AUGUSTA, Maine — Members of a legislative committee on Wednesday quickly dispatched a bill that sought to ban gubernatorial candidates from running publicly financed campaigns.
LD 120, An Act to End Taxpayer-funded Campaigns for Gubernatorial Candidates, would have removed all references to gubernatorial candidates from the Maine Clean Elections Act. Under the act, candidates for state offices can qualify for public campaign funds but most forgo private donations.
Sen. Nichi Farnham, R-Bangor, who chairs the Veterans and Legal Affairs Committee, said the bill was held over from the last session so lawmakers could assess the impact of a federal lawsuit that was settled this summer.
That lawsuit ruled that the matching funds provision of the Maine Clean Election Act is unconstitutional.
A little over a month ago, the Veterans and Legal Affairs Committee voted along party lines to
to strike the matching funds portion of the Maine Clean Election Act in order to comply with the court’s decision.
Some Democrats have expressed concerns that without an alternative to matching funds, special interest groups will have too much influence on campaigns.
The Maine Ethics Commission has offered two alternatives to matching funds that would create caps for clean House and Senate candidates. Neither has been adopted by the Legislature.
On Wednesday, there was little debate about LD 120. Rep. Jarrod Crockett, R-Bethel, made the motion to move forward a recommendation of ought not to pass. Initially, Sen. Debra Plowman, R-Hampden, said she opposed the motion.
Members then took a break so each party’s caucus could meet privately. Farnham did not say what happened during that brief caucus meeting, but when the committee resumed, members voted quickly to move forward a recommendation of ought not to pass.
Advocates of the Maine Clean Election Act praised the decision.
“Maine people want to move forward, not backward, in the fight against big-money, special interests in our government,” said Alison Smith, president of Maine Citizens for Clean Elections. “The committee action preserves the opportunity for candidates for governor to run for office using Clean Elections. We still have work to do to ensure the system is viable in 2014, but today’s vote allows the conversation to continue.”
Gubernatorial candidates from both parties in 2010, including Republican Peter Mills and Democrat Libby Mitchell, ran as clean candidates. Gov. Paul LePage was privately funded.
I’m glad the Republicans took the lead on this one and kept this program how the people intended. Now continue looking for ways to balance the budget and get Maine working again!
Republicans “took the lead.” WRONG ! The DEMOCRATS and the rational majority of the PEOPLE OF MAINE took the lead on the this and the R’s went running for cover knowing that if they forced this through then their heads would be on the electoral slab in November. It is also why they are running for cover on some of the key provisions of LePage’s attacks on the poor and those who need medical care. Not because they want to, but because they know darn well what is waiting for them come November. Won’t do them much good though. They can say bye bye to their legislative majority, and they know it.
Republicans have a majority in that committee and a Republican moved the motion of “ought not to pass”. So, that means that the Republicans took the lead on this, and I’m proud of them for it.
Oh please. With all respect, the Republicans knew they HAD to “lead” on this because they can read poll numbers as well as anyone and they are trying to save their hides. The Republicans HATE the clean elections law and want to kill it entirely very badly, but they are playing politics here and trying to get a “moderate” brand headline. They know if they did what they really wanted to do, they would be destroyed in the next election, and they would again lose bigtime on the issue with a people’s veto. Tell me, how hard are they trying to pass the measure to replace the matching funds provision? Nope. They won’t vote on that at all. Just let the matching funds issue go away entirely. You are expressing pride in a purely politically-motivated and disingenous move. And everyone knows that is just what it is.
The only polls I’ve seen have nothing to do with gubernatorial candidates and clean elections. They have to do with the economy. I applaud the Republicans for taking the lead and moving this off the table relatively quickly in the session so they can continue discussing the important issues.
