[420 Girl]

BOSTON -- It can be difficult already for the average citizen group to place a question on the statewide ballot, but legislation under consideration on Beacon Hill would make it even harder for residents to play the lawmaking game.

Two bills, filed by Rep. James Fagan, D-Taunton, aim to put tougher restrictions on signature-gathering as a way to prohibit outside interest groups with deep pockets from influencing Massachusetts voters.

It currently takes more than 100,000 signatures to force the Legislature to consider a citizen petition, and another 20,000 to put that question on the ballot if the Legislature refuses to act.

One bill would prevent outside firms from being hired to collect signatures. The bill aims to guarantee that if an issue makes the ballot, it is because there is real, and not manufactured, grass-roots support.

The other bill would require gatherers to wear buttons declaring their name, affiliation and the amount that they are being paid, if anything, to gather signatures.

The legislation speaks directly to an issue that cropped up during the last statewide election that saw a massive influx of outside money pour into the state to support the decriminalization of small amounts of marijuana.

The Committee for Sensible Marijuana Policy received 30 percent of its money from the Washington, D.C. -based Marijuana Policy Project, a group that promotes legalization and over-the-counter sales of marijuana.

Billionaire philanthropist George Soros, who sits on the Drug Policy Alliance Network in New York, donated more than 60 percent of the committee's funding, throwing $400,000 into the Massachusetts decriminalization effort.

Last fall, three high-profile issues found their way onto the state ballot asking voters to weigh in on whether to eliminate the state income tax, decriminalize small amounts of marijuana and ban dog racing.

Only the income-tax repeal failed.

"It's hard enough to get something on the ballot, but trying to further encumber the process by adding restrictions is something I think should probably be studied, but not something I would likely support," said Rep. Thomas Golden, D-Lowell, vice chairman of the Committee on Election Laws.

The bills, which have been filed in years past, had a Statehouse hearing earlier this month that drew opposition from a coalition of government watchdog groups from the left to the right of the political spectrum.

"Most of this is unconstitutional and has been proven so in Colorado. These legislators are just playing," said Barbara Anderson, executive director of Citizens for Limited Taxation. "The point isn't who's paying for it. The point is it goes on the ballot and the voters get to decide. It's pure democracy."

Secretary of State William Galvin has also raised questions about the two bills, suggesting that if they ever became law, they might face a stiff challenge in court.

In 1999, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled against a Colorado law requiring identification badges, arguing that rule unlawfully discouraged participation in the petition circulation process. It did not, however, address the issue of disclosing how much a petitioner is paid and by whom.

The Supreme Court also ruled against a similar statute in Colorado that prohibited paid signature gathering, finding that such a law violates the First Amendment right to "core political speech."

Galvin suggested further study before taking legislative action.

Golden, however, said lawmakers should be encouraging participation in the political process, not discouraging it with excessive restrictions.

"This is not a spectator sport that someone should be sitting by and idly watching. If you're so enraged by what they're doing, push the opposite cause," Golden said.

http://www.420magazine.com/forums/in...-policies.html