Show us the money

Massachusetts voters overwhelmingly approved campaign-finance reform. Now it's time to pay up.

EDITORIAL

Governor Paul Cellucci and House Speaker Tom Finneran are having a hard time deciding whether they're bound by the results of the 1998 election.

Last November, two-thirds of voters approved a ballot measure that puts stringent caps on campaign spending and awards public funds to candidates who voluntarily comply with those caps. It was a remarkably strong show of disgust over the influence of special-interest money. The measure was endorsed by, among others, former governor Michael Dukakis; the Reverend Jeffrey Brown, a cofounder of the Ten Point Coalition; retired Harvard president Derek Bok; humorist and political commentator Jimmy Tingle; the state's entire 12-member congressional delegation; and the Boston Phoenix and the Boston Globe.

Yet Cellucci, breaking an earlier promise, failed to include in his fiscal 2000 budget the $12.2 million necessary to pay for the program next year. Finneran, an outspoken skeptic toward the new law, has said he'll allow debate, but offers no promises. Only Senate president Tom Birmingham believes that the will of the voters should be respected.

This is outrageous. Voters are fed up with public officials who serve private interests, and the ballot measure, though hardly perfect, is an important step toward ending such conflicts. The $12.2 million appropriation is absolutely essential to building a $40 million fund for the 2002 election. Finneran claims to be concerned that the cost of a publicly funded system will reach $60 million to $100 million in a few years. He may be right. But the electorate overwhelmingly approved public funding knowing full well that tax dollars would be needed to pay for it. In the considered judgment of the voters, it is the cost of business-as-usual that is truly unacceptable.

The influence of special-interest money on candidates is bad enough. Equally pernicious is the effectiveness of that money in getting them elected. According to a recent report by the Massachusetts Money and Politics Project, winning candidates for legislative seats in 1998 outspent their opponents by a two-to-one margin; the highest spender won nine out of ten times; and, in nearly all cases, incumbents held significant spending advantages over their challengers. Cellucci himself spent a record $6.7 million in defeating Scott Harshbarger in the gubernatorial campaign.

David Donnelly, campaign director of Mass Voters for Clean Elections, which shepherded the ballot question to victory, isn't averse to a few changes in the law. For instance, he says he wouldn't object to an amendment allowing legislators to continue using a limited amount of campaign funds for constituent services. But he rightly insists that the law must be funded if it is to accomplish its twin goals of reducing the influence of special interests and leveling the playing field.

Cellucci and Finneran aren't going to do the right thing if they don't hear from you. Contact the governor's office at (617) 727-3600 (e-mail GOffice@state.ma.us) and Finneran's office at (617) 722-2500 (the Speaker does not have an e-mail address) and make your feelings known. Contact Birmingham's office at (617) 722-1500 (e-mail Tbirming@sen.state.ma.us) and tell him you appreciate his support for funding. Most important, call your local representative and senator; you can find a complete listing on the Web at http://www.state.ma.us/legis/legis.htm.

"I think there's a calculation on the part of the legislature that citizens don't really care about this issue," Donnelly says. "And I think they're mistaken -- they're completely mistaken."

Prove him right.

What do you think? Send an e-mail to letters[a]phx.com.