The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court said the state legislature had violated the state Constitution by refusing to appropriate the funds required by the state's new clean elections law. The law was approved by 2/3 of the voters in a ballot initiative in 1998, and established a system of voluntary public financing for candidates for state office. On January 25 Massachusetts' highest court ordered the legislature to either implement the state's new clean elections law or repeal it. The Supreme Judicial Court said the legislature had violated the state Constitution by refusing to appropriate the required funds. The law was approved by 2/3 of the voters in a ballot initiative in 1998, and established a system of voluntary public financing for candidates for state office. Under the law candidates must collect a minimum number of donations between $5 and $100, depending on the office sought, to qualify for matching money from the state clean elections fund. In addition candidates for state representative must limit their spending to $30,000 and those seeking to be governor cannot spend more than $3 million. Some matching funds are available to candidates outspent by opponents that are not participating in the clean money program. Read more on the Massachusetts law from Public Campaign. The court has asked the parties in the suit to file briefs on how the law can best be implemented. The plaintiffs are the Massachusetts Voters for Clean Elections, the National Voting Rights Institute, Common Cause, the League of Women Voters and the Republican and ">Green parties. The defendant is the Director of the Office of Campaign and Political Finance. Advocates of the clean elections system estimate full implementation of the law will cost about $35 million, of which $23 has already been collected. Opponents charge the cost will go as high as $80 million. With the $26 billion state budget feeling pressure from the combined effects of tax cuts and the recession, opponents are pushing for repeal of the law, framing the choice as one between social services for low income households and bumper stickers for politicians. However, three other states that have implemented clean elections laws have found the cost to be less than $1 per state resident. Three other states that have passed clean elections laws since 1996 are reporting successful implementation. In a January report, Revitalizing Democracy: Clean Election Reform Shows the Way Forward, the Money and Politics Implementation Project and Northeast Action report more competition for public office, increased candidate time spent with voters, narrowed spending gaps between candidates and a decrease in private spending on candidates. (A .pdf copy of the report is available online.)