DATE: June 11, 2001

ROSENBERG, LEES HEAD BI-PARTISAN EFFORT
TO SAVE "CLEAN ELECTIONS"

SENATE PROPOSAL ADDRESSES
CONSTITUENT SERVICES, QUALIFYING CONTRIBUTIONS

Assistant Senate Majority Leader Stan Rosenberg (D-Amherst) and Senate Minority Leader Brian Lees (R- East Longmeadow) have teamed up to lead their parties to solve some of the key issues that have thwarted implementation of the Clean Elections Law.

The Lees-Rosenberg Amendment is co-sponsored by 14 Democratic and the six Republican Senators and has received the support of the Clean Elections Board. The amendment will be debated during the Senate's fiscal 2002 budget deliberations, expected to begin June 12th.

"If one of the goals of the public financing effort is to have incumbents participate, then these modifications need to be made," Rosenberg said. "This is especially true for western Massachusetts legislators because of the access and services our district offices provide. I am proud of our bi-partisan effort to make this law more workable."

Lees-Rosenberg Amendment Summary

• Allows legislators to spend a limited amount of money they raise in $100 or less for constituent services.

The limits are $5,000 for State Representatives and $15,000 for State Senators. This money can be spent up until the day nomination signatures are due (mid-May of the election year), and it cannot expressly advocate the election or defeat of any candidate or ballot question. In addition, rent and utility payments made until the nomination signature deadline are exempted, as long as the rent does not exceed the fair market rate for similar rentals.

Qualifying for Public Funds

• Sets a second threshold for qualifying for public funds.

Candidates are required under the Clean Elections Law to raise a specific number of qualifying contributions of at least $5 and no more than $100 from voters in their district, or statewide for constitutional officers. The Lees-Rosenberg Amendment adds a second test of viability of raising a “minimum qualifying amount” of contributions. (See table)

Other Issues

• Study the issue of flexible spending limits between primary and general elections.
• Shift – but not shorten – the election cycle so that it begins January 1^st of the non-election year and ends December 31^st of the election year in order to match existing reporting dates.
• Establish a role for local elections officials in certifying qualifying contributions.
• Count spending done during primary but for the purpose of influencing voters in the general election to be counted against the spending limit in the general election, i.e., pre-paying for television time.