he signature photo in every newspaper during campaign season is the one with the candidate wading deep into a crowd to shake as many hands as he or she can reach. It is almost always a heartwarming picture that seems to summarize what campaigning for elective office is all about.
The reality of campaigning, however, would be much better stated if the photo depicted the bleary-eyed candidate sitting at a desk - any desk - telephone in hand, punching an endless list of numbers in search of campaign contributions. It isn't as quaint a picture as the candidate on the stump, but the truth of campaigning in America - whether on the state or the national level - is that the candidate's time and energy are not so much focused on issues and voters as the dollars needed to run a credible campaign.
Most political leaders believe that voters are only half-focused on the issue of how money drives campaigns and candidates, but our own experience in Massachusetts suggests otherwise. Indeed, on the very day - Nov. 3, 1998 - that former attorney general Scott Harshbarger and I lost as the Democratic candidates for governor and lieutenant governor in one of the tightest gubernatorial races in the country, voters in Massachusetts were abundantly clear on the need for clean elections: Two-thirds of them supported the Clean Elections campaign.
The voter message was loud and clear: Reform the campaign finance system in Massachusetts; level the playing field between incumbents and challengers; limit the influence of special interests on the political process; and provide public financing support for candidates willing to work within the new system.
While the Legislature has been funding the system in preparation for its implementation, recent legislative action suggests that there is now an imminent threat to gut or delay the Clean Elections initiative.
The question was passed in November 1998, but will not take effect until the 2002 elections. If legislators are serious about adopting some explanatory, clarifying, or technical reforms, there is plenty of time to act. However, as happened last year when the Democratic legislative leadership passed a measure to gut the reform, voters will stand up and have their voices heard on this matter if their unambiguous opinion on this issue is ignored.
What galvanized Senator John McCain's campaign for president was the campaign finance reform issue (Ironically, it wasn't enough to overcome the tens of millions of dollars that the Bush clan leveraged). McCain's campaign took on the power of the populist because he stood on the same side as regular people who are well beyond disgusted with the influence of big money in political campaigns. Evidence that McCain was right on the issue of campaign finance reform was the simple fact that Democrats and Independents reregistered as Republicans to vote for the Arizona Republican.
Governor Paul Cellucci vetoed the Legislature's last attempt to gut the law, but the Legislature is still theatening to undermine the electorate. Senate President Thomas Birmingham and Speaker Thomas Finneran have an opportunity now to support not only clean elections in Massachusetts, but to champion the issue.
A clean elections candidate, after raising a qualifying amount of money in small increments up to $100 from Massachusetts residents, can focus on issues instead of money.
As a former legislator and statewide candidate, I know only too well what it means to be squirrelled away in a room with fund-raising lists and a phone. The current system not only rewards candidates for talking to people who have money, but in fact discourages candidates from talking to people who don't have money. That is clearly not the ''representative democracy'' our founders had in mind.
Candidates who champion education as their key issue should spend their time in classrooms and with parents and teachers, not dialing for dollars. A candidate who is really committed to a health care system where everyone has access to high quality affordable care may not hear all sides of the issue if they are only talking to hospital and HMO executives at high-dollar fund-raisers.
The reality in most states, and certainly in Massachusetts, is that any serious statewide candidate is faced with raising anywhere from $750,000 to $8 million in $500 increments. It is no surpise that much of a candidate's time is spent in places other than in our classrooms, hospitals, housing developments, or economic incubators.
The reason why the clean elections movement is a threat to the political establishment is precisely its appeal: It levels the playing field and opens the door of electoral politics to real working men and women, more minorities, and more women - the core voter constituency of the Democratic Party. The Democratic leadership should embrace Clean Elections and not scuttle a voter mandated reform.
No system is perfect, but our system will be far closer to perfect if our Democratic legislative leaders focus on abiding by the will of the electorate instead of on how to thwart it.
Voters may not remember every candidate's position on every issue, but they will remember where candidates stood on what is quickly becoming a litmus test for truly representative politics.
Warren Tolman is a former state senator and Democratic nominee for lieutenant governor.
