement can take many forms. The Councilor supported the measure. Therefore to …
Saturday, December 15, 2012
A group recently petitioned to have an item on the agenda asking the Town Council to support reversing the Citizens United ruling.
This week, a group of residents hoping to have the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision reversed petitioned to have the Town Council support the idea, and got the item on the agenda by collecting 150 signatures from Watertown voters. Not everyone liked the idea of having an issue like that placed on the agenda of the town’s highest board. Town Council President Mark Sideris noted that the group of residents followed the Town Charter to get the petition on the agenda. They collected 188 signatures, more than the minimum required, to have it on the agenda. “In my time sitting on the council, which has been a number of years, no group has ever petitioned to put something on the agenda,” Sideris said. “I applaud the people for doing their …
Wednesday, December 12, 2012
Town Councilor Kenneth Woodland writes about the petition submitted to the Town Council about reversing the Supreme Court's campaign financing ruling.
- GOVERNMENT
-
Wednesday, December 12, 2012
As many may have read over the past few weeks, a group of citizens have petitioned the Watertown Town Council under the rules and provisions of the Watertown Charter to consider action on the United States Supreme Court Case Citizen’s United. Since then, efforts have been made by partisan groups in favor of the ruling to purposefully misconstrue the process in hopes that the mere notion of impropriety will sway the public to similar methods of thinking. I am writing in today simply to set the record straight. First and foremost, it should be clear that I, Ken Woodland, am not the driving force behind the initiative. Although flattered to be given credit for helping with guidance, I would do the same for any passionate group of citizens …
Councilors will send a letter outlining town voters' support of the non-binding ballot measure asking for the Supreme Courts decision in the political finance question to be overturned.
The Town Council will not take a stand on a citizen’s petition to asking the board to support a movement asking Congress to reverse the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision, but they will send a letter outlining the town’s support of the non-binding ballot measure on the Nov. 6 ballot. A group of residents collected 188 signatures and got the resolution on Tuesday’s Town Council agenda. Bevin Croft, who spoke for the group who put the resolution on the agenda, noted that 63 percent of the town’s voters in Districts A, B and C supported the ballot measure asking the town’s state and federal elected officials to take steps to reverse the court decision that gives corporations and unions the same political speech rights as citizens. The …
42.36752
-71.18773
Town of Watertown Town Hall
149 Main St, Watertown, MA
/articles/watertown-town-council-passes-on-taking-stand-on-reversing-citizens-united-ruling
1422333
/locations/8370109
Wednesday, December 5, 2012
Aaron Hatley urges the Town Council to follow other Massachusetts Communities and pass a resolution asking for the campaign finance ruling to be changed.
- OPINION
-
Wednesday, December 5, 2012
To my fellow Watertown voters, On Nov. 6, in Watertown Districts A, B, and C, just under 63 percent of us voted “Yes” on a non-binding ballot question that supported a constitutional amendment to reverse the effects of the infamous 2010 Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. FEC. On Dec. 11, a group of concerned citizens (including your author) will ask the Watertown Town Council to consider a resolution urging our state and federal representatives to work toward that constitutional amendment to reinstate reasonable limits on outside funding in our elections, and to ensure that the strongest voices on election day are yours, and mine, and our fellow citizens’. And we need your support. Seventy-four Massachusetts cities and towns …
Wednesday, July 18, 2012
State Senator Will Brownsberger wants political spending in Massachusetts elections by corporations to be reported, now that they are allowed to by Citizens United.
One of my concerns in the closing days of the legislative session is to pass Senate 304, a bill strengthening Massachusetts’ election spending disclosure rules. In Massachusetts, our statutory framework for disclosing independent election spending does not cover spending by corporations. Independent election spending is election spending other than contributions to candidates. To be considered independent spending, the spending must be made without coordination with the candidates, otherwise it is considered a campaign contribution. Until the Citizens United decision, independent election spending by corporations was outright illegal under Massachusetts law. As a result, there is no provision in our disclosure framework to cover it. Our …
Monday, June 25, 2012
The Citizens United case concerns the State Senator, but he writes that corporations should be able to make contributions.
- GOVERNMENT
-
Monday, June 25, 2012
Recently, many colleagues and constituents whom I greatly respect have urged me to vote Yes on a Senate resolution urging Congress to: send to the states for ratification a constitutional amendment to restore the First Amendment and fair elections to the people. The resolution is a response to the Citizens United case, in which the Supreme Court ruled that corporations (and, by implication, individuals) may spend as they wish to influence the outcome of an election, provided that they are spending independently instead of giving to a candidate. I share the widespread concern about the influence of money in politics. And I recognize the unpopularity of the Citizens Uniteddecision. I strongly support pending legislation to improve disclosure…
Steven Cavaretta
10:25 am on Thursday, December 27, 2012
Tough to get anything straight when the historian keeps rewriting history. Now excuse me I have to go play the grand piano. more ›