Matching funds portion of Clean Election Act in jeopardy

Posted Nov. 29, 2011, at 5:17 p.m.
Print this   E-mail this    Facebook this   Tweet this     

AUGUSTA, Maine — In a strict party line vote on Tuesday, Republican members of the Legislature’s Veterans and Legal Affairs Committee narrowly favored stripping the matching funds provision from the Maine Clean Election Act.

If the full Legislature does the same early next year, the move could have implications for every state House and Senate race in 2012.

This summer, U.S. District Court Judge George Singal ruled that the matching funds provision of Maine’s law was invalid. His decision was based on a U.S. Supreme Court decision that struck down a similar public campaign funding provision in Arizona law.

Clean elections candidates, once they collect a certain amount of small donations, receive a fixed amount of money from the state to run their campaigns. In the past, they also could receive matching funds if their opponent or an outside group spent additional money.

Maine lawmakers have been struggling since that court ruling with a way to address the elimination of matching funds and have debated two options put forth by the Maine Ethics Commission.

Under the first option, the state would pay candidates fixed amounts upfront — $7,716 for House candidates and $33,617 for Senate candidates, significantly more than the current allocations.

Under the second, clean candidates could get extra payments by collecting additional $5 checks from private donors. In order to qualify for public funding in the first place, candidates need to collect a minimum number of such donations.

Republicans have rejected both.

“We don’t think it’s appropriate to rewrite laws on such short notice,” said Sen. Debra Plowman, R-Hampden. “I think this will require everyone to look at their pot of money and then make responsible decisions. And if they think they need more money, they can do what always has been done: pound the pavement.”

Democrats on the Veterans and Legal Affairs Committee have supported option two offered by the Ethics Commission and were critical of what they see as feet-dragging by Republicans.

“The purpose of clean elections is to reduce the influence of special interests, while also opening up doors for average Mainers to run for office,” said Sen. John Patrick, D-Rumford. “If we don’t revise the law, the system will be less attractive for candidates who require more funds in competitive races.”

In the last election, more than 80 percent of legislators used Clean Election money.

“The Republican proposal to do nothing will effectively kill the clean elections system,” Patrick said.

Republicans have rejected the Ethics Commission’s recommendation in part for fear that it would increase costs. The commission’s own estimates, however, suggest that would not happen.

Maine’s publicly financed campaign system began in 1996 after a successful citizens’ initiative. Eight out of 10 legislators in the State House currently are Clean Election candidates and the system is used almost equally by Republicans and Democrats.

Plowman said outside influence always has existed and that will continue because candidates don’t always know when outside funds are sent to their specific race. She said Republicans and Democrats would be affected equally by any changes to Maine’s Clean Election Act.

Some, including Alison Smith, president of the board of Maine Citizens for Clean Elections, worry that the Republican proposal would cripple clean candidates.

“With several good options on the table, it’s disappointing that a majority on the committee voted to weaken a popular and well-used law,” she said. “Many will view the weakening of Clean Elections through this do-nothing approach as a first step in dismantling a program that works to reduce the influence of private money in Maine elections.”

Following Tuesday’s vote of the Veterans and Legal Affairs Committee, both the Republican and Democratic proposals will be up for debate by the full Legislature when it convenes in January.

Similar articles:

Marketplace News

Marketplace

Guidelines for posting on bangordailynews.com

The Bangor Daily News encourages comments about stories, but you must follow our terms of service.

In brief:

  1. Keep it civil and stay on topic
  2. No vulgarity, racial slurs, name-calling or personal attacks.
  3. People who harass others or joke about tragedies will be blocked.

The primary rule here is pretty simple: Treat others with the same respect you'd want for yourself. Here are some guidelines (see more):

  • Anonymous

    I remember back in 1996 when we voted on this.  The question said nothing about the actual implementation of the law.  The question simply asked: “Do you want Maine to adopt new campaign finance laws and give public funding to candidates for state office who agree to spending limits?”  

    So really anything is up for grabs when it comes to how public funding is given to candidates(except for matching funds because those are unconstitutional).  Both the R’s and D’s have given proposals on how to give money to candidates, and they both work, so I don’t see what all the fuss is about.  

  • honey777

    Every candidate should have a cap on the amount he or she can spend on a campaign.  It is the only way to stop the wealthy from writing laws that favor……..you guessed it: the wealthy.

  • Anonymous

    waste of money needs to be scrapped welfare for losers

  • Anonymous

    The simple solution is, scrap this law and make it the law that no more can be spent then they would make, if elected ……………. period and same for Federal elections. Then maybe, possibly we might have real elections for the people and not bought by the highest bidder elections. (I won’t hold my breath)

  • Anonymous

    If outside interests or opposing candidates spend more, than the pubicly funded candidate should be able to go out and raise more money privately.  Or, outside interests for the pubicly funded candidate should be able to spend whatever money they wish.

  • Anonymous

    Your right. Who needs clean elections in Maine?

  • kcjonez

    “We don’t think it’s appropriate to rewrite laws on such short notice,” said Sen. Debra Plowman, R-Hampden. Funny, that isn’t what she said last spring when they were ramming through the insurance company giveaway before a cost benefit analysis could be done.  

    Strict party line vote says it all.  The republicans are trying to game the system in hopes of stealing the next election.  Didn’t 60% of us just tell them a few weeks ago that we disapprove of this sort of tactic.  Aren’t they supposed to be creating jobs.  Is it people’s veto time again already?  

  • Anonymous

    Headline SHOULD READ: Veterans and Legal Affairs Committee Votes To Protect First Amendment

  • David Des Isles

    A cap will favor the incumbents because they don’t have to pay for name recognition.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_7T3YNF6MG3FPEAVTFIJC44VQUI Dlbrt

    Elections have become who has the most money to spread disinformation and propaganda!

    Lets get the Money ’OUT’ of Politics!

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_7T3YNF6MG3FPEAVTFIJC44VQUI Dlbrt

    We wouldn’t need Clean Elections if we had “CLEAN” Politicians!

  • Anonymous

    When did we ever have a clean election? It is all about, cutting throats and who has the most money.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_SCNJPPZDX7GEYELESV2YGQFLN4 Pat T. Riot

    The Supreme Court’s ruling on this matter is quite an exercise in logic. Public financing has a “chilling” effect on free speech.  Apparently the court feels that if someone who wants to spend money to influence an election may see those expenditures matched by public funds, then that individual (or company) will be less likely to spend the money and therefore exercise free speech.  In other words, the individual or company needs more assurance that they can influence an election with their money.

ADVERTISEMENT | Grow your business

Marketplace Coupons

ADVERTISEMENT | Grow your business