House Speaker Ron Mariano and state Auditor Diana DiZoglio. field_54b3f951675b3

TWO WEEKS AGO, the House passed legislation that establishes a framework for a constitutionally viable financial audit of the Legislature, and that subjects the Legislature and governor’s office to public records law for the first time.

The bill provides the state auditor, Diana DiZoglio, with all of the documents that she has requested and codifies into law an extensive list of documents that the Legislature must make available to the public.

To craft the audit section of this legislation, the House worked diligently to address the separation of powers concerns that have been raised by constitutional scholars, while working closely with good-government and transparency advocates at the ACLU of Massachusetts and Common Cause Massachusetts to draft the public records portion of the bill.

In other words, the House bill demonstrates the advantages that are unique to the legislative process – a system through which members of the public, experts, and advocates from across the political spectrum can come together to arm legislators with a baseline of facts and best practices in order to produce practical, effective legislation that is responsive to our constituents.

Since then, experts on this issue have argued that the House bill takes “an important step toward enhancing legislative transparency.” Upon passage, the ACLU of Massachusetts said that this approach will give residents the legal right “to documents providing a wealth of insight into legislative and gubernatorial operations, finances, audits, ethics, and where individual legislators stand on important policy decisions.”

The problem, though, is that you probably didn’t hear any of that.

Instead, you probably heard a continuation of the same misinformation that has entirely dominated the media coverage and social media discourse around this issue for the past three years.

For some time now, there has been no better example in Massachusetts politics of the chasm that exists between what is actually true, and what the loudest voices are willing to say for their own personal gain, than the legislative audit spectacle.

While the campaign to audit the Legislature received understandable support from good-faith transparency activists, its most vocal proponent has taken advantage of the ease through which misinformation and personal attacks spread through our media ecosystem.

What’s the result of all this? A debate that is supposed to be about transparency in government and the Constitution now has almost nothing to do with either.

Instead, the entire conversation is covered through the lens of one dramatic feud after another: the auditor against the Legislature, the auditor against the attorney general, the auditor against the courts, and, most recently, the auditor against constitutional scholars and transparency advocates.

While it’s not difficult to understand the auditor’s political strategy here, don’t mistake her performative attacks for a genuine attempt to reform the system for the better.

The auditor’s comments about this issue, and the institution she seeks to audit, demonstrate that this saga has always been fueled by political ambition and personal grievances.

Over the past few years, the auditor has referred to members of the Legislature as “dictators” and “henchmen,” she has accused the Legislature of bribing the attorney general and of destroying documents without any evidence, and has said that the entire court system is in the pocket of Beacon Hill.

While some may be willing to dismiss those lies as inconsequential, the US Government Accountability Office, which establishes the standards that auditors follow when conducting audits of government entities, requires that auditors maintain objectivity throughout the audit process.

Because of those requirements, the auditor had to acknowledge “threats” to her ability to impartially audit the Legislature after meeting with the GAO, yet those biases have gone largely unreported.

Unfortunately, the GAO’s guidance hasn’t stopped the auditor from repeatedly attacking members of the Legislature on social media, further justifying concerns about her ability to be objective.

Meanwhile, on social media, the auditor’s misinformation campaign has taken root – particularly among MAGA Republicans who instinctively oppose almost everything the Legislature does – a dynamic that has led to several legislators, including myself, receiving death threats over this issue.

In what was undoubtedly an attempt to further drum up conservative support, the auditor went on Fox News with President Trump’s former press secretary, who conflated welfare fraud with the proposed audit – an appearance that has caused a lot of confusion about what a legislative audit would actually entail.

To be clear, the auditor is charged with auditing government programs and identifying cases of waste, fraud, and abuse – but with her focus elsewhere, those audits haven’t been a priority.

Now, none of the strategies that the auditor has utilized are new to our politics. Invoking “the people” over and over again while doing nothing to tangibly advance their interests is a grift as old as politics itself – just ask President Trump.

What concerns me is that the current media landscape has made it nearly impossible to combat the mountain of disinformation that bad actors inject into our political discourse every day – undermining public trust in our institutions.

That’s why the legislation that the House passed two weeks ago is so important – as increased access will allow citizens to become more deeply involved in the legislative process, and for the Legislature to better showcase the important work that we do on behalf of our constituents.

That being said, it would go a long way for press coverage of this issue to simply mention that the House is already audited every year, that every single dollar that the Legislature spends is already publicly available on the comptroller’s website, and that salaries comprise roughly 95 percent of the Legislature’s operating budget, with the remaining 5 percent consisting of basic operational expenses.

While we continue to believe that transparency is important – and while I’m proud that the House bill takes significant steps to increase transparency – it’s misleading to suggest that there is a direct correlation between an audit and good policy.

That Florida legislators are subject to open meeting laws didn’t prevent them from passing a draconian six-week abortion ban. That legislators in Louisiana are subject to public records law didn’t prevent them from passing a bill that allows anyone in the state to conceal-carry a gun without a permit.

The only way to ensure good policy outcomes is to foster a political discourse rooted in a fact-based reality, through which politicians are elected by virtue of their ability to better the lives of the people who they serve.

As the cost of living crisis forces residents to consider whether they will be able to remain in Massachusetts, as the Trump administration cuts taxes for the richest Americans while leaving working people behind, we simply cannot afford to be bogged down in an endless circus of misinformation.

During my 35 years in elected office, I have never once seen performative politics lead to meaningful reform – though on countless occasions, I have seen it stand in the way.

It’s time to put the petty politics aside and refocus on the work that we must do to meet the challenges of the moment.

Our residents are counting on us to deliver.

Ronald Mariano is speaker of the Massachusetts House of Representatives.