Commonwealth Report Legislators Method

House · Democrat

Edward R. Philips

Current member · 8th Norfolk

Data through FY2026; built October 19, 2026.

Residence

Sharon

First elected

House 2020

Prior public offices

Sharon Finance Committee

Seats held, General Courts 189–194 (the FY2017–FY2026 budgets)
SessionChamberDistrictLinesNote
192nd (2021–22)House8th Norfolk2011 lines
193rd (2023–24)House8th Norfolk2021 lines
194th (2025–26)House8th Norfolk2021 lines

Posts and stipends

Edward R. Philips was paid $54,069 in leadership and committee stipends from 2023 to 2026 (2026 to date).

Posts and stipends by session (stipends by calendar year)
SessionPostsFirst yearSecond year
192nd (2021–22)No post recorded$0$0
193rd (2023–24)Vice chair, House Committee on Human Resources and Employee Engagement$7,096$7,096
194th (2025–26)Vice chair, Joint Committee on Transportation$22,431$17,446 (to date)

Posts: the Legislature’s leadership and roster records as compiled for this project; where those name no post, the member’s committee chair, vice-chair and ranking roles from the Legislature’s member profiles. Stipends: additional compensation in the Comptroller’s payroll data (CTHRU dataset 9ttk-7vz6), 2016–2026; 2026 is the year to date. Stipends for 2015 are not available. Base salary is not included.

The district

8th Norfolk on its 2021 lines: 4 cities and towns, 44,240 residents (2020).

Sharon · Stoughton · Walpole · Mansfield

Percentages are each place’s share of the district’s 2020 residents; for a town split between districts, the share of the town inside this one follows.

Population-weighted Fairness Index of the district’s cities and towns: 38 for all state aid and 51 for discretionary money (50 is a fair share).

Local earmarks are counted three ways. District money uses the first, clauses that name a place in the district; the second table adds organizations located in the district (placed in the district) and state facilities located there (everything placed). Three ways to count a local earmark.

District money, first measure: enacted earmarks in clauses naming a place in the district, by session (district money, not the member’s)
SessionDistrictDollarsIn corrective clausesPer resident per budget, rankWithout corrective clauses, rank
192nd (2021–22)8th Norfolk$224,000$6,568$2.53 · 149th of 160$2.45 · 151st of 160
193rd (2023–24)8th Norfolk$586,000$0$6.62 · 94th of 160$6.62 · 90th of 160
194th (2025–26)8th Norfolk$263,000$18,000$5.95 · 94th of 160$5.54 · 100th of 160

District money is where enacted earmarks land, by the place a clause names, mapped to districts by 2020 population; it is not attributed to the member and does not include leadership’s base-text money that names no place. Ranks are of district money per resident among the chamber’s districts, 1 = most. “In corrective clauses” is the part carried by a Ways and Means chair’s corrective amendments, which is leadership’s money; the last column gives the per-resident figure and rank without it. Sessions are labeled by the General Court that enacted each budget. Per-resident figures use the district as drawn for each session (2011 lines through the 192nd General Court, 2021 lines from the 193rd), so they will not equal a session’s dollars divided by the resident count above.

The same district on the other two measures, by session (enacted; includes any corrective-clause money)
SessionDistrictPlaced in the districtPer resident per budget, rankEverything placedPer resident per budget, rank
192nd (2021–22)8th Norfolk$224,000$2.53 · 156th of 160$224,000$2.53 · 156th of 160
193rd (2023–24)8th Norfolk$586,000$6.62 · 111th of 160$586,000$6.62 · 117th of 160
194th (2025–26)8th Norfolk$263,000$5.95 · 112th of 160$263,000$5.95 · 117th of 160

Budget amendments

Edward R. Philips sponsored 33 budget amendments in FY2017–FY2026, asking for $9.9 million in all.

Amendments sponsored

33

FY2017–FY2026 budgets

Adopted, known outcomes

67%

20 of 30

Chamber rate, same ask sizes

58%

expected at the chamber’s rates

Of the 30 with a known outcome, 20 were adopted (67%). At the chamber’s adoption rate for amendments of the same size, about 17 (58%) would have been.

Largest enacted items matched to an amendment Edward R. Philips filed (strong text matches)
YearAmountEnacted budget text (excerpt)Amendment
FY2026$800,000“the expansion and operation of Hey Sam, the text-based mental health support line tailored specifically to youth and young adults in the…”H4000 #972
FY2025$500,000“the Boston Public Market Association, Inc. for the operation and programming at the Boston Public Market”H4600 #813
FY2024$500,000“the Boston Public Market Association, Inc. for the operation and programing at the Boston Public Market”H3900 #1304
FY2025$400,000“the expansion and operation of Hey Sam, the text-based mental health support line tailored specifically to youth and young adults in the…”H4600 #812
FY2026$375,000“the Boston Public Market Association, Inc. for the operation and programing at the Boston public market”H4000 #975

Strong matches: 14 enacted items, $3 million (the member’s share where several amendments claim one clause). A further three weaker text matches are not listed; attribution is inferred from amendment text and is less certain there. House attribution is inferred throughout, because the House adopts most amendments inside consolidated amendments.

