How many schools did you look at before you chose BU? What if there were no other schools to look at, no choices? What if there was one college that you were forced to attend, whether you liked it or not?
Unfortunately, this is not unlike the situation in many of our state’s political campaigns. The choices we as voters have are very limited and the situation is not improving. Yet, a yes on Question 3 this November, a vote to uphold the Clean Elections law that Massachusetts citizens voted for by a two to one margin in 1998, will help change all this.
Lawmakers in Massachusetts enjoy job security at levels nearly unmatched across the country. In the 2000 general elections, Massachusetts voters were left with no choice in 72 percent of all elections. In this state, once a legislator is in office, there is a good chance he or she will remain there, regardless of performance. The chances of beating an incumbent legislator in this state are slim to none. Over the last decade, the number of contested elections in this country has steadily declined and is expected to continue in this trend. Massachusetts is no exception. In fact, its statistics for voter competition are among the worst in the country.
What are the reasons that there is so little in Massachusetts politics? For one, campaigns are expensive. Very expensive. In 2000, the average amount of money spent by a winning Senate seat candidate was more than $120,000. That money has to come from somewhere. In most cases a candidate is independently wealthy or enjoys tens of thousands of dollars in corporate donations (or a combination of both).
Moreover, even if a candidate raises enough money to run a formidable campaign, the majority of time during the election has been spent fundraising, not speaking with constituents or becoming educated on issues. This hurts our state, and our democratic system when candidates spend all their time chasing campaign funds.
All in all, at this point in Massachusetts, without money or significant private corporate backing, running for office can sadly be a futile effort.
There is a way to work toward changing all of this. Voting yes on ballot Question 3 this Nov. 5 will:
-Increase competition for public office and choices for voters
-Free candidates from the fundraising money chase so they can spend more time listening to voters
-Level the playing field between incumbents and challengers
-And reduce the influence of corporate special interests who wield insider power through campaign contributions.
So why do many legislators on Beacon Hill oppose it? Our legislators, it seems, are worried about competition. Incumbents are rarely challenged or ‘unseated.’ Only one incumbent state senator has been defeated in the past six years and only 25 percent of the current legislative incumbents face major-party challengers. On Nov. 5, you will see the fewest choices on the ballot of any time in the last 25 years less than one third of our 200 legislative seats will be contested, making Massachusetts 49th out of 50 states in terms of legislative competition.
Reform-minded leaders from throughout the political spectrum from Senator John McCain to Senator John Kerry, from the League of Women Voters to Citizens for Limited Taxation chief Barbara Anderson support the Clean Elections concept. And there is a reason why: the law works.
Question 3 will force legislators to once again work for us, not their big money campaign contributors or their own personal agendas. Question 3 will help give college students a chance to be involved in the democratic system in more meaningful ways. A yes vote on Question 3 returns the power of democracy to the people, where it belongs.
The law is working in Maine and Arizona. Let’s give it a chance to work here.
Let’s make certain that we do not fall victim to a serious threat to your generation. There is a very real possibility that yours will become the first generation with little or no opportunity to run for public office without substantial corporate or financial backing.
Give your generation a chance to make a difference. Vote yes on Question 3.
This is an account occasionally used by the Daily Free Press editors to post archived posts from previous iterations of the site or otherwise for special circumstance publications. See authorship info on the byline at the top of the page.
