Who's the boss?

The people have spoken on campaign-finance reform.
It's time for Speaker Finneran to listen.

House Speaker Tom Finneran rose to a new level of high-handedness when he told the Boston Globe, in reference to the Clean Elections Law, "Some people think we should just automatically genuflect to the ballot question. And the members had a different point of view on that." Perhaps someone should remind the Speaker and the House just who they work for.

Of course, the ballot question Finneran refers to as if it were nothing more than a tainted piece of paper was, as he well knows, passed by the voters last November by a two-to-one margin. It begins with ringing language: "The people of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts find and declare that the current way of paying for campaigns undermines democracy in the Commonwealth." And it specifies a worthwhile solution: public campaign funds for candidates who abide by stringent spending limits.

Despite the overwhelming support the Clean Elections Law received on Election Day, it has had a perilous voyage thus far. Governor Paul Cellucci neglected to fund it in his budget proposal for fiscal 2000. Finneran and Senate president Tom Birmingham, during their long budget negotiations, did agree to pay for the law's implementation -- Finneran by setting aside $10 million, Birmingham $13 million. Either amount will get the job done.

But Finneran's House included two killer amendments. One is an insult to the voters' intelligence. The other seeks to sidestep the democratic process.

The insult comes in the form of yet another ballot question, to be put before the voters in November 2000, asking people whether they really, honestly, cross-their-hearts meant it when they voted last year to fund elections at least in part with public money. Last year's ballot question used the phrase "public funds"; Finneran wants to change that to "tax money" in the new question. Leaving aside the fact that "tax money" isn't even technically correct (lottery receipts, Registry of Motor Vehicles fees, and other non-tax income sources also go into public funds), Finneran is clearly engaged in a cynical attempt to put a negative spin on the notion of publicly financed campaigns in the hopes that voters will change their minds.

The sidestep involves a proposed study of the law by the state's Office of Campaign and Political Finance, the recommendations of which would have to be approved by both the House and the Senate before the public funds could be released.

Government by referendum is not ideal, and the Clean Elections Law is imperfect, mainly because of its complexity. But the voters knew what they were doing when they expressed their disgust with the current system of paying for political campaigns, and their support for some modest remedial steps. Referendums are the only check the people of Massachusetts have on an out-of-touch government. We live in a state where the governor spends so much time raising money ($2.8 million this year for himself and his favorite presidential candidate, George W. Bush) that he barely has time to govern. Then, too, the Speaker and the Senate president dragged their heels for months before producing an underwhelming budget deal. The delay has yet to be satisfactorily, or convincingly, explained.

Legislators need to hear from the people in order to save the people's campaign-finance law. A complete listing of state representatives and senators, with their phone numbers and e-mail addresses, is on the Web at http://www.state.ma.us/legis/legis.htm. Find your legislators and tell them to insist on the Senate version of the Clean Elections Law. Just as important, call Finneran's office at (617) 722-2500 and tell him to dump the killer amendments.

It's time for Finneran to submit to the will of the people. He may call it genuflecting. We call it democracy.
What do you think? Send an e-mail to letters[a]phx.com.