Higher education provides many of the tools needed to make informed decisions. Determining how to vote on a public policy issue such as Question 3, the referendum on taxpayer funding of political campaigns is an opportunity to apply these skills.

I studied Question 3 from several perspectives as an attorney (a 1973 Boston University graduate), as a parent and as a taxpayer. From each, I drew the same conclusion no on 3. In fact, my opposition to the use of taxpayer money to fund political campaigns prompted me to accept the chairmanship of the state ballot question committee formed to urge a no vote on Question 3.

Question 3 on the Nov. 5 state ballot asks a simple but very important question that could impact how tens of millions of taxpayer dollars are spent each year. ‘Do you support taxpayer money being used to fund campaigns for public office in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts?’

My research provided me with the answers I needed to determine my position on Question 3. Here’s what I learned:

Question 3 addresses a funding provision included in the 1998 Clean Elections law, which created new restrictions on political campaigns. This provision requires the state to use our tax dollars to pay for the political campaigns of all candidates who meet several simple fundraising and spending requirements. Question 3 deals solely with this funding provision it does not address any other election ‘reform.’

Under the provision addressed by Question 3, our state is forced to spend millions of taxpayer dollars to pay for political campaigns. Estimates prepared by state agencies and even those by the proponents of taxpayer funded political campaigns range from $36 to $93 million for just one election cycle. And the amount of taxpayer funds for each state office are increased every other year, based on increases in the Consumer Price Index.

There is virtually no limit on how many of our tax dollars could be spent to bankroll political campaigns. Claims that there is a limit on the amount of taxpayer funds spent on political campaigns misstate the law. As the law clearly states, there is a limit on how much the director of the Office of Campaign and Political Financing may request to fund political campaigns. However, as the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court has ruled, state funds must be given to all certified ‘Clean Elections’ candidates. And there is no limit on the number of certified candidates in as many as 214 separate election races who may be entitled to receive taxpayer funding.

Taxpayer funding of political campaigns takes away millions of dollars that could be used for education, health care and other important public services. The Massachusetts Constitution requires a balanced budget. Therefore, there are only two ways to pay for taxpayer funded political campaigns raise taxes or take money that otherwise could be used to fund education, health care, aid to cities and towns and other important public programs.

For example, the state’s current budget crisis forced a $6 million cut in higher education funding while one failed candidate in the 2002 gubernatorial primary received nearly $4 million in taxpayer funds. As a student, you may want to ask yourself if supporting the education of thousands of your peers is a better use of limited state funds than paying for negative campaign ads and political consultants.

Taxpayer funding does not assure clean elections. Despite the rhetoric, giving political candidates millions of taxpayer dollars to fund their political campaigns under the banner of ‘Clean Elections’ does not put an end to dirty politics. As detailed in recent news reports, candidates using tax dollars to fund their campaigns were cited for various campaign abuses in the Massachusetts primary election.

Taxpayer funding of political campaigns forces us to financially support the campaigns of candidates we oppose. As Thomas Jefferson wrote in 1779, ‘…to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical.’ To me, taxpayer funding of political campaigns violates my right to support the candidates I choose to support. And, it squanders limited taxpayer dollars to support the political ambitious of the few at the expense of millions of Massachusetts residents.

I urge you to study the issue for yourself. Once you do, I think you’ll agree with me that Questions 3 deserves a no vote on Nov. 5.