Voters to Consider Campaign Finance, Three Other Ballot Initiatives

Direct democracy, Athenian style, revives itself in Massachusetts politics every election season.

Voters have the chance to directly affect Commonwealth policy by voting on four ballot initiatives, in the form of amendments to Massachusetts's Constitution.

This November voters can decide whether to:

make it more difficult for state legislators to get pay raises.

.revamp the state's campaign finance system and ban soft-money.

.reduce state income taxes.

.stop a complex restructuring of the state power industries.

A Say in Pay?

Amendment one is perhaps the most simple.

A "Yes" vote would tie pay raises for state legislators to the commonwealth's median household incomes, and take away their ability to vote themselves pay raises. Proponents say this helps insure the integrity of elected officials.

"The salaries of legislators--just like the salaries of everyone else--will be tied to the economy," reads a position paper submitted to the state by the amendment's sponsors.

A "No" would leave the system in its current form. Legislators would still be able to raise their pay when they so desire.

Opponents say the Massachusetts Constitution is no place for salary mandates of legislators. They call the amendment unnecessary.

Wanna Buy a Candidate?

The second constitutional change is perhaps the most politically charged of the four.

If voters approve the amendment, the state would have the power to limit the amount of "soft money" that can be transferred to statewide campaigns.

Soft money, in the words of the amendment, includes "money...for administrative, overhead or party-building activities."

The law would limit the amount of money candidates could receive from individuals or groups to $100.

Candidates who limit their fund-raising to these personal contributions would, in some cases, be eligible for state funds for their campaigns.

Opponents of the amendment say it would restrict the free expression of ideas by setting limits on taxpayers who want to contribute to the candidate of their choice.

They also disdain the use of state money for election financing.

Tax Break for the Rich?

A "Yes" vote on Question 3 will reduce the so-called 12 percent tax, a levy on personal income from dividend and interest gains. The new rate would be tied to the state's income tax, currently 5.95 percent of wages and salaries.

Proponents of the measure say the current law "penalizes people who save."

They note that no other state in the country taxes dividends at a higher rate than they do personal incomes. The measure is supported by most of the state's largest newspapers, including the often-at-odds Boston Herald and Boston Globe.

Opponents of the measure say that few Massachusetts voters will be affected by the tax rate change, claiming "nearly three quarters of Massachusetts taxpayers have no dividend income and would get nothing from the tax cut."

Further, they state that the measure penalizes saving, an important mechanism for future economic growth.

They say the measure benefits the rich and will actually cause Massachusetts taxpayers to lose money.

Power Play

The final ballot initiative has received the most publicity. A "Yes" vote on Question 4 would continue a 1997 law aimed at restructuring the state's electric utility industry. A "No" vote would repeal the law.

Proponents of the "Yes" vote, which includes a coalition consumer and power industry advocates, are pouring thousands of dollars into television advertising.

In March of this year, Commonwealth residents received the ability to chose which power company supplies their electricity. Prior to the March change, electric line owners had supplied electricity to customer.

The 1997 law ostensibly cut electric rates as much as 10 percent.

The law also enacted a slew of regulations aimed at restructuring the way power companies do business with each other.

Low-income residents also received added protection against unnecessary rate raises.

Proponents say they support the law because it "gives consumers a guaranteed 15 percent rate cut...breaks up the utility monopoly...and encourages new, cleaner energy sources."

Opponents say the bill bails out failing electric companies and doesn't provide them with incentives to be responsive to their customers.

They note that consumer advocate Ralph Nader called it "One of the biggest consumer ripoffs in Massachusetts history."

And they claim it "discourag[es] development of clean, safe, alternative energy."