Question 3 was framed by my House colleagues to justify killing the voter-supported campaign finance reform law of 1998.

In 1998, voters endorsed a sweeping measure, the Clean Elections Law. We saw our democracy in trouble. Signs were (and continue to be) everywhere. Campaigns are excessively expensive. Three quarters of the candidates for legislative seats run unopposed. People are increasingly not bothering to vote or even to register to vote because they regard electoral politics on Beacon Hill as fundamentally flawed.

In 1998, voters decided to invest public money through the Clean Elections Law to make a change. Now, four years later, the promise of campaign reform remains largely unrealized. Although voters endorsed Clean Elections by a two-to-one margin, their elected Representatives and Senators have just said "no."

A majority of the legislature has focused on the law's rough edges, repeatedly rejecting attempts to address shortcomings. There is concern that public monies will finance fringe and frivolous candidacies, but we can raise the entry bar, requiring candidates to prove viability before qualifying for public funds. There is concern for so called "independent expenditures" or "soft money," but we now have a federal campaign law - the McCain-Feingold/Shays-Meehan reform - to guide us to a solution in Massachusetts. There is concern that we will use precious tax dollars to fund bumper stickers rather than health care, or yet more negative ads rather than public schools. But we can amend the law to encourage more debating or voter education. However, a majority of my colleagues see the law's flaws as excuses to scuttle it rather than as opportunities to strengthen it. Therein lies the legislature's failure.

The legislature has also failed to release appropriated funds for the Clean Election system. In addition to money set aside in 2000 and 2001, the law created a voluntary $1 check-off on tax returns, allowing each of us to dedicate $1 of our taxes to support campaigns by candidates who agree to campaign spending limits. Even that money - specifically earmarked for this purpose by us taxpayers - has been withheld.

Now my colleagues have intentionally used hot-button tax rhetoric and deception to fool us into doing what they want you to do. As they worded it, Question 3 makes no reference to the virtues of the Clean Elections Law - campaign spending limits, a ban on soft money, and a focus on small contributions from constituents rather than large contributions from special interests. My colleagues just want campaign finance reform to go away, and have worded their question accordingly.

The vast majority of us in the public just want to keep trying to make democracy work. If we vote "no" on Question 3, reform is dead. My colleagues will repeal the Clean Elections Law and business-as-usual will have been restored. Voting "yes" keeps the issue alive, and sends a strong message to Beacon Hill to make reform work!

A "yes" vote does not guarantee that the law's flaws will be addressed. It does not guarantee that the law will be funded and implemented. It will not even stop some of my colleagues from attempting to repeal the law at all costs. But at least we will deny them the easy out of just killing the law with our blessing.

My colleagues, most of whom are running unopposed this year, simply want you to leave them alone. Democracy demands that we do more!