Stifling the competition
IT'S A CLASSIC example of the law of unintended consequences: Fund-raising restrictions meant to encourage political competition have instead tilted the turf in favor of incumbents and candidates with deep pockets.
Consider: So far, the 2006 governor's race is a tale of two frontrunners who clearly hope the weight of war chests or wealth will crush their opponents.
On the Republican side, Lieutenant Governor Kerry Healey's camp this week signaled that she is ready to draw on millions in family money to finance her quest for the Corner Office. Already sitting on a $600,000 campaign treasury, she is now raising money that can be used in a gubernatorial run if and when Mitt Romney announces he won't seek reelection.
But Harvard Pilgrim CEO Charles Baker, who also hopes to be the Republican nominee, faces a real financial challenge. Because announcing for governor means leaving his current job, Baker is waiting until Romney declares his intentions, which may not happen until late October.
That would leave Baker, who is well-paid but not wealthy, struggling to raise the needed campaign funds. Estimates vary, but it will probably take a minimum of $2.5 million to $3 million in TV advertising for challengers to be competitive in the September 2006 primary.
Here's the rub: That amount must be raised in a state with a yearly individual contribution limit of just $500.
On the Democratic side, the story is different, but the dynamic is the same. As attorney general, Thomas Reilly has had two and a half years to put together a campaign kitty of $3 million.
Not so Deval Patrick, the only other serious candidate currently in the race. Unlike Reilly, Patrick, a former assistant US attorney general, doesn't have a public post to lend him prominence -- or to provide staffers who can double as after-hours troops for his campaign.
While Reilly gets by with a three-person paid political team, Patrick is paying a staff of 14, plus several consultants. That's one big reason why he has spent all the $656,000 he's raised since joining the race. (Patrick has seeded his campaign with $300,000 of his own money; the latest state records show him with a balance of $277,368.)
To reach the minimum competitive level of $2.5 million, Patrick will have not just to raise, but actually bank, an average of $200,000 a month over the next year. His aides insist he'll be competitive, saying he can use Internet fund-raising and his Clinton network or even tap more of his own resources. Perhaps. Still, it's clear the candidate will have to step up his fund-raising markedly.
On both sides, the frontrunner-favoring dynamic is partly a consequence of a state law that sets one of the nation's most restrictive contribution limits. That ''reform" came about back in 1994. With legislative leadership under a cloud for junketing with lobbyists -- and with Common Cause threatening to put an even more restrictive measure on the ballot -- the Legislature passed a measure cutting the contribution limit for both individuals and political action committees from $1,000 to $500 a year and capping lobbyist donations at $200.
The law was meant to curb special interest influence and cut incumbents' electoral advantage. Actually it has given office-holders an even greater advantage.
''The current limit is totally insane," says Democratic State Committee Chairman Phil Johnston. ''It tremendously favors incumbents or rich candidates."
Before the change, certainly, late-starting candidates had an easier time of it. Back in the 1990 cycle, when candidates could still raise dollars in $1,000 increments, John Silber didn't launch his gubernatorial campaign until December of 1989, but still managed to raise $2.3 million by primary time. That was enough to help him upset former attorney general Frank Bellotti, who had a formidable fund-raising base from his long years in public office.
What makes the $500 limit all the sillier is that there's really no good reason for having it so low.
By way of comparison, California has a $20,000 limit, Georgia $5,000, Maryland $4,000, Michigan $3,400, and Connecticut $2,500, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.
It's hardly as though tripling or even quadrupling our current limit would give a contributor undue influence.
No doubt there would be objections to changing the rules in the middle of a campaign cycle. Still, it's something lawmakers should do -- and soon -- in the interest of more competitive politics.
Scot Lehigh's e-mail address is lehigh@globe.com. 
