AUGUSTA, Maine — The Maine Senate, after lengthy floor debate, passed a bill Thursday that significantly alters clean election laws for publicly financed legislative candidates.
Some feel the changes put the Maine Clean Elections Act in jeopardy and others vowed to fight, possibly through a citizen’s initiative.
“We’re going to keep our options open,” said Andrew Bossie of Maine Citizens for Clean Elections. “Maine people have supported clean elections and while this bill doesn’t kill it, it certainly weakens it.”
Last, year, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the matching funds provision in clean election laws was unconstitutional. Matching funds are triggered when a privately funded candidate spends more money than a publicly funded candidate. Without them, a private candidate could spend significantly more than a public one, which some feel creates an inequity.
Because of that ruling, Maine lawmakers were forced to draft a bill that removed all matching funds references from the Maine Clean Election Act. LD 1774, which brings Maine into compliance with the federal court ruling, was first approved by the Veterans and Legal Affairs Committee in January.
Without matching funds, clean candidates now receive only upfront money, which amounts to less than $4,000 for House races and about $18,000 for Senate races.
Some lawmakers feel those totals are too low, especially in contested elections. Without a viable replacement that attempts to level the playing field for private and public candidates, critics believe the future of clean elections is in jeopardy.
On Thursday, lawmakers offered amendments to LD 1774 on the Senate floor, including two from Sen. Roger Katz, R-Augusta and several from Sen. John Patrick, D-Rumford.
One of Katz’ amendments sought to bump up the lump sums that would be distributed to clean candidates. There would be no funds for uncontested primaries. House candidates would get $1,500 for a contested primary and $4,000 for the general election. Senate candidates would receive $6,000 for a contested primary and $23,000 for the general. Katz’ amendment also would have doubled the amount of seed money contributions candidates can receive.
Patrick, through his amendments, proposed more upfront money in both House and Senate races. But more importantly, he wanted to include a “requalifying” option that would allow clean candidates to receive more money if they gather more small donations.
Each amendment was defeated.
When the unamended bill came up for a final vote in the Senate, it passed 18-15.
“We were comfortable all along passing a bill that just dealt with the matching funds,” said Sen. Debra Plowman, R-Hampden.
The clean elections bill still requires approval of the House, where another narrow vote is expected. Many legislative candidates, particularly those who face a primary in June, likely will be closely watching the final vote.
House Speaker Robert Nutting, R-Oakland, urged the House to pass the bill.
“When Maine voters approved this law more than a decade ago, they envisioned leveling the playing field for candidates who lacked the financial means to run for office. It was never intended to provide an open-ended flow of taxpayer money to pay for partisan political campaigns,” he said.
In 2010, roughly 80 percent of those elected to the Legislature ran as clean candidates, but many feel that the law today bears little resemblance to the spirit of what voters passed 16 years ago.
Democrats said the “do nothing” approach weakens Maine law because it allows privately financed candidates to use outside spending. They also feared that gutting the law will deter some candidates from running if they feel like they don’t stand a chance.
“This could be the beginning of the end for clean elections,” said Sen. Phil Bartlett, D-Gorham, who during testimony Thursday called the bill a “missed opportunity” and lamented a federal court system that is “doing everything it can to put money back into politics.”
Bartlett said the climate in Washington, D.C. — especially since the Citizens United case that ruled corporations and unions are people when it comes to campaign contributions — has been poisoned by special interests. Some fear it might give more prominence to political action committees, which are not subject to donation limits.
Bossie said that was precisely why 60 percent of Mainers approved the Maine Clean Election Act in 1996, paving the way for House and Senate candidates to receive public dollars for their campaigns if they forgo private donations.
But Republicans said the clean elections act has done little to keep money out of politics.
Plowman also said it was hypocritical for Democrats to decry the influence of outside money. She pointed out that Equality Maine spent hundreds of thousands of dollars recently to champion a same-sex marriage initiative supported by Democrats and that the group has donated liberally to Democratic candidates.
“I’ve always been a traditional candidate and I’ve never spent what my opponents have spent,” Plowman said. “But I’ve done pretty well.”
Thank you to the GOP for not spending any more taxpayer money! I believe it was Democrat Senator Bill Diamond who said the Clean Election fund deserves no new funding. Well done!
That’s a great idea !!!!! This way there will be more taxpayer money available for the lobbyists to spend. I see your point!
It is only Clean Election Laws that curb the ability of those with money to buy a seat.
Without curbs on campaign spending, legislators must resort to pandering to contributors rather than serving those who elect them.
I’m running for the House seat in OOB and I’ll run clean regardless. I’ll be damned if I will ever be asked to pay back a contribution with my vote.
Ideas and ideals should win elections, not war chests.
You have summed it up pretty well. For more about today’s vote, and about exactly who voted to start dismantling our first-in-the-nation Clean Election law, see my longer comment, below.
That does not suprise me at all. The Republicans have never wanted clean elections ! Why would they want them now ?
I look forward to reading the roll call for this vote. I will lobby against anyone who votes for it without reasonable amendments to protect the integrity of our clean election process. Mainers voted in no uncertain terms that we want clean elections in our state and this ALEC fueled attempt to usurp the law we passed can not be tolerated.
Unions are NOT people.
Nothing like dirty elections.
Welfare for politicians! Nothing more than that! All political donations should be taxed!
The Maine state senate’s vote on the “do nothing option” to gut Maine’s vital Clean Election law was an absolutely straight party-line vote. Every Republican state senator voted to start dismantling Clean Elections. On the other hand, every Democratic state senator voted against harming Clean Elections in this way, as did the one independent state senator. If you go to the State of Maine legislature’s website, you can look it up — it is senate roll call vote 365, taken March 8 on LD 1774.
And then some Republican senators have had the brazen gall to pretend that their gutting of Clean Elections was actually a vote in support of Clean Elections. That doesn’t remotely pass the straight-face test. All but one (Richard Rosen) of the Republican state senators present voted in favor of killing Senator John Patrick’s amendment that would have fixed the damage (senate roll call vote 364, taken March 8). All but one Democrat (Bill Diamond) voted not to kill this amendment, which was modeled exactly on a proposal from our state’s non-partisan Ethics Commission. The senate’s lone independent also voted not to kill Sen. Patrick’s amendment.
The Republicans are hoping the public won’t understand these votes, and won’t connect them with the deeper issue of wealthy special interests buying influence over our elected officials via big campaign contributions. Above all, they are probably hoping voters won’t connect the dots and think about today’s votes as they decide who to vote for in November.