E-Mail This Article to a Friend Testing the DiMasi myth (continued)

File under "Poetic Justice": in the upcoming legislative cycle, DiMasi will have a chance to showcase his new broad-minded approach by revisiting the Clean Elections issue. For the past year or so, a group of legislators and activists have been working to craft new legislation on public electoral financing. According to Alex Russell of Mass Voters for Fair Elections ("fair elections" has replaced "clean elections" as the public-financing catch phrase of choice), they’ll be filing a bill in February that would — yet again — offer public funding to candidates willing to accept a predetermined spending limit.

Given DiMasi’s history as a dedicated opponent of public funding, it might seem quixotic to ask the House to revisit the issue under his leadership. Then again, if DiMasi is looking for a way to convince doubters that he’s really changed, the timing could be ideal. For now, at least, Russell is striking an upbeat note. "We’re definitely more optimistic now that Finneran, who was the lead opponent, has retired from his seat," she says. "And we’re hopeful that by doing things differently — by working closely with legislators and citizens, and crafting legislation that will meet the needs of both — we’ll be able to make this reform work."

Which means? Under the 1998 law, candidates who had received at least 200 donations of between $5 and $100 each were automatically entitled to $30,000 (if they were running for state rep) or $90,000 (if they were running for the Senate). In contrast, the soon-to-be-filed legislation will propose a 2-to-1 matching-funds arrangement, with candidates receiving $2 in state money for every $1 they raise. Furthermore, under the old legislation, a candidate who had received 200 five-dollar donations would be eligible for public funding; the new legislation will require a higher average donation — probably $20 or $25, according to Russell. Both changes are aimed at countering one of the main objections of Clean Elections opponents: namely, that lax criteria would waste taxpayer money on frivolous candidates.

The 2005-2006 session features another bill aimed at neutralizing the influence of money in state politics. Representative Doug Petersen (D-Marblehead) has filed legislation that would impose an absolute cap on spending in state races — $54,000 for representatives, $132,000 for senators, $750,000 for state secretary and state auditor, $1.5 million for attorney general and treasurer, and $6 million for governor. Given the thorny constitutional issues inherent in capping campaign expenditures — courts tend to regard campaign spending as a form of speech, and thus have been reluctant to regulate it — this, too, might seem like a non-starter. Petersen, however, points to a recent ruling by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals that determined it could be constitutional to limit spending to combat real or perceived corruption or to preserve officeholders’ and candidates’ time.

Furthermore, the Democrats’ desire to unseat Republican governor Mitt Romney in 2006 could be a boon to would-be reformers. In the most recent gubernatorial campaign, Romney spent a record $9.3 million, compared with $6.3 million for Shannon O’Brien. (Romney jumped in the race in March 2002, just eight months before the election, and used millions of dollars of his own to outspend O'Brien. That’s what being a multimillionaire will do for you.) Whichever Democrat challenges Romney is almost sure to be again outspent. Since the ability to fundraise comes with incumbency, sitting legislators may be loath to embrace hard caps. But lingering antipathy toward Romney (see "Human, All Too Human," News and Features, December 24, 2004) — and a heartfelt desire to drive him from office — could at least make them ponder the option.

With Romney’s recent appointment of Brian Golden as a commissioner at the Department of Telecommunications and Energy, the legislature lost one of its few Democrats more conservative than Tom Finneran: Golden, a staunch pro-lifer, was a highly visible (some would say opportunistic) supporter of George W. Bush in the past two presidential elections. And Boston, which already has a runoff slated for Finneran’s 12th Suffolk seat, will now get another special election.

Unlike the race to succeed Finneran (see "The New Bostonians," News and Features, December 10, 2004), the contest for Golden’s 18th Suffolk seat, which includes Allston, Brighton, and parts of Brookline, has yet to take shape. But several potential successors are already being mentioned. Michael Moran — who ran for the 18th Suffolk seat in 1994 and finished second, to current state senator Steve Tolman — is one possibility; like Golden, this former aide to at-large city councilor Steve Murphy tends toward the conservative end of the political spectrum. Joe Walsh Jr., a former intern to State Representative Kevin Honan who works in community relations at St. Elizabeth’s Medical Center, is another. Kristen Franks — chief of staff to District Nine councilor Jerry McDermott, and a former ward coordinator for city-council president Michael Flaherty in Allston-Brighton — is also weighing a run, as is former Golden aide Greg Glennon. Mark Ciommo, who nearly beat McDermott in a special council election two years ago, would be an early favorite if he runs, but word is he’s decided to take a pass on the race.

Adam Reilly can be reached at areilly[a]phx.com