In nearly 20 years as executive director of the nonpartisan good-government group Common Cause Rhode Island, John Marion has scored a number of victories in his role as the organization’s chief legislative advocate. He spearheaded successful efforts to reform the state’s campaign finance laws, mandate post-election audits, and to restore the jurisdiction of the state Ethics Commission over the General Assembly.
During that time, Rhode Island has gained national attention for several political scandals, which has raised questions about the quality of government oversight. Marion spoke about the state of sunshine at the Rhode Island Statehouse with Ocean State Media political report Ian Donnis.
Interview highlights
On the possibility of House Speaker Joe Shekarchi filling a vacancy on the Rhode Island Supreme Court
John Marion: I’ve worked well with Speaker Shekarchi over the years. I think maybe, as an attorney, he would make a fine justice. We just believe at Common Cause that he needs to wait a year because of the revolving door laws that were passed in the early ‘90s. Rhode Island went through a period in the ‘80s and ‘90s where there were a lot of scandals on the courts. And the people of Rhode Island very resoundingly, in the early ‘90s, passed changes to our constitution. The ethics commission put in some changes to law that say you can’t go from the legislature to the bench without waiting a year. We continue to believe those laws are in effect, and so we think he needs to wait a year. We saw someone else, now-Justice Erin Lynch Prata, go through without waiting out that year, but we continue to think that legally she should have had to wait that year.
On competency in state government
Marion: I don’t think we necessarily have a competence problem. I actually think it goes to the model of how we decided to do a lot of big projects in government, which is we don’t hire state employees to do them; we hire contractors. We don’t build bridges; we hire contractors to build bridges. We don’t institute new software systems; we hire contractors to institute those software systems. And we haven’t been doing a particularly good job of oversight and management of those contracts.
It’s on the executive to manage the contracts well. I don’t think they have. I don’t think Gina Ramondo did a particularly good job. I don’t think Dan McKee’s done a particularly good job. But it’s also incumbent on the legislature to do good oversight to make sure that management is happening. I don’t think that oversight has been as robust as it should be. I think that the General Assembly hasn’t, sort of, dug into the issues on the staff level of why these mistakes keep happening.
On political corruption in Rhode Island
Marion: Actually, by some measures, I think we’re improving. I’ve always hypothesized that we don’t necessarily have more corruption than other places, but we have, sort of, more flamboyant corruption, right? Like Buddy Cianci, kind of, marketed corruption as his shtick. I think some of the things, like the Philadelphia trip – just because there’s almost, like, a level of humor to the corruption – have landed us on the national stage.
I do think it’s endemic to the human condition that some people are going to try to cheat, and we need to always be vigilant and always be closing the loopholes in the campaign finance law and so forth, to deal with it. I don’t think we’re necessarily worse than any other place.
On how to increase legislative competition in Rhode Island
Marion: This is a national phenomenon. Rhode Island is not unique in that as the parties have polarized, and as states have moved bluer and redder – because people are voting down ballot, not splitting tickets anymore – there’s just less incentive for people to run and challenge incumbents.
I think we could do a few things. Public finances of campaigns, which is something we used to spend a lot of our time on, has proven in Connecticut to help increase competition. I think there’s a lot of proposals before the legislature about things like ranked choice voting or fusion ballots or liberalizing the ability to create new political parties. I think some combination of those things might create some opportunities for people to deal with the polarization of the two major parties on the national level, but create space for people at the local level to run under other banners.
