Massachusetts voters will decide this November whether to take another step toward public financing of election campaigns. 

This effort gets its appeal from the widely held belief  that politicians spend too much time seeking funding for their campaigns, and that "big" money is too influential in politics.  But this may be due to the existing campaign-finance laws that restrict the amount than any individual can give to a candidate, and thus force candidates to seek a greater number of contributions. 

It's also possible that political campaigns are under-funded.  Candidates are forced to advertise on broadcast media (especially TV) in short "sound bites" in order to get the most out of limited funds.  "It is true that American politics is obsessed with raising money, but that is because campaign finance 'reforms' have made fund-raising too difficult," as Jeff Jacoby recently put it. 

The gravest concern about campaign-finance legislation is that it infringes freedom of speech and gives more power to the media.  The Libertarian party's candidate for state auditor, Carla Howell, argues that the law would "force you to subsidize the speech of viewpoints you oppose."  She suggests that the law might lower the amount spent on campaigns, "leaving much more control in the hands of the press." 

But few voices are calling for less government regulation of elections.  Rather, we seem to be taking steps toward full government control of political campaigns.  Question 2 is the next step. 

"Clean Elections" or "Socialism for the Pols"? 
A group calling itself "Mass Voters for Clean Elections" has placed the issue on the November ballot.  If passed, Question Two will make taxpayer money available to politicians -- up to $2.6 million for gubernatorial candidates -- who agree to limits on their campaign spending and raise a minimum number of small contributions from individuals. 

It "would enhance democracy in Massachusetts," according to its backers.  Some political activists disagree.  "This is a bad bill," says Marc DeCoursey, Executive Director of the Massachusetts Republican State Committee.  DeCoursey met with sponsors of the ballot question in February and told them that the Republican Party could not support the bill unless it addressed the unlimited union and special interest money flowing into elections. 

It would give public funding to candidates who abide by the "clean elections" rules.  The amounts that would be made available to candidates are very generous with tax money. 

"Clean Election" Funds Available to Qualified Candidates: 
 

Office	Primary	General
Governor	$1,500,000	$1,050,000
Lieutenant Governor	$383,000	$255,000
Attorney General	$360,000	$240,000
Treasurer	$360,000	$240,000
State Secretary	$120,000	$80,000
Auditor	$120,000	$80,000
Governor's Council	$19,000	$13,000
State Senator	$43,000	$29,000
State Representative	$15,000	$9,000

 
The amount slated for State Senate and State Representative candidates is higher than the cost of the average race in recent years.  Still, it is not certain that candidates would get this money even if Question Two passes.  Since Massachusetts does not permit appropriation by initiative, the law would be of little effect unless the state legislature chose to fund it.  House Speaker Thomas Finneran was quoted in the Boston Globe this spring saying: "I find it hard to believe we would appropriate."  Other legislators have complained that the law would cost about $15 million a year to fund. 
 
If a candidate wishes to receive the matching money under the "Clean Elections" law he must agree to spending limits ranging from $3 million for a gubernatorial race  to $30,000 for a state representative race (for both the primary and general elections).  The difference between these limits and the amount of  money he would receive from the state is small.  A candidate for Governor who agrees to the spending limit is eligible for $2.6 million in taxpayer funding (assuming the legislature appropriates it).  The goal of the legislation is to remove, as far as possible, private funding from campaigns.  Campaigning, under this system, would be a wholly state-owned industry. 

The Public Says "Yes", and "No" 
Backers of the proposal claim polling shows high voter support for Question Two.  Even some opponents are conceding that it is likely to pass.  They are preparing to challenge the law in court on constitutional grounds, and they are counting on the legislature to deny the money to implement the law.  Voters say they want campaign finance reform, but they are not supporting the mechanism already in place.  In 1997 fewer than 10% of Massachusetts taxpayers checked off the voluntary campaign contribution box on their state income-tax returns.  Taxpayer participation in this existing public funding scheme is well below expectations, even though the check-off does not increase the amount of taxes owed or decrease the refund due to the taxpayer. 

The public campaign funding check-off system has been so consistently unsuccessful that the Office of Campaign and Political Finance has much less money available for statewide candidates than anticipated.  The four candidates for governor who agreed to campaign limits (Governor Cellucci did not agree to limit spending and so is not eligible for state matching money) are all getting less than a third of what they qualified for.  There is no more money in the fund for them, and there was none at all for candidates for other statewide offices. 

Windfall or Obstacle to Small Parties and Challengers? 
Most critics of the initiative have warned that it is likely to encourage frivolous candidacies, but few have considered the ways that it would deter challengers. 

The joint legislative committee that received the initiative petition emphatically rejected it.  A reason it gave was that, "Even fringe candidates would be able to lay claim to taxpayers' money to support the costs of their campaigns."  Jeff Jacoby warned against "a huge windfall of public money" that the law promises to shower on candidates.  "Anyone looking to get rich quick would be crazy not to run for office in Massachusetts," he said.  But money that candidates do not spend on their campaigns must be returned to the state fund, and the law is likely to inhibit rather than encourage political newcomers. 

To qualify for the “free” public money, the candidate must raise a minimum number of small contributions (at least five dollars, no more than $100).  This means that a candidate for governor must have 6,000 individual contributors while a candidate for State Representative requires 200.  In other words, in order to get money that frees you from fundraising, you must raise money.  The leader of the Question Two committee, David Donnelly, acknowledged that previous attempts at campaign finance reform have, perversely, put more rather than less emphasis on fundraising.  The backers of Question Two tried to design a mechanism to reduce the importance of fundraising.  Using an average of the number of contributions received in recent races, the backers came up with the following table of minimum number of contributions to qualify for "Clean Elections" funds. 
 

A "No on 2 Committee" has been established to coordinate the defeat of the proposal.  "No on 2" is opposed to any kind of public funding of campaigns and feels that citizens' failure to contribute to the existing campaign fund shows that they agree.  It estimates that the cost of the law will be $50 million per four-year cycle and that the law would even pay for the campaigns of unopposed candidates.  "Question 2's abundant taxpayer financing could bring a flood of fringe candidates into state politics," it argues, and this will help incumbents win by fragmenting challengers. 

Conclusion 
Anyone who has worked on campaigns knows the frustration.  It is difficult for a challenger -- unless he is a millionaire -- to match the money of an incumbent.  Yet every law passed to date to reform campaign finance has only given greater advantage to the incumbents and put more emphasis on the amount of money the candidate can bring to the race.  It is unlikely that Question Two will do anything to solve the problem and may even make it worse. 

The perverse effects can be seen already in the big money pouring into the "clean elections" campaign to get private money out of politics.  Because ballot measures are not subject to the same restrictions as individual campaigns (and would continue to be exempt if Question 2 passes), the 'yes' side of this Question will outspend the 'no' side.  "And the fundraising records of the 'no big money' campaign are studded with huge donations that would not be legal contributions to the coffers of candidates," the State House News Service reports. 

Clearly, Question 2 is not going to "get big money out of politics," but will limit the ability of small parties and individuals to participate in elections and subsidize incumbents.  The current problems of campaign finance would be better addressed by reducing, instead of increasing, government controls. 

For more information on the issue of campaign finance at the national level, see Policy.com's issues library. 
 

Return to Front Page