Are you kidding here? The high popularity of Maine’s clean election law is very well known to everyone and his or her brother. The R’s knew this was a toxic issue for them, so they are running for cover. Are you actually going to try to argue that the R’s here and elsewhere WANT the clean election law? Andre Cushing and his ALEC/Maine Heritage crew HATE its guts and want to kill it dead. (And again, where is their action on the matching funds replacement bill????) Going into the this political season they see the writing on the wall. They already know their hides are on the slab, and they are in damage control mode. It is exactly why they are running scared from some of LePage’s attacks on medical services. Also, don’t be surprised if they also deep-six their desire to continue to suppress voters with their right wing voter ID law which they want badly, but will probably not want to take on because they know they’re their dog in that fight will get chewed to shreds too. And as to “dicussing the important issues”, yeah, that would be a nice change for the Maine GOP. It was supposed to be all about “jobs jobs jobs” and not attacking voting rights, attacking murals, attacking the environment, attacking a woman’s right to choose… So yeah, go ahead and applaud their entirely politically-motivated run for cover all you want. Cheers.
You really need to stop reading all those leftist blogs and do some research for yourself. Ed Youngblood, a Republican, has been one of the biggest supporters of the MCEA and has had several editorials in this paper. An equal number of Republicans and Democrats have used the program, so to say they want to get rid of it is not exactly true. As for the rest of it, each issue you speak of is so much more complex than you or I can begin to talk about, so instead of spewing ignorant rhetoric, just stop.
There’s a difference between a vote in favor of “ought not to pass” and outright killing a bill in committee. Only if the “ought not to pass” vote is unanimous in committee is a bill killed. This story isn’t clear on this: “… [M]embers voted quickly to move forward a recommendation of ought not to pass.”
Just for clarification ryan, a committee, in it’s capacity cannot “kill” a bill. A committee’s job is to gather all of the pertinent information, hold a public hearing, conduct work sessions and vote on a committee report. A report can either be unanimous or divided.
Upon completion of the report(s), the bill is given back to whichever house offered it for consideration, in other words which ever house the Sponsor of the bill is in, either House or Senate, where it is given it’s 1st and 2nd readings, irregardless of the report. What I’m saying is that only the Legislature as a whole can actually kill or pass a bill, the committee’s reporting out the bill, isn’t the actual action that kills the bill, for a good reason, because during all of the readings, after the committee has reported, amendments can be offered during legislative discussion. Amendments are not required to have a public hearing.
I have seen bills that were reported out “Ought to Pass”, but were completely gutted on the floor via amendments. I worked as a committee clerk for a number of years, there is some funky stuff that can happen, even after a committee has reported the bill out.
“Gubernatorial candidates from both parties in 2010, including Republican Peter Mills and Democrat Libby Mitchell, ran as clean candidates. Gov. Paul LePage was privately funded.” It would seem that Mr. LePage has been avoiding the very thing he wanted to see. Transparency in Government. Just another form of the double talk that he’s always tossing around.
Ever try thinking for yourself, or do you just parrot things you hear? Why should you or I or anybody else have our tax dollars go to support a candidates campaign that we disagree with? For every election I plan to vote in, I investigate all of the candidates who peak my interest, even if they’ve spent very little on their campaign. If their values reflect mine and are consistant with how they carry themselves, then they will probably get my vote. If everybody did this, then we’d probably end up with better elected officials, but as long as the majority treat it like American Idol, then we get what we deserve.
You comment really isn’t even relevant though. The complaint is transparency in government and you kind of just go off on a random tangent.
Your question is illogical too — I could ask, why should my tax dollars go to funding wars I disagree with? It is what it is. Our taxes fund some campaigns so we don’t have to have a government that only allows for those who are wealthy/with wealthy friends to be elected.
How is my comment not relevant and off on a random tangent? The article is about clean election funding, CandyinBrewer’s comment was about clean election funding, and my reply to her was about clean election funding. Do you know what “random” and “tangent” mean? I know they are more than single syllable words and all, but they’re really not that tough.
You obviously didn’t read my post, or understand it, so I’ll type slower this time. It shouldn’t matter how much money a candidate spends on their campaign. If you take the time and do your homework on the candidates, no amount of money is going to change who they are or what they stand for. But, if you’re going to make your decision based on whose face you see most often on TV, or only on if they have a D or R behind their name, like too many people do, then we don’t get the best candidate, but we get who we deserve, American Idol style.
As far as your war comment goes, I have issues with the whole thing as well, but because of its Constitutionality, not just because I disagree with it.
