The Springfield Union-News
Friday, June 14, 2002
Clean Elections back to voters
By Dan Ring
BOSTON - Voters may get another opportunity to decide if they
want to spend tax dollars on campaigns.
The Senate yesterday voted 34-3 to provide $9.6 million for
Clean Elections candidates this year. They also agreed to put a nonbinding question on the Nov. 5 statewide ballot that asks
voters if they support using tax money for political campaigns for public office.
The vote took place as the Senate completed debate on the
$23.3 billion state budget for the fiscal year starting July 1.
While advocates of Clean Elections are unhappy with the
prospect of a second ballot question, Sen. Stanley C. Rosenberg, D-Amherst, said the $9.6 million is enough to pay
for the campaigns of 11 candidates certified by the state to receive public financing this year.
Rosenberg took the lead yesterday in developing the measure on Clean Elections.
"The point today was to get the money to the candidates,"
Rosenberg said after the vote. "They worked for it. They qualified. They are owed it."
Pamela H. Wilmot, acting executive director of Common Cause
in Massachusetts, said the language in the ballot question is tilted against supporters of public financing of campaigns.
The question is a "fig leaf" for state lawmakers who oppose the law, she said. "It really is
designed to be political cover so they can come back in January and repeal the law," she
said.
Clean Elections was approved by voters by a margin of about
2-1 in 1998 when the state's economy was booming. The question in 1998 stated several times that "public funds" would
be used, but the proposed Senate advisory question states that "taxpayer
money" would be tapped for campaigns.
The proposed Nov. 5 question would also come during an
economic downturn amid a fiscal crisis in state government. Some lawmakers said voters are likely to oppose using tax money
for campaigns when many state services are being cut or eliminated.
"When the voters speak a second time on this, a very clear
message will be delivered," Rosenberg said. "They will say fix it, fund it or they will say forget it."
The state budget now goes to a House-Senate conference
committee. The House approved its version of the budget last month.
The six-member conference committee will negotiate a
compromise budget and send the spending plan to the full House and Senate for "yes or no" votes in each branch.
The budget will then be sent to the desk of acting Gov. Jane
M. Swift. She is expected to sign the budget, but she is also expected to veto or reduce funding for many items. A
two-thirds vote is needed in each legislative chamber to override any vetoes.
In its version of the budget, the House voted to spend $23
million previously set aside for Clean Elections on contracts for employees, including professors and other workers at the
University of Massachusetts in Amherst.
After providing $9.6 million for this year's campaigns, the
Senate voted to place the rest of the $23 million in the state's "rainy day" account.
The Clean Elections law provides tax dollars to candidates
who collect a certain number of qualifying contributions and agree to spending and fund-raising limits. The law is designed
to attract more candidates and to weaken the clout of special interests on Beacon Hill.
The Senate voted 33-4 to approve the budget. The budget
includes $1.2 billion in new taxes including eliminating a deduction for donations to charities, freezing a cut in the
state's 5.3 percent tax on earned income, new taxes on capital gains from the sale of stock, lowering the
amount of income that would be exempt from income taxes and increasing the
state's cigarette tax by 75 cents to $1.51 per pack.
Senate Minority Leader Brian P. Lees, R-East Longmeadow, was
the only Western Massachusetts senator to vote against the budget. Lees said that people are going to be
socked by unnecessary tax increases.
Lees said the Senate was wrong to reject other alternatives,
including additional spending cuts, borrowing against proceeds from the state's share of a settlement of a lawsuit against
tobacco companies and legalizing casino gambling.
"This was not a proud moment for the Massachusetts Senate,"
Lees said after the vote.
Supporters said the tax hikes were needed to help close a
minimum $2 billion shortfall in next fiscal year's budget and to avoid more severe budget cuts. The House also approved tax
increases nearly identical to the Senate package.
The budget also includes about $1 billion in spending
reductions including cuts in state and community colleges, the courts and for district attorneys.
The House budget has $3.22 billion in Chapter 70 aid for
local schools, the same as this year. The Senate boosted the aid by $61.5 million. The House-Senate conference committee
will need to reach a compromise on Chapter 70.
Return to top
The Boston Globe
Friday, June 14, 2002
Consequences of late budget
weigh heavily on Birmingham
By Rick Klein
Globe Staff
The close of Senate budget debate yesterday brought all the
customary back-slapping and congratulations, with even Republican leaders praising Senate President Thomas F.
