eflecting a growing feeling among Republicans that the Clean Elections Law is critical to rebuilding their decimated party, Governor Paul Cellucci will veto the Democratic-led Legislature's move to delay the statute's implementation, administration sources said yesterday.
Those sources confirmed that Cellucci will strike a provision in the $21.55 billion budget passed by the Legislature that moves the law's start-up date from early December to March 31, 2001. At the same time, the governor will approve the budget's $10 million appropriation to pay for public funding of campaigns in the 2002 election.
Cellucci, who will unveil his budget vetoes tomorrow, will argue that the lawmakers are creating a loophole that would allow them an extra four months to raise and spend money to strengthen their political position, before joining the Clean Elections system in March and collecting public funds.
''The Legislature is chipping away at the Clean Elections Law and, given more time, they will reduce it to a pile of rubble,'' said one administration source. ''That four-month provision is no more than an incumbent protection plan.''
The veto represents a significant shift by Cellucci, who has in the past opposed public financing for campaigns. But his embrace of the law could help him promote a reform image, in contrast to the Democratic Legislature.
It also comes as more Republican leaders and GOP party activists are deciding that the public funding plan is a key to their future. The GOP has struggled to come up with candidates for statewide office and the Legislature, consistently leaving incumbents unchallenged.
''The Republicans are suddenly realizing that this is for us,'' said one party leader. ''We can get people to run for statewide office and tap into hundreds of thousands of dollars of Clean Elections money. I can't believe the Democrats are going to let it stand.''
The Democratic leadership has argued that the delay until March is needed to give lawmakers time to make needed technical changes in the controversial law. That would give incumbents time to make sure the changes are in place - and the law is solid - before joining the system.
The Clean Elections Law, approved by voters in 1998, requires incumbent legislators to agree to join the system one month after this year's Nov. 7 election.
The law was approved after campaign finance reform advocates, frustrated with their inability to move the issue on Beacon Hill, conducted a signature drive and placed the proposed statute on the ballot as an initiative petition.
The law is aimed at curbing the influence of special-interest money in the political system by offering challengers and incumbents - who often depend on special interests for donations - access to public funding for their campaigns if they qualify by raising enough small donations.
Candidates who join the system must agree to spending limits that vary according to the office they are seeking. Funding is increased if they face an opponent who is using private donations and spending more than the Clean Elections limit. It is expected it will cost the state $35 million to fund the system for the 2002 election.
But incumbent officeholders, particularly legislators, have been hostile to the law because they say it will encourage challenges to their reelection by people who could not normally raise the money to mount serious campaigns.
Since the law's approval 18 months ago, the Legislature has tried several times, often quietly and in the dead of night, to push measures that would either gut the law, delay it significantly, or weaken its impact.
The law has also been used by legislators to justify doubling their travel allowances and office expense accounts. Some lawmakers could earn an extra $10,000 a year under the changes. The legislators argue that they need the funds to make up for the loss of privately raised campaign funds, which they say they now use for those sorts of expenses.
Aides said Cellucci will not strike what critics are charging is a back-door pay hike for the lawmakers because he feels they must answer to voters on the issue.
