Local legislators critique new clean elections law
Published on December 22nd, 1999
STONEHAM, MA - The Clean Elections Law designed to equalize the playing field for Massachusetts politics could drastically affect the ability of local officials to serve the people.
Voters approved the law on the Nov. 3, 1998, state ballot, and the state house appropriated $10 million to fund it in the 1999 budget. Common Cause of Boston sponsored the original bill, which takes effect in the 2002 election cycle.
The Clean Elections Law provides public money to candidates for state offices who agree to a set of restrictions regulating individual donations and overall fund raising. For example, a state senator would receive $43,000 in the primary and $29,000 in the general election if limiting spending to $54,000 and $36,000. (Also, campaign spending reports must be put on the Internet and donations from national political parties to local party branches are limited.) Participation is optional.
"Free money" from the state may evince more challenges to incumbent office-holders, but current legislators perceive harmful side effects.
"The law would limit our ability to bring state government to the people," said Senator Richard Tisei (R-3rd Middle-sex). Tisei is Stoneham's state senator.
Other legislators agree, saying that fund-raising restrictions as they now stand will impair or eliminate the existence of district offices. Ken White of Common Cause agreed that the offices will not remain as is, but he saw alternatives.
"They could reserve a room at the public library for an hour a week," White said.
Legislators say reformers had the right idea but don't understand the realities of running a district office.
"You cannot take all the messages and phone calls and unscheduled people off the street at a library," said State Representative Paul Casey (D-34th Middlesex). Casey is the state representative for Stoneham districts 1, 2 and 3.
Casey said he opposes the law in principle because he does not think tax dollars should fund campaigns. He does not plan to accept public money for future campaigns.
State Representative Michael Festa (D-35th Middlesex) was a strong supporter of Clean Elections legislation on the floor of the House, but he, too, is critical of the law. Festa represents Stoneham districts 4, 5 and 6.
"The current law needs technical changes to make it more practical," Festa said.
He questions the qualification threshold for receiving state funding and the spending limits. A state representative candidate must raise at least 200 separate contributions between $5 and $100 to get state money. A state representative would receive $15,000 in the primary and $9,000 in the general election if restricting spending to $18,000 and $12,000.
"Maybe the minimum contribution should be $25," Festa said. "And a more realistic spending cap (for state rep.) would be $50,000."
Festa said he would not accept public money for the 2002 campaign if the law has not been amended, and if he runs.
Both Festa and Casey list phones, supplies, rent and staff as costs of a district office. For Festa the costs are not an issue because he uses his law office in Melrose as a district office.
But Casey said he spends "90 percent" of the money from his one yearly fund raiser on his "district office and constituent services."
Examples of spending from Casey's office include $500 to Worcester Firefighters and $1,000 to send a youth to a Scared Straight program in New York.
"You should see how busy Richard's (Tisei's) office is, and I say this as a Democrat," Casey said.
Tisei said he would not accept public funds for his next campaign because fund-raising restrictions would "wipe out" money for the district office.
"I can do more for people with the district office," he said.
An independent study conducted by the Massachusetts Money and Politics Project found that "the majority of off-year spending by both House and Senate candidates was for expenses associated with enhancement of political future."
The lowest categories were for rent and staff for district offices, according to the study.
Casey disagrees with how spending categories are labeled.
"I give money and support to citizens," Casey said. "If you do a good job it's self-serving, but that's part of the job."
White defends the Clean Elections Law as a practical way to foster political competition. Festa agreed that incumbents have an advantage, but reiterated that the law had to be tweaked.
White disagreed: "If we alter it, it could lose its teeth."
If candidates opt for state money and then exceed the spending limits, they must return the state money and, in some cases, pay fines. Also, when candidates exceed limits, participating opponents receive additional matching funds.
With these rules and limits in place, White says Clean Elections can work.
Stoneham's local legislators would rather go it on their own.
Subscribe and get Home Delivery of The Independent
Save 36% off the newstand price — that's like 18 FREE issues!