Amending Clean Elections Law

When it was approved in 1998 by over two-thirds of voters in a statewide referendum, Massachusetts' Clean Elections law promised to revolutionize the way political races are run. Instead of incumbents being virtually assured of reelection due to immense fundraising resources, challengers would have a fair shot to present their ideas in the public sphere. But in the years since, the law has come under attack from self-interested opponents in the state legislature who are more concerned with keeping their seats than protecting the public interest.

The law has earned the hatred of House Speaker Thomas M. Finneran and members of his leadership team. And, admittedly, the law is not perfect as written. The minimum standard for receiving public money-200 contributions of at least $5-is extremely low. The regulations could force some politicians to cut back on constituent services, which are often paid for with campaign funds. In addition, the law currently provides that politicians running for office unopposed would still receive some state money-a startling waste of resources.

In an effort to address these concerns, supporters of the Clean Elections law have proposed a compromise to fix all three problems. Rep. Jay Kaufman (D-Lexington), among others, has proposed increasing the amount of money needed to receive state funds to $4,500. The compromise would also allow legislators to spend more money on constituent services in non-election years, and it would prevent unopposed candidates from receiving any public money.

This compromise would rightfully preserve the spirit of the Clean Elections restrictions by making only minor changes to the original law. By raising the contribution bar to allow only legitimate candidates to receive state funds and by cutting money for unopposed candidates, these changes will make the Clean Elections law more effective and less costly.

Unfortunately, opponents of reform are trying to forestall consideration of any compromise by adding needless restrictions to the law. One Finneran idea, to pay for the law through a check-off box on tax forms, would emasculate the law by removing most of its funding. Opponents have also suggested that the Clean Elections provisions should be only be approved along with a new tax, to test if voters truly accept the costs associated with the law. Other means of funding the plan exist, and both suggestions are self-interested attempts by cowardly state legislators to kill the bill without taking the blame.

Some minor changes, like those proposed by Kaufman, should be made to keep the Clean Elections law viable. But the basic premise of the regulations is sound, and the legislature should resist any temptation to gut the bill.