28 outcomes are inferred by matching amendment text to the House’s consolidated amendments, because the House records most amendments only as “Consolidated A–G.” Ask size is the larger of the earmark dollars and the line-item change an amendment requests; bands: no dollar amount, under $50,000, $50,000–$250,000, $250,000–$1 million, $1–5 million, $5 million or more. Leadership’s unattributed base-text and corrective-amendment money is never assigned to a member. The comparison describes outcomes; it is not a measure of merit.

Bills sponsored

Edward R. Philips filed 129 bills as lead sponsor in these sessions; nine were enacted on their own. In completed sessions, 8% of their lead bills were enacted on their own, against chamber medians of 3% to 4% for the same sessions.

Most bills die in every legislature, and many policies pass inside other bills; the chamber median for the same session is the fair comparison.

Bills filed as lead sponsor, by session and outcome
SessionChamberLead billsEnactedFolded into an enacted billSent to studyReported favorably, then diedReported adversely or withdrawnNo actionPending (session open)Enacted rateChamber medianCosponsored
192nd (2021–22)House32301972109%3%151
193rd (2023–24)House483128160006%4%140
194th (2025–26)House493023000236%*1%68

Enacted bills as lead sponsor

Outcomes are the furthest point each bill reached in the record. “Folded into an enacted bill” means the history names the enacted bill that absorbed it. “Passed both branches; no chapter recorded” means the bill was enacted by both branches and laid before the Governor, with no chapter or veto in the history; in the 194th General Court such bills are shown as laid before the Governor (pending). The 194th General Court is in session until January 2027, so its open bills are pending, not dead, and its rates (*) are not comparable with completed sessions. Chairs and leaders control the calendar, which raises their rates. Source: malegislature.gov bill histories.

Recorded votes on accountability measures

Edward R. Philips cast 35 yes-or-no votes on the 35 accountability roll calls in this file (nine yes, 26 no).

Roll calls on rules, audits, public records, term limits and pay
DateMeasureVoteChamber result
February 24, 2021Amendment 8.0 (Erika Uyterhoeven): Public Committee Votes and TestimonyNoYeas 36, nays 122
February 24, 2021Amendment 3.0 (Bradley H. Jones, Jr.): Electronic PollNoYeas 38, nays 121
February 24, 2021Amendment 6.0 (Bradley H. Jones, Jr.): Procurement AmendmentNoYeas 34, nays 125
February 24, 2021Amendment 11.0 (Bradley H. Jones, Jr.): Conference Committee ReportNoYeas 35, nays 123
February 24, 2021Joint rules (H68), rules package: on adoption of the Order (contested meaning)YesYeas 128, nays 31
July 7, 2021Remote voting for members on military duty; adopted 160-0 (contested meaning)YesYeas 160, nays 0
July 7, 2021Amendment 2.0 (Tami L. Gouveia): Speaker Term LimitsNoYeas 35, nays 125
July 7, 2021Amendment 6.0 (Bradley H. Jones, Jr.): Emergency Scheduling of HearingsNoYeas 30, nays 129
July 7, 2021Amendment 9.0 (Bradley H. Jones, Jr.): Committee Polls - 2 HoursNoYeas 35, nays 124
July 7, 2021Amendment 11.0 (Bradley H. Jones, Jr.): Access to InformationNoYeas 33, nays 126
July 7, 2021Amendment 13.0 (Bradley H. Jones, Jr.): Review of Consolidated AmendmentsNoYeas 32, nays 127
July 7, 2021Amendment 12.0 (Bradley H. Jones, Jr.): Committee Votes on WebsiteNoYeas 38, nays 121
July 7, 2021Amendment 16.0 (Erika Uyterhoeven): Public Committee VotesNoYeas 41, nays 117
July 7, 2021Amendment 3.0 (Christopher M. Markey): Review Period for Released BillsNoYeas 39, nays 119
July 7, 2021House rules (H3930), rules package: on adoption of the order (contested meaning)YesYeas 129, nays 29
February 1, 2023Amendment 7.0 (Bradley H. Jones, Jr.): Time to review technical/ perfecting amendmentsNoYeas 23, nays 130
February 1, 2023Amendment 12.0 (Bradley H. Jones, Jr.): Review of Consolidated AmendmentsNoYeas 23, nays 130
February 1, 2023House rules (H2023), rules package: on adoption of the order (contested meaning)YesYeas 153, nays 0
February 1, 2023Amendment 3.0 (Bradley H. Jones, Jr.): Local Aid ResolutionNoYeas 23, nays 130
February 1, 2023Amendment 9.0 (Bradley H. Jones, Jr.): Hearing ScheduleNoYeas 24, nays 129
February 1, 2023Joint rules (H2025), rules package: on adoption of the order (contested meaning)YesYeas 153, nays 0
February 25, 2025Amendment 2.0 (Bradley H. Jones, Jr.): Roll CallsNoYeas 23, nays 128
February 25, 2025Amendment 3.0 (Bradley H. Jones, Jr.): Formal Session NotificationNoYeas 23, nays 128
February 25, 2025Amendment 4.0 (Bradley H. Jones, Jr.): General Court AuditsNoYeas 23, nays 128
February 25, 2025Amendment 5.0 (Bradley H. Jones, Jr.): Opinion of the JusticesNoYeas 23, nays 128
February 25, 2025Amendment 6.0 (Bradley H. Jones, Jr.): Committee PollsNoYeas 23, nays 128
February 25, 2025Amendment 7.0 (Bradley H. Jones, Jr.): Committee Poll NotificationNoYeas 23, nays 128
February 25, 2025Joint rules (H2026), rules package: on adoption of the order (contested meaning)YesYeas 128, nays 23
February 25, 2025Amendment 18.0 (Bradley H. Jones, Jr.): Time to Review LegislationNoYeas 23, nays 128
February 25, 2025Amendment 17.0 (Bradley H. Jones, Jr.): Audit by State AuditorNoYeas 24, nays 127
February 25, 2025Amendment 2.0 (Bradley H. Jones, Jr.): Committee PollsNoYeas 23, nays 128
February 25, 2025Amendment 3.0 (Bradley H. Jones, Jr.): Committee Poll NotificationsNoYeas 23, nays 128
February 25, 2025House rules (H2024), rules package: on adoption of the order (contested meaning)YesYeas 128, nays 23
June 26, 2025Joint rules (conference report) (S2545), rules package: on acceptance (contested meaning)YesYeas 147, nays 2
June 3, 2026Engross H.5469 (public records law applied to the Legislature). Reform advocates split (contested meaning)YesYeas 125, nays 28

