In Massachusetts, Democrats tried to de-fund a clean money (public financing) bill that was supported by more than 60% of the voters. The Massachusetts Supreme Court told them they could not do this. They will have to either fund the bill or vote to repeal it. I doubt the legislature will want to over-ride public sentiment and repeal the legislation.

In Vermont, Governor Howard Dean is attempting to de-fund Vermont’s clean money bill by siphoning off money set aside for public financing to other parts of his budget. Governor Dean has always claimed to support public financing. But in this coming election year, public financing might hurt the Democratic Party. So he’s trying to gut it.

To be sure, Vermont Democrats do have a dilemma or, perhaps, had a dilemma. Republican Cornelius Hogan’s surprise decision on Wednesday to run for Governor as an Independent may have totally recast Vermont’s race for Governor.

The Democratic problem begins with Progressive Anthony Pollina who may make another run for Governor. Running in the last election with public financing, Pollina got almost 10% of the vote and almost sent the governor’s race into the legislature. Many of Pollina’s supporters, fearing the election of right-wing Republican Ruth Dwyer and admiring Governor Dean’s courageous stand on civil unions, abandoned Anthony. In the coming election, fear is not a factor. The Republican candidate James Douglas is a Jim Jeffords-like moderate. So is Con Hogan. Vermonters can vote their consciences without the dread of unintended consequences.

With three or four candidates, the contest will likely be decided by the Vermont legislature. There, anything can happen regardless of voter sentiment. This makes passage of Instant Runoff Voting mandatory. IRV takes the final decision out of the hands of the partisan legislature and puts it back where it belongs, with the ballots of the voters. To see how it works, visit: www.fairvotevermont.org.

There still remains the question of public financing. Democrat gubernatorial candidate Doug Racine and his running mate Peter Shumlin have supported public financing in the past. Racine used it in his successful race for Lieutenant Governor. Shumlin, who is running to succeed Racine in that position, played a key role in shepherding the clean money bill through the Vermont Senate. Shumlin, answering questions on Vermont Public Radio, indicated a keen understanding of why the bill is flawed. As the bill was conceived (and as it works in Maine, where it has the support of both Republican and Democratic legislators), clean money candidates receive extra funds to match the spending of candidates raising private money. The idea of “matching funds” was dropped from the Vermont bill because legislators feared its cost. But the beauty of the concept is that it discourages candidates from raising excessive amounts of private money. Since clean money candidates get public funds to match the spending of the privately-funded candidates, the privately-funded candidates are, in effect, raising money for their clean money opponents without gaining any funding advantage. Vermont needs to do what Maine has done and add “matching funds” to the existing clean money legislation.

Without matching funds, Democrats have a problem. Should Racine (and Shumlin, if Pollina decides to run against him for Lieutenant Governor) reject public financing and take privately-funded money, they will cede Pollina the support of those Democrats who support the reform of our campaign finance system. And with Enron and other scandals dominating the headlines, campaign reform may become the decisive issue of the November election. It won’t help the Democrats to be against it.

On the other hand, if Racine agrees to forsake private funding in favor of clean money, he will be at a financial disadvantage against Republican Douglas who has indicated his intent to reject the public funding. But with guts and imagination, the Democrats can transform their political dilemma into an historic opportunity.

Here’s my unsolicited advice to Racine and Shumlin. Take the clean money and run. Promise to strengthen rather than gut the clean money law. Challenge both James Douglas and Con Hogan to disavow private fund-raising and join them as clean money candidates. (Hogan may do this. He’s said that as a new candidate who has never had to raise money, he’s beholden to no one. By accepting clean money, he can remain that way). Resurrect Barry Goldwater’s idea of the candidates campaigning together, attending meet-the-candidate forums in towns throughout the state. Invite Senator Russ Feingold to campaign in Vermont. The Wisconsin Democrat, co-author of the McCain-Feingold reform, refuses to take special interest money but still wins elections even though his Republican opponents out-spend him. Feingold also supports public financing and is co-sponsor of a clean money bill now before Congress. Create a vision of the nation’s first fair gubernatorial election. Four honorable men running on a financially level-playing field, turning their backs on special interest money, putting their trust solely in the voters.

If Douglas and/or Hogan reject that vision, the Democrats can document where their financial support is coming from and effectively bash them as special interest candidates dependent on out-of-state money. Will it work? You don’t make progress without taking risks. The political climate is ripe for clean money campaigning. By November the American people are going to be outraged by the evidence of corporate corruption and the influence that special interest money has on American politics. The train of history is leaving the station. Toot toot! Will Racine, Douglas, Shumlin and Hogan be on board for democratic progress?

Marty Jezer writes from Brattleboro, Vermont and welcomes comments at mjez@sover.net

Copyright © 2001 by Marty Jezer

###