From Arizona, a lesson on clean elections for Massachusetts

This selection was excerpted from
the Boston Globe, dated June 18, 2001.

As the Massachusetts Legislature battles over the funding of the Clean Elections Law, it is particularly appropriate that we are receiving a visit from Senator John McCain. He will be in Boston tonight to speak at the Middlesex Club. Not only is he an outspoken advocate of campaign finance reform at the national level; his home state of Arizona was an early leader in the fight for clean elections. What we are seeing today in Massachusetts has already happened in Arizona, and there are lessons to be gained from their experience.

During the past two years in both Massachusetts and Arizona, we have seen grass-roots efforts to reform our system of campaign finance. In both states, initiative petitions were filed to hold a voter referendum on implementing a system of clean elections.

Both efforts gained significant public support, and both laws faced attempts by incumbent legislators to undermine them. But while Arizona voters saw their law implemented, Massachusetts voters now find their referendum held hostage by the very people who represent them.

In 1998, voters in Massachusetts and Arizona passed clean elections laws to reform the electoral process, and to establish the opportunity for candidates to run for office without the burden and obligation of extensive fund-raising.

These proposals were in direct response to electoral problems in both states. In Arizona, the previous governor resigned in the midst of a financial scandal. In Massachusetts, incumbents routinely cruise to victory in uncontested elections.

Like Arizona's law, the initiative in Massachusetts provides public supplemental funding for candidates who raise a minimum number of small donations and agree to abide by spending limits. The aim of the Clean Elections Law is to reduce the influence of special-interest groups and increase the competition for elective office.

With the threat of increased competition, members of the Arizona Legislature introduced amendments designed to weaken the law, including measures that would strip it of funding.

Schemes were designed to cripple the funding mechanism, including reallocating funds and manipulating the voter checkoff element. Court challenges were brought, and claims were made that the voters didn't really understand the law when they passed it. Despite these efforts, the law survived and has been enacted with great success.

A clean elections system in Arizona was fully implemented for the 2000 election cycle. The result was an increase in the number of candidates in both the primary and general elections. Between 1998 and 2000, the number of candidates for the Arizona Legislature increased from 135 to 214. More than 16,600 voters gave qualifying contributions to 59 clean elections candidates, and in total, over $1.9 million was distributed from clean elections funds.

Faced with the unfamiliar threat of having competition as they run for office, the Massachusetts Legislature made similar efforts to gut the law. They introduced schemes to divert funding. They came up with an inadequate voter checkoff, and they made claims that the voters didn't understand what they were voting for.

Unfortunately, in Massachusetts, despite 67 percent voter approval of the law, the House was successful in depriving the clean elections system of the funding needed to make it work.

The leaders of our government have an obligation to live up to the spirit of the law and see that it is fully funded. Regardless of your position on campaign finance reform, the voters of Arizona and Massachusetts clearly demonstrated their will through initiative petition.

As elected officials, it is our duty to uphold and enact the referendums approved by the voters. Democracy belongs to the people, not those who are fortunate enough to serve.

Ironically, the legislators who oppose this law are now providing the best rationale for why it was passed in the first place. In a case where the will of the voters has been made abundantly clear, some legislators decided to ignore the public and act in their own self interest, caring more about their own power than their work for the people. When legislators no longer feel that they are accountable to their constituents, there truly is need for reform.

The voters have spoken clearly in both Arizona and Massachusetts. The Massachusetts Legislature should respect their will and ensure that the budget sent to my desk includes full funding for the Clean Elections Law.