Boston University Green Party and Republican Party officials debated the merits of Massachusetts Clean Elections law and campaign finance reform last night at the College of Arts and Sciences in a panel debate sponsored by the BU Greens.
The event was the third in a series of five organized by the BU Green Party highlighting ‘Clean Elections and the Future of America.’ Two students from each group debated the issue in front of an audience primarily comprised of Green Party members.
Green Party officials said Clean Elections are necessary because they allow all citizens equal opportunity to run for public office, while Republican Party officials said the system equates to taxpayer sponsorship of specific political opinions, violating the Constitution.
BU Green Party member Kati Semanski explained the idea of Clean Elections, saying it is a ‘system of public finance of campaigns in which candidates collect donations’ and qualify for government subsidies after they raise a certain dollar amount.
College Republicans representative Zach Janowski attacked the idea, saying ‘public financing of elections is not consistent with the Constitution.’ He said the law directly goes against the Ninth Amendment, pulling out a copy of the Constitution to emphasize his point.
Janowski said the proposed campaign reform would be ‘taking money [from taxpayers] before [the candidates] even prove their qualifications to represent us.’
But Semanski defended the law, saying ‘it opens up the political process to more people.’ Such reform will create a ‘better representation of voter’s interests,’ she said.
Under the law, she said, anyone could run for political office, regardless of background, providing more opportunities for mothers, teachers, blue-collar workers and minorities in government.
Green Party treasurer Dennis Reardon also defended the law, saying it would not only give people more opportunities to run for political office, but would also make office-holders more beholden to their constituents. The law would give candidates ‘incentive to represent who they should represent, not just those who give money,’ Reardon said.
Reardon touted the reform as ‘a good investment for the public’ which would ‘equalize everyone.’
However, College Republicans president Katherine Borden said ‘publicly funded campaigns violate freedom of speech.’ She said the law would ‘force taxpayers to pay for candidates that they don’t support.’
She also said attempts to use Clean Elections in the past have failed. A previous version of the law in Massachusetts, which was used for the 2002 elections, ‘didn’t increase competition,’ she said.
And, Borden said, the law was ‘not publicly supported,’ citing the 74 percent of Massachusetts voters who voted against Clean Elections in a non-binding advisory question on the 2002 state ballot.
During the event’s question and answer portion, the predominantly Green Party audience directed almost all of their questions toward the Republican panelists, challenging their positions on the topic.
After the event, several students said the speakers gave them a better idea of the sides of the debate on the issue.
Jessica McLeod, a freshman in CAS, said she thought both sides made ‘salient points.’ Both sides’ ‘desire for democracy’ was the ‘overarching theme’ of the event, she said.
Although it didn’t change her views on clean elections, McLeod thought the debate was ‘very informative.’
BU Green Party co-president Karlo Silbiger called the event a success, saying ‘both sides were fantastic.’ The debate is one of his favorite events because the ‘students are so passionate’ and ‘make great points,’ he said.