LOL, you spent a lot of time being condescending and very little presenting a substantive point. Keep pretending that few take voting as seriously as you do or whatever makes you feel good about yourself.
I presented substantive points, and yes I did it condescendingly, but you still weren’t able to argue against them. Does being a dolt make you feel good about yourself?
You presented irrelevant and illogical points. You get your one vote and that’s it. I’m sure you march your high horse into the booth and look down at those around you — that’s your choice, it doesn’t matter to me, so long as elections and campaigns are clean, fair and ethical.
It takes funds to run a campaign, and the overwhelming majority of reasoned Mainers believe in publically-funded campaigns to ensure an even playing field and to reduce the influence of unbridled corrupting corporate cash. It is called DEMOCRACY. The founders of this nation would be disgusted by the idea of unlimited corporate cash for elections. Disgusted.
Then count me among the un-reasoned Mainers. I can see you don’t know much about our founders.
You tell me, if candidate “A” spends $800K on their campaign, and candidate “B” spends $150K, which will result in more in-your-face time for candidate “A”, does that mean candidate “A” will get your vote just because you see more of them and hear their message more often, or….. will you take the time to find out what each candidate actually stands for and make your choice based on that? Maybe I’m giving you more credit than I should, but I’m going to assume, just based on the fact that you’re willing to discuss campaign financing, that you might be apt to listen to the message and not vote for candidate “A” just because he or she spent more and their prescense was greater. If my assumption is correct, then what’s your opinion in regard to how other voters will be influenced? While I agree with you that our founders would collectively be disgusted, I can tell you that they put such high value on individual liberty and freedom, that they gave us just enough rope for which to hang ourselves with. In other words, if we are not willing to educate ourselves and want only to have everything spoon fed to us, then we will get what we deserve. Do you see my point, that if we take the responsibility of educating ourselves on the candidates, then the money that they throw into their campaigns won’t matter, other than to let us know that they don’t think we’ll inconveience ourselves enough to learn about them and that all they have to do is keep pushing their face in front of ours until we relent and vote for them.
Then when are you going to start lobbying to repeal the corporate right wing Citizens United decision and remove the corporate highjacking of American elections? If it is all only about engaged voters thoroughly researching candidates on their own, then there should be no need for politicians, especiallly Republicans, to endlessly pander to and seek unlimited funds from corporations and other wealthy special interests like the Koch brothers. Shouldn’t be necessary. You should be the most vocal standard bearer for campaign finance reform. And maybe you need to also understand political science and what is required to run campaigns. These are complex operations, and funds are needed to run them. What don’t you understand about that? In a perfect world all voters would spend many hours researching candidates thus negating the need for proactive campaigning, but most people have busy lives and don’t have time for that. Candidates do have to proactively campaign. (Have you ever run for office? Try it sometime without actually campaigning. See how far you get.) But there need to be limits on the corrupting influence of private money for this purpose. That is done through such limits and publicly-funded-campaigns systems.
You’ve just made my point and you can’t even see it. I can’t explain it any more clearly for you. The voter is the one who pulls the lever, checks the box, or whatever. NO AMOUNT OF MONEY SPENT BY A CANDIDATE CAN INFLUENCE THAT IF THE VOTER HAS DONE THEIR HOMEWORK. But you offer up the excuse, “but most people have busy lives and don’t have time for that”. So I say if it’s not that big of a priority for most people, then you get what you deserve. I guess I did give you more credit than you deserve. I apologize for that.
Was this the Heritage Foundation Out of State Influence Bill ?
I’m glad we are not open for any more of their money business.
You know how you can tell these moves claiming to “protect our elections” are garbage? They never cite real and actual problems. There have been all these pushes by some Republicans recently to ban same-day registration and require government IDs to vote — did you notice anything about the Iowa caucuses? You could vote that day and without an ID, but Republicans didn’t make one complaint about it.
I’m glad here that Maine’s Republicans are learning not to try and pull these tricks on us again. It’ll just get another veto.
From 8 years of Baldacci the wool is still over your eyes`
And after one stomach-turning year of LePage the wool is super-glued to yours. See you in November.