ackers of a voter-approved Clean Elections law are still scratching their heads over a state budget provision delaying the law, and are considering asking Governor Paul Cellucci to veto it.
The $21.5 billion budget the Legislature passed this week did not include a House proposal sidetracking the 1998 law indefinitely. The law provides public financing for state candidates who agree to limits on spending and fund-raising.
But in a last-minute surprise, budget negotiators added a rider pushing back the deadline for legislative and statewide candidates to join the new system, from Dec. 8 to March 31.
Beacon Hill leaders said the move was necessary to allow minor technical changes to the law; otherwise, candidates would have had to take part in the new system before knowing what its final form would be.
Supporters of the measure say that is a reasonable argument, if it is genuine. But they warn that the Legislature has repeatedly tried to kill the Clean Elections law and that the delay may be a way to buy time for another such attempt.
''We're concerned that it is a window of opportunity, put off after Election Day, for changes that might not adhere to the will of the voters,'' said David Donnelly of Massachusetts Voters for Clean Elections.
Some backers of the law were also upset that lawmakers cited the Clean Elections system's spending limits as justification to double their legislative travel allowances and expense accounts. If the provision stands, some lawmakers could earn an extra $10,000 or more per year for their daily commute to the State House and for office expenses.
Ken White of Common Cause Massachusetts said the travel allowances, which date to 1974, were due for adjustment, noting that those funds have nothing to do with the Clean Elections law.
But White said the extra $3,600 per year for office expenses and constituent services would make sense only if given to lawmakers bound by the new system's spending limits. State senators and representatives currently pay many of their constituent service expenses, such as maintaining district offices, out of their campaign funds.
The problem, White said, is that ''everybody gets it whether they opt into Clean Elections or not.''
Also yesterday, dozens of activists rallied outside the State House demanding that House Speaker Thomas M. Finneran allow votes on several bills that have cleared the Senate but are stalled in the House.
They include measures creating an abortion clinic ''buffer zone''; requiring health insurers to cover female contraceptives; barring gender as a factor in calculation of insurance rates; and extending domestic partnership benefits.
Any bills still in the legislative pipeline require action before lawmakers are set to adjourn for the year July 31.
The protesters emphasized a ''buffer-zone'' bill that would bar antiabortion demonstrators from coming within 25 feet of abortion clinic entrances and exits. Eighty-two House members - a majority - have signed a letter asking Finneran to call a vote on the measure. But the speaker, citing free speech and other Constitutional concerns, has refused.
Some lawmakers have said Finneran is unwilling to call the vote because, unlike most of his colleagues, he is strongly against abortion.