Birmingham for his courtesy and leadership through his last budget debate as the Senate's
leader.
But amid the celebratory atmosphere is a sinking reality for
Birmingham: For the third time in four years, the Legislature is going to be late in completing the state budget.
Birmingham's lagging campaign for governor can ill-afford
the public relations hit associated with another overdue budget. And this year, the deck is even more stacked against
the Chelsea Democrat, because he will be tangling with a House speaker who has little to lose
politically if budget talks drag through the summer.
"It goes to the heart of his competence if, as Senate
president, he can't resolve this thing," said Dan Payne, a Democratic consultant. "He's got a little time before it
becomes a campaign issue. But he is simply looking to get out of it in one piece and not get dragged into
the extended negotiations."
While the Senate yesterday approved the $23.2 billion
spending plan, state leaders acknowledge there's no realistic way the budget will be law by the July 1 start of fiscal year
2003. A House-Senate conference committee won't meet until late next week, and even if
the budget is whisked through that committee in record time, Acting Governor Jane Swift has
10 days to veto portions of the plan, and the Legislature is expected to seek overrides of
some vetoes.
Given the differences in spending priorities in the House
and Senate, late July is the earliest realistic expectation for when the budget could be in the books, said Michael J.
Widmer, president of the nonpartisan, business-backed Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation.
The impact of a late budget is usually minimal because the
Legislature can pass stop-gap monthly appropriations to keep state government operating. But in this election year, scrutiny
is high. Birmingham is trying to chase away memories of 1999 and 2001, when very late
budgets - which were hashed out behind closed doors - proved embarrassing to legislative
leaders and became a symbol of Beacon Hill inefficiency.
In 1999, Birmingham was photographed on a State House
balcony smoking a cigarette, as he wrangled one-on-one with House Speaker Thomas M. Finneran to decide the spending
plan as the delay dragged on. Last year's five-month delay in finishing
the budget detracted from the early stages of Birmingham's campaign for governor and made him appear an
ineffectual State House insider.
In both years, Massachusetts was the last state in the
nation to complete its budget.
Senate leaders are blaming their counterparts in the House
for the fact that a late budget is unavoidable this year. Senate Ways and Means Chairman Mark C. Montigny has pointed
out that the House didn't finish its work on the spending plan until mid-May this year, a full
month later than what was typical just a few years ago.
Few are expecting budget discussions to extend as far into
the fiscal year as they did last year, when Swift didn't sign the budget until Dec. 1. One potential area of conflict has
been effectively neutralized, since the Senate is poised to approve a $1.2 billion tax increase
package that's roughly similar to the one that passed in the House last month.
Birmingham said he is optimistic about bringing budget talks
to a prompt conclusion this year. All sides agree that an on-time budget is a priority, he said.
"On our side, we've tried very hard not to draw lines in the
sand," Birmingham said. "There will be differences, and of course we will advocate for our positions, but with the
recognition that one of the important goals will be to complete the budget in a timely fashion."
But the Senate is seeking to spend $200 million more than
the House, and Finneran, who is more fiscally conservative than Birmingham, could balk at the larger bottom line. The two
also differ on whether to scale back Medicaid benefits and how much money from the state's
settlement with the big tobacco companies should be spent next year. Clean Elections, which
contributed to last year's delay, could be another flashpoint.
Finneran declined to comment on the Senate budget, though
Finneran has said he hopes the spending plan can be finalized in a timely manner this year.
The dynamics of this year's budget discussions are tilted
against Birmingham, since he has far more at stake than Finneran if the budget remains unfinished through the summer.
Finneran is not running for statewide office, meaning he can withstand public outrage over an incomplete
budget better than Birmingham.
At the same time, Birmingham is running for governor as a
candidate who is committed to education and health care, and he won't want to back down too quickly over his priorities.
Those areas in particular could give Birmingham a chance to distinguish himself in this year's
budget. Taking on the controversial speaker on those issues could be beneficial.
Already, Birmingham's opponents for the Democratic gubernatorial nomination are sensing
the power of the budget delays as a campaign issue. They say Birmingham is simply stuck
in Beacon Hill's tired, unworkable ways.
"It doesn't have to be this way, just because it's been this
way for the past many years," former state Senator Warren E. Tolman said. "It's a function of leadership."
Return to top
