tate legislators chafing under the prospect of a new system for financing their reelection campaigns in 2002 have contorted themselves into positions that are shockingly antidemocratic.
Voters in 1998 approved the Clean Elections law, which will significantly increase public financing in statewide elections, and introduce taxpayer financing to legislative raises, if it is implemented.
When the House passed a poisonous amendment in its early-morning budget debate, however, Speaker Thomas Finneran said the fate of the new system ''will be driven by the membership.'' Senate President Thomas Birmingham, who attempted last year to construct an unworkable system under which Clean Elections would only apply for six months out of every two years, hinted he may try something similar this year.
These comments ignore the fact that the Clean Elections Law was created by popular vote. Such laws can be amended by the Legislature, but are usually given special deference - witness Proposition 21/2. This attitude should be even stronger when the issue is the very framework of government.
''The will of the people,'' Thomas Jefferson wrote, ''is the only legitimate foundation of any government.'' The will in this case could not be plainer. The initiative, clearly labeled as a public financing system, passed with 66 percent support. Indeed, it passed in Finneran's district by 70 percent and Birmingham's by 71 percent, more than 2-to-1.
One of the most outspoken opponents of Clean Elections, Representative Dan Bosley, a North Adams Democrat, can substitute his judgment for that of 74 percent of his constituents, and on many issues that would be proper. But in this case, all incumbents have a conflict of interest at the core: They were elected under the existing system, and most don't want more competition.
''This is a law that doesn't impact anybody but us,'' Bosley says, exposing the central fallacy of Clean Elections opponents who believe that incumbents matter but voters don't. American democracy rests on the power of the people to organize government as they see fit. The self-interest of those elected under a particular system is mere chaff.
