STAFF EDIT: Vote yes on Question 3

It may seem odd that Clean Elections is on the November ballot again this year, after resounding voter approval in the 1998 elections. But the initiative, Question 3, could end up being the final nail in Clean Elections’ coffin. Massachusetts voters should be persistent in demanding that Clean Elections get a fair chance over the legislature’s quiet but powerful objections. Voters should show their resolve by approving Question 3.

Clean Elections was approved by a two-to-one margin during its first appearance on the ballot in 1998. The measure allowed public money to fund political campaigns, leveling the playing field by allowing lesser known political hopefuls sufficient funding to take on bankrolled, well-known political regulars. After its passage, powerful members of the state legislature, including House Speaker Tom Finneran, blocked funding for the referendum, essentially rendering voters’ voices impotent. Because of the resolution’s poor funding, the idea has yet to be implemented fully. Only one of four Democratic candidates for the party’s nomination, Warren Tolman, used the program and few other state primaries had Clean Elections candidates.

Massachusetts lawmakers’ funding blockage may have seemed an unfair use of their power before, but a defeat of Question 3 will give them ammo to further bury Clean Elections. Though this year’s resolution is non-binding, it will make the 1998 voter referendum defunct by allowing legislators to argue that Clean Elections’ overwhelming original passage was a fluke. If Massachusetts voters really believe in Clean Elections, as they indicated in 1998, they must pass the initiative and defeat the hidden agendas of the lawmakers opposed to the law. If it is defeated, it will only show the state’s perennially re-elected legislators their ability to circumvent voter initiatives.

Voter approval of Question 3 will also help hold the state’s legislators accountable to voter concerns. Massachusetts politics is currently in a state of disarray, with a wide majority of state legislators pursuing reelection without opposition. The state’s political officials are not accountable to voters right now, and a Question 3 defeat will further distance them from those whose interests should be their top priorities. It will show that they need not heed the legitimate power of the state’s voter referenda and set a nasty precedent.

The idea of Clean Elections is a solid one. Though it does force taxpayers to fund candidates they do not necessarily agree with, it helps candidates without the financial backing of business leaders compete with those whose interests are with their financiers. And, though millions of dollars would be sunk into funding Clean Elections every election cycle, it is a worthwhile investment for Massachusetts citizens. They help ensure that legislators’ hearts are in the right places and will lead to effective policy making for a financially troubled state.

Massachusetts voters should vote yes on Question 3 to prove that their voices, as manifested in the state’s voter referenda system, are really valid and forceful. Voter approval of Question 3 would reaffirm the state’s commitment to fair elections and would help give Clean Elections a fighting chance against the Statehouse’s opposed power brokers.