What happened?

An update on six recent causes

"What happened?" This is a question readers often ask. Did Politician X end up doing the right thing? Has the debate shifted? Has there been any progress? In an era of information overload, it is hard to keep track. So, with the legislative session set to end early this year -- sometime in June -- we present an update on six recent causes the Phoenix has championed.

Campaign finance

The political system is melting down, and everyone knows it. Money carries the day. Voters are turned off. In Massachusetts's 1996 election, voter turnout hit its lowest point in seven decades; an amazing two-thirds of the legislators had no challenger. All this because we have not curbed the power of well-funded interests to buy what they want.

Just last week, House Speaker Thomas Finneran labeled public financing for Massachusetts elections a "frivolous" use of taxpayer dollars. This is a sentiment that many incumbents, who benefit from the current system, seem to share. But polls show that most voters want a change, and the question -- whether campaigns should be funded with public money -- is set to appear on the ballot in November. Legislators should at least have the courage to register their views with a vote.

Tax-cut fever

The Phoenix warned of a tax-cut fever back in December. The leading gubernatorial candidates of both parties had proposed extravagant tax-cut plans (in the $1.2 to $1.5 billion range) that would have left the state unable to meet its obligations.

Now, thankfully, the fever seems to be abating. Finneran and Senate president Tom Birmingham have spoken eloquently on the dangers of a wholesale giveaway, and both have proposed smaller cuts (around $500 million) that target the benefits to lower- and middle-income workers. Meanwhile, the two leading Democratic candidates -- Patricia McGovern and Scott Harshbarger -- have tempered their rhetoric, emphasizing that cuts must be conditional on the continuation of the economic boom. Still, the two Republican candidates -- Paul Cellucci and Joe Malone -- have shown no signs of jumping off the tax-cuts-at-any-price bandwagon.

Fire Linda Ruthardt

The state's insurance commissioner is burdened with a grave responsibility: to watch over a multibillion-dollar industry and ensure that the public's best interest is served. Linda Ruthardt, a Weld appointee, has clearly demonstrated that she is unfit for the task. Despite frequent reports in the Phoenix and elsewhere of her pro-industry bias and general incompetence, Cellucci has done nothing. Cellucci claims to be a man of the people. So why won't he fire a woman who's not doing right by them?

Death penalty

Soon after the Phoenix weighed in against the death penalty, the issue took a strange and welcome twist: Representative John Slattery (D-Peabody) switched his vote at the last minute, defeating the proposal for the legislative session. Although the matter can't be voted on again until next year, capital-punishment proponents such as Paul Cellucci, who fired up delegates at last weekend's Republican convention with death-penalty rhetoric, could well try to use the issue in November. We trust that the Massachusetts public, which has proven quite circumspect on this question of conscience, will resist.

Assault-weapons ban

Languishing in the House is a bill that would ban assault weapons and limit children's access to guns in homes. After the tragedy in Arkansas, we were not the only ones to wonder why the measure could not progress, despite overwhelming support from the public. The bill has already passed the Senate, and it seems to have enough support to pass the House. But Finneran has continued to block it. He should move for a vote.

Domestic-partner benefits

Right now, gays and lesbians who work for the city of Boston cannot provide their partners with the same health benefits available to married couples. The city council tried to right this wrong, but Menino sent the matter to the state legislature as a home-rule petition. There it has stalled -- along with another bill, passed by the Senate, that would make the change for all state employees. Yet in Cambridge (and Amherst, Northampton, and Springfield) domestic-partner benefits are now the rule. Menino has yet to explain clearly: Why not in Boston?

What do you think? Send an e-mail to letters[a]phx.com.