By Yvonne Abraham, Globe Staff, 3/3/2002

Jill Stein wants to be your Green governor.

She is pushing a platform of universal health care, solar panels and windmills, better waste recycling, and an end to subsidies for corporations and environmentally unfriendly developers.

In any other year, Stein would be just another third-party candidate, barely able to put a dent in the public consciousness. A complete unknown, she spoke at Northeastern University last week and drew only 12 people.

But this isn't just any year. Since a recent Supreme Judicial Court decision, Stein could qualify to run under the Clean Elections system, which promises her candidacy a new legitimacy - and, more importantly, as much as $2.3 million in taxpayer money for her campaign.

Green Party members, a little-noticed force behind the battle to preserve the Clean Elections law, see the measure as a way to put their party on the map in Massachusetts more forcefully than Ralph Nader's supporters could have dreamed of two years ago.

The party plans to run as many as a dozen candidates this year - most of them with public money.

''If these folks are able to get money, they're going to get legitimate in a hurry,'' said Thomas Ferguson, a professor of political science at the University of Massachusetts at Boston. ''I think the third-party story could get very interesting in this state. With money, they're going to get enhanced legitimacy and visibility, and at a period in which you have very high public indignation at the Legislature.''

In addition to Stein, there is a Green Party candidate for state treasurer, and five are running for state representative seats. Also, in liberal Northampton, Green party candidate Michael Aleo is running in a special election for a state representative seat, and giving the Democratic Party a scare. Aleo began his run before the SJC made its decision last week, and will not use public funds.

Of course, Stein and other Green candidates are not assured of public financing. Stein must gather 6,000 donations of between $5 and $100 by June 4 to collect a check. So far, she has 2,000. The 51-year-old physician and her campaign workers are trying hard to squeeze five-dollar donations from supporters and friends.

James O'Keefe, who is running for state treasurer, needs 3,000 small donations and has 600. Clean Elections legislative candidates need 200 small donations.

And even if the Green Party candidates do qualify, some obstacles could hinder them from actually getting the campaign funds. Clean Elections, approved by voters in 1998, promised public financing to those candidates who agree to limit fund raising and spending, but the Legislature has failed to appropriate the tens of millions of dollars needed for the measure.

The court has ruled that the state must find the money for candidates, and Acting Governor Jane Swift is trying to persuade lawmakers to free up funds to meet the state's obligation. But the outcome of that effort is uncertain.

Stein, though excited about her opportunity in Massachusetts this year, acknowledges that becoming governor is a remote possibility. To the Green candidates, securing the public financing, and using it to spread their message, is key.

The $2.3 million that Stein stands to receive is a lot of money for the frugal Greens - Ralph Nader spent only $8.5 million on his national presidential campaign.

''The $2 million will be well spent, because we will offer opportunities for people to become active citizens in building democracy, and that is more important than whether she gets into office or not,'' said Kate Harris, who co-chairs the Massachusetts Green Party.

''Not that you would get involved without hoping for it. But unless we all get actively involved, we can't have an active democracy, and that to me is the gift the Greens bring. We are fighting a government controlled by wealthy interests, and Clean Elections is key to dismantling that.''

Some political analysts say Democratic candidates should be concerned about losing left-leaning voters to the Green Party this fall, especially if the gubernatorial race is close.

In 2000, Nader had one of his strongest showings in Massachusetts, winning 173,564 votes here - 6 percent of the vote.

The results were enough to give the Greens official ballot status in the state, joining Democrats, Republicans, and Libertarians. That means the party can hold primaries, and when residents register to vote, they can join the party. As of this week there are 3,436 registered members of the party statewide. That's up from 504 in 2000.

The Libertarians also plan to run candidates this year, including Carla Howell, the 2000 US Senate candidate, for governor. But Libertarians are philosophically opposed to public financing of campaigns, and call the Clean Elections law ''unconstitutional.''

The Greens are pushing issues seldom heard around Beacon Hill these days. While Democratic legislative leaders are walking on fiscal eggshells, slashing programs and gingerly proposing a delay in the income tax rollback, candidates like Stein are proposing bigger government programs, from single-payer health care to generous incentives for companies that use or develop alternative energy sources.

Green Party members say their involvement will bring fresh energy and ideas to the election.

But their planned taxpayer-funded candidacies are exactly what House Speaker Thomas M. Finneran, the chief opponent of Clean Elections, rails against. Finneran says voters did not realize when they approved the public financing system that state money would go to candidates like Stein. And, with Massachusetts facing mounting fiscal problems, Finneran has expressed outrage that tax dollars could go to groups he terms ''communists and socialists and crazy people.''

Finneran has stated in forceful terms an argument used by many Clean Elections foes: Why should public money be used to support candidates who otherwise would not be viable?

For their part, Stein and her fellow Greens have Finneran himself squarely in their sights, saying he has a stranglehold on his members and is a prime example of what is wrong with the system.

''Finneran and the large voting bloc that keeps him in power to me and a lot of other people represents the real selling out of the Democratic Party and the dismantling of democracy in the Legislature,'' Stein said. ''Advocates from across the spectrum of social and economic justice really don't have a home in the Democratic Party, and people are starting to wake up to this.''

So Stein, a staff internist at Simmons College Health Center, a leader of Boston Physicians for Social Responsibility, and the mother of two teenage boys, became a reluctant candidate. She was urged by fellow activists to run after she spoke at a Nader rally.

''Actually, I was chosen, to tell you the truth,'' said Stein, who lives in Lexington. ''I never would have run for office at all. I was concerned about public health trends, and what I considered political obstacles to protecting public health, and it became clear to me we had to focus on changing'' the campaign finance system.

But when the first crack in the old system appeared, Stein said she felt she had to step up. ''When I thought of the opportunities Clean Elections is creating,'' she said, ''it became unconscionable of me not to fulfill that role.''

This story ran on page A1 of the Boston Globe on 3/3/2002.
© Copyright 2002 Globe Newspaper Company.