Election Day registration opponents take heat for TV spot

A day after being fined $3,251 by the Maine ethics commission for a late campaign finance filing, the group working to prohibit Election Day registration is facing questions about a television ad it released this week.

Secure Maine's Ballot, which is urging a no vote on Question 1, released a 15-second spot Tuesday that aired on local television stations. Critics say the ad follows a pattern of same-day registration opponents' attempts to confuse voters and raise doubts about a law that's been on the books for nearly 40 years.

A yes vote on Question 1 would retain that law. A no vote would uphold the Legislature's controversial decision last spring to eliminate Election Day registration.

Supporters of the practice have called it same-day voter registration.

Neither Election Day registration nor same-day voter registration is mentioned in the No on 1 ad. Instead, the ad cites "Maine's ethics law," a term not associated with and seemingly unrelated to the Legislature's bill last session that attempted to repeal Election Day registration.

The narrator in the 15-second ad says, "Who should decide Maine's elections, Mainers or outsiders from other states? Today, outside interests are trying to get rid of Maine's ethics law. Keep Maine's elections fair. Keep Maine's elections decided by Mainers. Vote no on Question 1."

David Farmer, a spokesman for Protect Maine Votes, the coalition seeking to preserve Election Day registration, believes the ad is designed to make voters think that a yes vote will repeal Maine's Clean Election law, a campaign finance system designed to limit the influence of outside money in Maine elections.

"From the looks of this ad, the opponents of voting rights are trying to confuse the elimination of same-day registration with the Maine Clean Election Act, which is overwhelmingly popular with voters," Farmer said. "The irony is that many of the people who want to ban same-day voter registration also want to kill clean elections."

Farmer was referring to an ongoing debate in the Legislature over the fate of the Clean Election Act, which some Republicans have sought to eliminate.

Farmer believes the ad deploys "the same strategy that the 'no' side has used all along during the campaign. They are trying to confuse the issue, and the ad is deceptive."

Jen Webber, a spokeswoman for the No on 1 campaign, said the ad was created by an outside agency. Webber couldn't say what the ad meant by referring to "Maine's ethics law," or whether "outsiders from other states" was a reference to out-of-state college students.

The latter were targeted early in the campaign by Maine Republican Party Chairman Charlie Webster for "potential" voter fraud.

Webber said she couldn't comment on the meaning behind the ad because she wasn't involved in its creation. She said her group was fortunate to have a television ad, given that it's being outspent by Yes on 1.

"We believe it's an effective ad," Webber said. "We're getting a lot of positive feedback about it."

The ad also mentions "outside interests" influencing Maine elections, a reference Farmer and his group believe is directed at groups involved in the 'Yes' coalition, unions, progressive organizations and Donald Sussman, the hedge-fund manager who is married to U.S. Rep. Chellie Pingree, D-Maine.

Sussman, Yes on 1's biggest contributor, is frequently derided by Republicans for his support of Democratic candidates and causes.

The 'No' campaign also faces questions about its use of outside money. The recently formed ballot question committee started its campaign with about $37,000. However, the group's recent spending activity indicates that it's not working on a shoestring budget. 

The group has reported at least 18 expenditures totaling $335,223 since the state's 24-hour reporting period kicked in Oct. 26. The 'Yes' coalition has spent $279,400 on three expenditures, including a $243,818 television ad that will air this week.

The 'No' group has spent money on a variety of sources, including television and radio ads, direct mailings and robocalls.

Webber declined to say whether her group was using outside money to fund its campaign. She said the group would have "an internal discussion" to see whether it wanted to reveal its funding sources before Election Day.

The 'Yes' group has not voluntarily unveiled the source of its 24-hour contributions, either. 

Neither side is required to do so. The 24-hour reporting period only requires campaigns to disclose expenditures — not their funding sources — during the 13 days before Election Day.

That means the public will have to wait until after Election Day to see who  tried to influence Question 1 during the final days of the campaign.

In 2010 the Maine Commission on Governmental Ethics and Election Practices tried to mandate contribution disclosure during the 24-hour period. The Democratic-controlled Legislature rejected the commission's proposal.

While both groups are playing by the current rules, some on the 'Yes' side believe  Election Day registration opponents purposely withheld the bulk of their financial activity so the public wouldn't know who was attempting to influence the election until it's decided.

Individuals on the 'No' side have rejected that criticism, saying spending in the campaign was always going to occur late.

Recent polling suggests the battle over Question 1 will be a close one on Election Day. Public Policy Polling, a national polling firm in North Carolina, released a survey Wednesday showing that respondents slightly favored Election Day registration, 48 percent to 44 percent. The differential, however, is just outside the poll's margin of error, suggesting the race is close to a toss-up.

The PPP poll was weighted toward older voters. Forty-four percent of the respondents were between the ages of 46 and 65. Only 8 percent said they were between the ages 18 and 29, an age group that could be a key demographic on Election Day.

Webber, with No on 1, said her group had no plans to appeal the $3,251 penalty levied by the ethics commission Tuesday for filing a late expenditure. The expenditure was for the television ad that the 'Yes' group claims is misleading.

Voters should expect a flurry of "No on 1" mailers over the next few days. The group has reported eight direct-mail expenditures. Disclosure forms show that several mailers appear to continue the group's theme of protecting Maine elections from outside influence.

smistler@sunjournal.com

What do you think of this story?