Votes marked “contested meaning” are rules-package and public-records passage votes; reform advocates were on both sides of them. Descriptions are the project’s plain summaries of each question, or the question as recorded for rules-package roll calls; the official record is on malegislature.gov. Votes are facts; no score is computed.

Campaign money in

Edward R. Philips’s committee reported $55,000 in contributions of $250 or more in years the member served, 2021–2026.

By year (years in the Legislature)
YearContributions
2021$6,550
2022$12,000
2023$7,710
2024$10,000
2025$13,000
2026$6,400
By kind of contributor
KindTotalShare
Individuals$40,00072%
Political committees and PACs$15,00028%
Individuals’ money by the employer they reported
Employer reportedShare
A named employer27%
Self-employed32%
Retired27%
Not employed1%
Not reported or withheld13%

The same committee also reported $56,000 in years the member was not in the Legislature (2017, 2018, 2019, 2020), for example while running for another office. Those receipts are not in the totals above.

Largest employers and organizations
Employer or organizationKindTotalContributions
MA & NORTHERN NE LABORERS' DISTRICT COUNCIL POL ACTION COMMcommittee or PAC$3,0006
RETIRED PUBLIC EMPLOYEES PACcommittee or PAC$1,8004
GALLAGHER AND BASSETTindividuals, by employer$1,5004
K AND E CAMPindividuals, by employer$1,5002
MASSACHUSETTS BRICK LAYERS PEOPLE'S COMMITTEEcommittee or PAC$1,5003
LOCAL 509 SERVICE EMPLOYEES INT'L UNION COMM ON POL ED MA WORKERS' POL ACTION COMMcommittee or PAC$1,2503
MA ASSOC OF REALTORS POL ACTION COMM - MA RPACcommittee or PAC$1,2004
NORFOLK COUNTYindividuals, by employer$1,0813
BOSTON POLICE PATROLMENS ASSOC POL ACTION COMMcommittee or PAC$1,0002
CARPENTERS LOCAL 346 POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEEcommittee or PAC$1,0002

Source: Office of Campaign and Political Finance, itemized receipts of $250 or more since 2015; OCPF filer record: Philips Committee (CPF 16592). Individuals are grouped by the employer they reported; no individual contributor is named, and an employer field that is a person’s name is withheld. Massachusetts bars business contributions to candidates. Employer shows affiliation, not instruction.

Sources

Every figure traces to a public record.

Facts only: posts, stipends, sponsored amendments, enacted items, roll-call votes and district money. No score or grade is computed. Associations shown here are not evidence of cause. Method.