Transparency in the Massachusetts state legislature was front and center in Thursday’s debate between Rep. Marjorie Decker and challenger Evan MacKay at St. James Episcopal Church.
The two are vying for Decker’s seat representing the 25th Middlesex District, which is entirely in Cambridge, in a repeat of their extremely close 2024 race. The two did not debate in 2024, meeting directly only in a forum organized by Cambridge Democrats.
On Thursday, each candidate opened with a brief statement, Decker going first by virtue of winning a coin toss. She emphasized making her voting record transparent through her weekly newsletter and social media updates. “Accountability in government is only possible through transparency,” Decker said. MacKay fronted with their union-organizing skills as the former president of the Harvard Graduate Students Union, strengths they would use to root out “systemic corruption” in the state legislature. “I want our state to run as a counter example to the Trump Administration,” MacKay said. They currently serve on Cambridge’s LGBTQ+ Commission as a Seniors Working Group chair.
Moderator Phil Septoff of Cambridge’s Committee of Transparency and Accountability (CCTA) then asked a series of questions focused on legislator transparency and accountability. CCTA organized the debate in conjunction with the Coalition to Reform Our Legislature (CROL) and the policy nonprofit Act on Mass. Act on Mass endorsed MacKay in the 2024 race but has not made an endorsement this cycle.
In 2024, MacKay repeatedly challenged Decker for lack of voter transparency, saying she voted in line with the Democratic status quo.
Decker took on the issue directly, saying “There is no reason the state legislature or governor’s office should be exempt from [public records laws].”
MacKay countered by asking “Should Massachusetts be dead-last in public record transparency?” adding they “really wish their current state representative [Decker] was working on this with receipts,” or evidence.
“The receipts are in the Boston Globe,” Decker shot back, offering to send “her constituent” — MacKay — the article. Decker has voted in house rules that would increase voting history and public record transparency.
Calling out corruption
Asked to grade the Massachusetts state legislature, MacKay gave Beacon Hill an F for the “durable history of corruption” among Democratic state house representatives.
They referred to the “bloodless murder of legislation” on Beacon Hill, as reported by the Globe, in which popularly supported bills have been allowed to die in the state legislature due to missed deadlines. Such disregard is a reason why Massachusetts has ranked in the least productive state legislatures. For the 2025-2026 session, the House and Senate re-adopted joint rules for the first time since 2019, meaning efforts to incease legislative transparency by requiring all joint legislative committee votes be public and meetings announced 10 days in advance. Decker countered that despite the low compliance rate of the Massachusetts state legislature, her own committee has been 100 percent compliant with joint rules.
Decker vowed to fight for transparency in the state legislature and encouraged audience members to push for public record exemptions. MacKay chided Democratic state legislative leadership for creating “this exemption for themselves intentionally.” They, along with representatives Mike Connolly, Steve Owens and Erika Uyterhoeven, have signed Act On Mass’ Transparency Pledge to make their committee votes publicly available upon request and stand for roll call during recorded votes.
Some common ground
The two had at least one point of agreement.
When asked about the stipends paid to committee leaders on Beacon Hill — which Decker receives as chair of the Joint Committee on Public Health — MacKay said the stipends caused a “fall-in-line” mentality among state legislators seeking to curry favor with the Speaker of the House who names the chairs of committees. Stipends were also found to be awarded to chairs of committees that have never met.
Decker noted that her committee is “one of the busiest committees in the legislature,” having put forth 422 bills. She also said “I’m paid the lowest stipend in the legislature.” But, she agreed with MacKay about the need for stipend reform. “I’ve been talking about stipend reform for years and am disappointed it’s not on the ballot,” she said, adding “we’re right there together on this one.”
Checking power
MacKay also brought up term limits, stating again how the “receipts” are important. “Our movement got term limits for Speaker of the House. My opponent voted to repeal term limits,” MacKay said, referring to their work with Act on Mass.
Sparks flew again on a question about the power given to the Speaker of the House. MacKay lambasted Democratic state legislative leadership who are “unwilling to root out corruption at the core of our state house.” They then said Decker has voted “100 percent in line with the Speaker of the House” and that “all four of [the speakers of the house who have been indicted or conspired with criminal charges] are supporting my opponent in this race.”
Decker immediately fact-checked MacKay, saying “How you campaign is how you will govern” and that MacKay was “making up things about who’s supporting me.” It was unclear what MacKay meant by support; none of the former speakers appear to have made endorsements in the previous or current election.
Decker finished by saying “I don’t make promises I can’t keep,” and reiterating her legislative wins.
Septoff asked about candidates’ position on omnibus bills, which allow legislators to push a swath of bills into study without clear voting records on each bill. The example Septoff gave was a series of climate bills, one of which would create a climate adaptation superfund. MacKay held a staunchly oppositional position, bringing up Maura Healey’s 2023 Massachusetts tax cuts legislation and the “current state representative” — Decker — who voted in favor of the tax cuts. Decker in her rebuttal pointed out that the bill also included increased tax credits for children and an increased cap for rental deductions.
Decker praised the omnibus strategy as a way to address large policy issues, noting she has used them to pass legislation on maternal health and gun regulation. However, “Not every bill should be an omnibus bill,” Decker said. She ended her rebuttal by shouting out her mother in the audience and her humble roots in public housing, relying on food pantries, as what has fueled her in her career. “That’s who I am and that is always who I will be,” Decker said.
The debate featured lively audience response throughout from the more than 100 people attending, and ran 30 minutes longer than its allotted hour. The biggest crowd reaction came at the end, when both candidates condemned the Trump administration, prompting enthusiastic applause and even a partial standing ovation.
The full debate will be available through Cambridge Community TV.
A stronger
Please consider making a financial contribution to maintain, expand and improve Cambridge Day.
We are now a 501(c)(3) nonprofit and all donations are tax deductible.
Please consider a recurring contribution.