Login to post comments

In order to make comments, you must create a subscription.

In order to comment on SunJournal.com, you must hold a valid subscription allowing access to this website. You must use your real name and include the town in which you live in your SunJournal.com profile. To subscribe or link your existing subscription click here.

Login or create an account here.

Our policy prohibits comments that are:

  • Defamatory, abusive, obscene, racist, or otherwise hateful
  • Excessively foul and/or vulgar
  • Inappropriately sexual
  • Baseless personal attacks or otherwise threatening
  • Contain illegal material, or material that infringes on the rights of others
  • Commercial postings attempting to sell a product/item
If you violate this policy, your comment will be removed and your account may be banned from posting comments.

Advertisement

Comments

Bob Woodbury's picture

This latest "NO" ad says...

...there are more outsiders voting to steal our elections than there are Maine residents who vote. Wanna buy a swamp?

Jonathan McKane's picture

You guys don't have to worry

You guys don't have to worry - No on One will never has as much money as Yes on one. Sussman alone has outspent No on ONe!

Cris Johnson's picture

SecureOurFears

This perplexing little video has been brought to you by rather secretive little organization that goes by the misnomer of "Secure Our Votes."

Other than Jen Webber, nobody seems to know who they are, or at least nobody's being very transparent about it.

It's website lists no human beings who are either responsible for its content or who can be contacted concerning it. The only clues as to who the folks supporting this masquerade are is that all of the "facts" and charts on their home-page come from The Maine Heritage Policy Center, the address listed for the organization is 5 Ottawa Woods Rd,
Scarborough, ME 04074 and a telephone number (207)839-4696.

The street address is that of former Maine Republican Representative Harold A. Clough. The telephone is answered by a machine which does not identify who you've reached, but is a land line in Fort Kent. I'd don't have the $14.00 to find out who owns that line, but it doesn't really matter. The truth will out. Mr. Clough's phone number in Scarborough is (207) 839-4696, by the way. It is also, by happenstance perhaps, the telephone number listed for the Pine Tree chapter of The Knights of the York Cross (in invitational Masonic honorary society).

SecureOurVotes & Co. are the very same folks who employed a clever sleight of hand to avoid disclosing their recent influx of funding to create the anti-Election Day Registration campaign which (I'm betting) will soon flood Maine's media air-ways with similarly disjointed pitches to irrationally but (they hope) effectively scare the voters of Maine into believing they are under attack from demonic forces from "AWAY."

Yes, "Away," that quaint little local prejudice many are so fond of whispering about whenever someone suggests something they don't like.

But here's the reality: Mainers aren't stupid. I'm not a Mainer by an accident of birth. I chose to live here and am every bit as proud of it as anybody else. I really resent this kind of nonsensical appeal to invalid emotional response.

I'm voting YES on Question One and I'm proud to say it out loud with my picture and name attached.

Cris Johnson's picture

Believing

I'm a former financial services attorney who got crushed when the economic roof collapsed. I came to Maine because I belied I could make a difference in a world I had a small part in messing up. I've lived off my dwindling savings, whatever I can make from my speaking and writing and the grace of my dearest sister. I've discovered that being over-qualified, a bit sharp of tongue and somewhat long in the tooth is perfect recipe for being unemployed in these strange times. Is that sufficient, Robert?

Bob Woodbury's picture

Nice job, Cris.

Thank you.

Gary Ham's picture

Chris; I hope that your

Chris; I hope that your reference to the Knights of the York Cross wasn't a "slam" directed towards Freemasonry.

Cris Johnson's picture

Masonry

I hold Masonry in very high regard: I am a Mason. Humanitas, NY.

Gary Ham's picture

Masonry

Glad to hear that, Brother. Ancient York Lodge #155 is my Home Lodge. Also a member of Kora Shrine Temple.

CLAIRE GAMACHE's picture

Moronic

How moronic do you have to be to use secret, illegal funds to pay for TV spots denouncing outside influence in our Maine elections? Is there anyone who doesn't see Heritage Foundation and Koch money hidden in there? And does it really help to play the same ad twice in three minutes? Thank God for the mute button on the remote. If I had my way all of those pre-election ads would be banned or everyone who pays for one would be required to pay for equal time for the opposition to respond. They are neither informative nor remotely interesting but they make up for it by being highly annoying. But then I guess no one has ever lost money betting on the stupidity of the American TV audience.

RONALD RIML's picture

Really...

It's not how 'Moronic' one has to be, but how utterly dishonest they are to completely misrepresent the facts.

But then, we already knew that.

ANTHONY NAZAR's picture

Sadly typical of today's Republican Party

When your hand is caught in the cookie jar, howl that someone else is snitching cookies too.

The Republicans are caught so far off base on this one that they are resorting to any means, including denial of knowledge of their own ad, to confuse the electorate and perhaps pull their polling numbers up.

Republicans used to be a party with honow - sadly they have devolved into the party of Haldemann, Atwater, Segretti and Rove where winning is more important than the public good, where party trumps governance.

Incredibly sad.

Gary Ham's picture

Tony; both parties used to be

Tony; both parties used to be parties of honor. Not so much anymore...

That's why I support the Libertarian Party.

Advertisement

Stay informed — Get the news delivered for free in your inbox.

I'm interested in ...