Maine voters should take notice when larger interests pit candidates against one another and overwhelm mailboxes, television screens and radio waves with attack ads. When political action committees and political parties drown out local candidates and their messages, whose election is it?

Look at Bangor. Likely the most expensive Maine Senate race in the state’s history, incumbent Republican Nichi Farnham and Democrat Geoffrey Gratwick have each been pounded by political and personal accusations. But they are not behind the claims. In fact, they have decried them.

To be an informed voter, it’s important to understand who is influencing the local race and why. Seek out independent information to know where the candidates stand on issues; be aware of how ads might make you think differently.

Otherwise, the risk is that the successful candidate will not have won based on his or her own merits but on the half-truths and distortions proclaimed by advertisements paid for by outside forces. So far, the state’s two political parties and some political action committees — which are not allowed to coordinate with the candidates — have spent $414,000, mostly on negative publicity, on the race for Senate District 32, serving Bangor and Hermon.

Making sense of the incredible amount of spending in the Bangor area requires voters to put the campaign in context. It’s a competitive race in a key area of the state. And the tactics being used now worked in 2010.

Two years ago, the out-of-state Republican State Leadership Committee spent $400,000 to support Republicans in five Maine Senate elections, including the Bangor Senate race, and all of the Republicans won. It helped tip the balance of power in the Senate from Democrats to the GOP.

The same tactics are at play now, by both parties: negative ads with ominous music, political fliers with untrue statements. When one side spends, the other must also spend, and it escalates into an arms race. Negativity gets people’s attention quickly. Realize this. Educate yourself.

Remember, the candidates are your neighbors, often with nuances to their views that aren’t captured by political advertisements.

Farnham, for example, said she will support what Mainers decide when voting on same-sex marriage. School choice is “an option,” she said; Maine should comply with the Affordable Care Act; and Maine law adequately addresses abortion. Gratwick says same-sex marriage should be legal; he supports public charter schools, says the state should take advantage of the funding available to expand Medicaid and believes Maine doesn’t need more restrictions on abortion.

If you believe the ads, you’d think Farnham is a rubber stamp for Gov. Paul LePage and Gratwick is “Dr. Taxes.”

Some people might assume that the U.S. Supreme Court’s Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission ruling — which determined that independent political expenditures by corporations and labor unions may not be restricted, based on First Amendment grounds — is behind the flood of money in Bangor. But it’s more complicated, as Maine is one of a few states that has never had a law limiting how much political action committees and parties can spend on state races.

While it’s difficult to directly measure the effect of Citizens United on the Bangor race, there is no doubt that the ruling has caused an incredible increase in the amount of money in American politics. It would be foolhardy to think this larger cultural change won’t affect or hasn’t already affected Maine.

So where is the money coming from? Most of the groups currently spending on the Bangor race are based in Maine but funded heavily by out-of-state interests. To start, the Republican and Democratic parties have paid out far more than either of the candidates, who are limited to spending about $21,000 each because they receive public funding under the Maine Clean Election Act.

Then there’s the Maine Senate Republican Majority PAC, which has funded ads opposing Gratwick. Its largest contributor, chipping in $395,000, is back from 2010: the Republican State Leadership Committee, based in Washington, D.C. The committee’s contributors include Blue Cross/Blue Shield, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, America’s Natural Gas Alliance, Citigroup, Exxon Mobil, Koch Industries and many others.

The liberal Committee to Rebuild Maine’s Middle Class, which has contributed to ads opposing Farnham, is funded largely by unions and other liberal organizations. The committee received about $178,000 from the National Education Association, $146,000 from the Maine State Employees Association and $15,000 from D.C.-based America Votes. Enabled by Citizens United, America Votes formed in 2011 with a purpose to raise funds in unlimited amounts. Its donors include AFSCME, Newsweb Corp. CEO Fred Eychaner and others.

As the money continues to flow, Gratwick and Farnham will, more and more, become pawns thrown about in negative advertising by larger forces intent on grabbing the few votes able to be influenced. Don’t be played.

Join the Conversation

14 Comments

  1. Both candidates are sincere and honest individuals who subjected
    themselves to predictable abuse by running for public office. What can be
    clearly seen here is that “outside” money is a highly corrosive factor in politics. Purchased
    speech isn’t the sort of free speech of US citizens the Constitution sought to
    protect and in political campaigns it should be regulated and limited. 

  2. Excellent editorial. It leads where leadership is necessary. The voters should not be played. It is also important that the candidates not be played?

  3. Dem party started this faux ethics thing, blew it up as a political advantage, and when Farnham answered the baseless attack, she also handed them thier hat…..thus it became an expensive race..thats the dems M.O…..get the other side to spend thier money….only problem was in the  response, Farnam happened upon the truth….. The dem party brought this on themselves, and they dropped a bunch of cash in a race they cannot now win….both parties roll the dice…Farnam nailed this one….My guess is Farnham 64%-her oppenent 32%

  4. It should be illegal for a health insurer to spend any profits generated from peoples’ illness on political advertising – let alone going so far as to  oppose the election of a caring, deeply responsible physician to public office.
    Blue Cross/Blue Shield owes Maine and Dr. Gratwick an apology and a withdrawal from their participation in this advertising.

  5. My first consideration as a voter is whether the candidate for office shows up in person and asks me for my vote.  I consider this a sign of respect for me as a voter.  This holds for races run in Bangor since the number of voters for a district in the state senate or assembly isn’t that great and it would be possible to visit.  I have been visited by all the candidates for state office save one.  I will be considering the opposing positions of the folks that visited me. The race where only one candidate visited and asked for my vote has been decided by default.

    1.  You didn’t name names but I believe you are saying Farnham visited you and Gratwick didn’t. Let’s remember he is a MD with a demanding job and ill people to care for. She is a soccer mom with time to do whatever. I would like such a life but in my station in life but I must work. Perhaps if she worked everyday for 35 + years she wouldn’t be supporting insurance companies.

  6. This is an important, well written article.  The problem comes once one side starts spending, the other has to to keep up.  Look at the Tyll / Woodbury race.

  7. Super analysis….The article points out why people are sick and tired of this whole business…because in the long run it doesn’t really mean much anyway. As Senator Eugene McCarthy used to say..”Politics is like being a football coach; you have to be smart enough to understand the game and dumb enough to think it’s really important. ”   I don’t vote for any candidate that I don’t know or at least haven’t met.  I remember years ago when a candidate for governor spent an hour and a half at my house explaining with great detail his tax plan. We never see the candidates doing that any more. They send out flyers and expect us to make judgements on those.

    1.  the outcome of this race can have hugh differences for ME. she votes for LePage and never for working people.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *