This question will be asked of Massachusetts voters in a non-binding referendum this coming November. For the past two years, the issue of using public funds (taxpayer money) to pay for political campaigns has been hotly contested across the Commonwealth.

At issue is a provision contained within the "Clean Elections" law, passed by referendum in 2000, that provides taxpayer money to political candidates to pay for their campaigns. During this election cycle, taxpayers will have paid over $9 million to fund political campaigns, including the $3.88 million spent by unsuccessful gubernatorial candidate Warren Tolman.

Supporters of the "Clean Elections" law claim its purpose is to grant an equal footing to all qualified seekers of elective office. In order to qualify, a candidate must receive a certain number of campaign contributions (under $100) from private citizens.

Once the threshold number of donations is reached, the candidate then qualifies for taxpayer funds to match whatever the other privately funded candidates are spending on their own campaigns. There is no limit to how much a qualified candidate may receive in taxpayer monies.

As your advocates on Beacon Hill, we feel it is our responsibility to expose this law for the con game that it has become. It is a bad law with dangerous implications.

First, the use of the phrase "Clean Elections" is deceptive by design. When voters approved this measure two years ago, they believed that they were voting for a measure that would end negative campaigning and "clean" up the system. Advocates at the time did not emphasize the use of taxpayers' money, which is the cornerstone of this law.

We are all for "Clean Elections", that is campaigns absent dirty tricks, grandstanding, and the personal attacks that have become all too common in modern political races. When our members voted on this issue, most were unaware that tax money was the linchpin.

It is curious that good government advocates would turn to deceptive tactics in order to advance their agenda. The real agenda of these self-titled "reformists" is to achieve political power. Many of those advocating for this change are members of organizations operating on the political fringe, who cannot develop the public support needed to advance their cause.

Members should also take offense to the inference that the efforts and funds expended by this Association's political action fund, on behalf of public retirees, are not clean. Advocates of taxpayer funded campaigns see our members as a "special interest group", with undue influence on Beacon Hill.

Over the past 34 years, this Association has built a strong membership through steady grassroots efforts. Together we have given retirees a voice on Beacon Hill that is second to none.