Massachusetts House Speaker Finneran doesn't believe taxpayer money should be used to fund campaigns. He's right.

Proponents of public financing of campaigns talk about getting special interest money out of politics and making legislators more responsive to their constituents. They say legislators shouldn't have to spend so much time seeking contributions. They say public financing will level the playing field and make it easier for newcomers to challenge an incumbent.

Unfortunately noble intentions, in writing legislation, are not enough. When government has the power to make decisions that can cost an industry millions of dollars, or provide millions of dollars in benefits to another industry, those affected will find ways to buy influence. They can host events or bestow public honors for those with whom they wish to curry favor, or contribute to a legislator's favorite causes, or give lucrative "consulting" contracts to the legislators friends.

Legislators with power don't have to spend time chasing after contributors; the contributors find them. And campaign spending limits are no better; they merely further increase the advantage of incumbency. Challengers have to spend a lot of money just to get their name out, before they get to start talking about their positions. Reduce spending limits, and you reduce the ability to mount an effective challenge.

But all these arguments were presented when the Clean Elections Act was put before the voters. They nevertheless passed it overwhelmingly, by better than two to one. If the voters passed a bad law, that doesn't diminish their right to have it in force. (Do you think our legislature never passes a bad law?)

The arrogance of our legislators is almost unbelievable. They have already delayed the starting date of the law. They have suggested changing the law so that it applies only to the statewide races and not to the legislative races. (When was the last time you saw a statewide race go uncontested? The legislative races are the very ones in which campaign reform is most needed.) They have increased their per diem and their office expenses, arguing that constituent services should not have to come from their campaign account.

Constituent service is worth a discussion on its own. There is no constitutional description or requirement of constituent service, except that a legislator must file a bill submitted by constituent request. But unless a legislator can be found to actually sponsor such a bill, it is marked as "submitted by request." That means, by unspoken agreement, that it is quickly sent off to a committee to die.

But legislators don't want their office expenses, or their costs of attending hearings, or their responding to constituent inquiries, to count against the campaign limits. They want the taxpayers to pay for these out of separate budgets, so that all their campaign funds can be used for political mailings or advertisements. Yet a challenger needs an office, and to attend hearings, and to respond to requests, and doesn't get to ask the taxpayers for a separate expense account. Don't be fooled, constituent service is campaigning, and is designed to make you feel grateful to the officeholder.

The state government is very complicated, they might say. How can an outsider know which agency or department can help with their problem? Don't we need our legislators' help? Well, who is responsible for the complexity of government? Instead of organizing it simply, our legislators have constructed a jungle, and want us to hire them out as guides! We should instead be electing legislators who will go in there with machetes, and cut down the overgrowth.

Call your legislator. Insist that they support the Clean Elections Law. If it is a mistake, it is our mistake and up to us to change it. Let's give it a try. The legislature can put a referendum on the ballot after a cycle or two, and try to persuade us to repeal it. But for now, remind them that it's our government, they are only our employees, and we'll fire them if they don't run it the way we want.