The Boston Globe
Sunday, October 20, 2002
Finneran raises funds to target election law
By Frank Phillips
Globe Staff
House Speaker Thomas M. Finneran is raising huge donations
from corporations and other special interests to defeat a November referendum that asks voters whether they support
public funding of political campaigns.
Finneran and other Beacon Hill power brokers hope to win a
"No" vote on the question and use it as justification to kill the Clean Elections Law, which was designed to curb the
influence of special-interest money in state government.
In filings submitted late last week at the Office of
Campaign and Political Finance, a Finneran-led group reported raising $215,600 in the first two weeks of October, almost all
of it from a handful of Massachusetts blue-chip companies that are either regulated by or
have matters or business before state government.
"It is pretty outrageous," said Pam Wilmot, executive
director of Common Cause/Massachusetts. "Finneran is determined to buy a 'no' vote with the very same
special-interest money that the Clean Elections Law will eliminate from the corrupt
system."
A spokesman for Finneran said Friday the speaker was not
available for comment.
The major contributors to the campaign against the referendum include: John Hancock
Financial Services, $50,000; State Street Bank, $50,000; the Gillette Co., $25,000; Fidelity
Investments, $25,000; the Flatley Co., $25,000; Perini Corp., $10,000; and Tomra Mass.,
LLP, of Worcester, $5,000.
The chairman of the campaign committee, called the Coalition
against Taxpayer Funded Political Campaigns, is Thomas R. Kiley, a politically connected Boston lawyer. But the
driving force has been Finneran, the Legislature's leading opponent of
the Clean Elections system, which provides public funds to candidates who abide by strict spending and
contribution limits.
High-level officials at two of the companies that contributed to the effort confirmed that
Finneran personally made telephone calls to its corporate executives seeking the
funds. The large size of the donations from the companies reinforces reports circulating around the city
that Finneran is personally appealing for funds.
"All roads point to the speaker's office raising this
money," said Warren Tolman, a Clean Elections supporter who ran unsuccessfully for governor under the public financing system.
A majority of lawmakers oppose public financing of elections, which many fear will simply
attract more challengers to run against them.
Finneran is expected to use the money to wage a media
campaign urging a vote against Question 3, a nonbinding referendum that asks voters whether "taxpayers' money" should
be used to fund political campaigns. Advocates of the Clean Elections Law say the House
leadership, which put the question on the Nov. 5 state ballot, tailored the wording to
provoke a vote against it.
Indeed, a Globe/WBZ poll conducted last month showed 58
percent opposed the measure, while 31 percent supported it. But political sources said Finneran recently commissioned his
own poll that showed the question could be in jeopardy if the coalition did not use television
ads against it.
One possible avenue of attack for the media campaign would
target Tolman for spending public funds to air negative television ads against his opponents. Polls show voters
disapprove of the use of public funds for negative ads.
The focus on Tolman could also have a personal dimension:
Tolman attacked Finneran in his ads, tying him to the special interests and the money they donate to political leaders as
they pursue their agenda at the State House. One ad showed Finneran presiding at House
sessions as stacks of cash pile up around him and a voice decries the special-interest money
that influences legislation.
The companies donating to the campaign are frequently
involved in seeking actions and assistance from lawmakers. Hancock, after heavy lobbying in the Legislature, received a
major tax break in 1998, reducing its tax rate to the same rate out-of-state life insurance
companies pay. It is also regulated by the state's Insurance Division. The Legislature gave
Fidelity an estimated $46 million tax break in 1996, in exchange for the mutual fund giant's
promise to add jobs in Massachusetts. Now, the investment company faces calls from
advocates on Beacon Hill for a repeal of the tax favor because it is laying off workers.
Gillette is consistently active at the State House on issues
affecting manufacturing companies. Perini Corp. is a construction giant that receives contracts for major public
road and building projects. Tomra Mass. is a recycling company, involved in a heavily state-regulated industry.
"It's a who's who of corporate interests on Beacon Hill and
I am sure it is only the tip of the iceberg," said Tolman, when informed of the contributions. The former state senator from
Watertown received nearly $4 million in public funds under Clean Elections for his campaign.
He finished last in the four-way Democratic primary last month.
Earlier in the week, Stephen Allen, a spokesman for the "No
on 3 Campaign," refused to say whether Finneran or other elected leaders are helping the campaign's fund-raising
efforts. He also declined to say whether the committee is planning any advertising to defeat the ballot
question.
"We will not be giving our campaign playbook out to our
opponents," Allen said. "We will accept any legal and ethical contribution that complies with the letter and spirit of the
law."
Unlike donations to candidates, there is no limit under
state law on the amount firms can give to ballot question efforts. Donations received after Oct. 15 will not be reported
until after the election.
Wilmot said that she is surprised that such prominent
Massachusetts companies would get involved in a campaign to undo a reform measure passed by voters.
"With all the corporate scandals of the last year, I would
think they would want to avoid this kind of negative publicity of trying to buy their way out of a promising political
reform," she said. "It obviously means a lot to them financially and otherwise to retain their favored
position."
Several corporations contacted by the Globe offered a range
of reasons for their donations to the anti-Clean Elections effort.
Gillette spokesman Eric Kraus said his company feels the
state needs the money for other priorities, such as education, public safety, and infrastructure work. Fidelity spokesman
Vincent Loporchio said his firm does not believe the state should create a bureaucracy to
administer the law when it already has campaign-finance regulations on the books.
In a statement released to the Globe, the Hancock company
said: "We were very disappointed to see the Clean Elections money used to underwrite negative campaigning. For
that reason, we have decided to encourage people to vote no on the issue."
Tolman scoffed at the charge that he poisoned the waters by
airing negative ads. "The notion that two standards would be applied to candidates' political speech is absurd on its face,
and John Hancock should stay in the insurance business and out of politics if that is their view of
the First Amendment," he said.
Rick Klein of the Globe Staff contributed to this report.
To fight
Finneran's Fat Cats and make a contribution to
"Save Clean Elections" (YES on
Question 3)
CLICK HERE
Return to top
The Boston Globe
Sunday, October 20, 2002
Political Intelligence
Finneran's unusual choice on Question 3
By Frank Phillips
And then there's House Speaker Thomas M. Finneran's
intriguing choice of an author to draft the argument for the "No" side on ballot Question 3, which asks voters whether
taxpayers' money should be used to fund political campaigns. Finneran, a staunch foe of
public funding, chose retired district court judge Francis J. Larkin to draw up the language.
Larkin's last 15 minutes of fame came in 1974 when he illegally tried to slip a $1,000 cash
donation to then-Governor Francis Sargent for his reelection campaign. Larkin was censured
and fined $15,000. Apparently Finneran saw no irony in using Larkin as an expert on
campaign finance issues - or then again, perhaps he did.
Return to top
