Our View
Even clean elections need a scrubbing
Look, they say. A self-professed stoner and marijuana farmer from Maine got $50,000 for what was obviously a campaign sideshow. Well, yes, that was embarrassing. Yet it must be mentioned that authorities are still chasing the perpetrators of this fraud several years after the fact.
One of them, Daniel Rogers, was recently tracked to a Lisbon Street motel after years away from Maine, and served with a lawsuit to recover some $17,000 in fines levied by the state ethics commission, related to that aforementioned weed farmer. This serves a dual purpose.
First, to collect the money. Second, to provide accountability. If the most flagrant violators of clean elections practices aren't pursued, the program loses face. The clean elections laws in Maine have shown they do work, for the candidates who use them properly.
There is still room, however, for the clean elections system to prove its efficacy in punishing candidates who would use it improperly or illegally. Public financing opponents can now raise this point to argue their case, but having more examples like Rogers would work to weaken the opponents' arguments.
What also counteracts opponents is what Maine has done with gubernatorial elections, which is to raise the threshold for receiving public money. It's now harder for Blaine House bidders to qualify, which makes sense, as candidates should prove viability before triggering "clean" funds.
This is a departure from initial thinking about clean elections, which was to allow anybody to run for office. The problem in practice is that if you allow anybody to run for office using somebody else's money, anybody will — even a weed farmer from Hartford named Julia St. James.
Tightening qualifications, then, is the right move. Not so much as to become exclusionary, but just enough to ensure that serious candidates, with proven support, can run "clean" campaigns.
In the end, though, the biggest danger to clean elections in Maine is neither fraud nor measures of success. It is funding. If utilized in numbers like the 2006 governor's race, the state's fund for clean elections could empty, sending candidates back to private money for the difference.
This must be avoided, for the sake of the program. Like any trailblazing idea, the flaws of clean elections have become apparent, and been addressed, over time.
What cannot be overcome, however, is bankruptcy, essentially. The most crucial element of public financing for elections is not monitoring how the money is spent, but ensuring there is financing available for any qualified candidate.
If it cannot do that, the opponents of public financing cannot be so easily disputed.
Advertisement
Displaying comments, from newest to oldest
Bob, thanks for the insight
Bob, thanks for the insight from a candidates perspective. I am not really sure how I feel about our CE system. Maybe it is idealistic to think that ordinary citizens, people without the ability to fund a campaign, might be good representatives. Representatives who come from a segment of our community who do not often get into office. I would like to see an end to the "professional" politicians who, in spite of term-limits, are in one office or another for years on end. But that is another issue.
_______________
"No one is rich enough to do without a neighbor." ~ Danish Proverb
verified Don't be hard on Bob Stone.
Don't be hard on Bob Stone. Being wrong all the time and being a right-winger has to be a burden. Public financing of elections is the only way to keep special interests (corporations) from corrupting the democractic process. Whatever is wrong about public financing should be fixed, but we should never go back to a system where a corporation can buy the governorship as they did in the past.
Jon Albrecht Dixfield
verified Good morning, Jon... I see
Good morning, Jon...
I see you are back to the labeling again. You share something in common with the Sun-Journal editorial board of 2002, who labeled me a "right wing idealogue" who wouldn't play nice in Augusta. That wasn't very nice, but such is life in Maine politics.
After reading your letters and posts, I wear the label "right winger" as a badge of honor. It is good that there are right wingers out there, questioning the status quo in Maine and nationally. It is good that there are left wingers and "moderates" out there.
I appreciate the writings of Judge Learned Hand. He wrote: "The spirit of liberty is the spirit which is not too sure that it is right; the spirit of liberty is the spirit which seeks to understand the minds of other men and women...."
I really don't know if I am right or wrong, but I believe what I believe. Time and history will tell.
Could you please tell us what corporation "bought" the Maine governorship.
All the best,
Bob Stone
"Could you please tell us
"Could you please tell us what corporation "bought" the Maine governorship."
That was the question that popped into my mind also. I am always amazed at the people who know all of these insidious inside dealings and yet fail to share these truths with the rest of us.
_______________
"No one is rich enough to do without a neighbor." ~ Danish Proverb
verified I ran for state senate in
I ran for state senate in 2002 and used Clean Election funds. I think I can lend a candidates view on Clean Election funding.
As long as Maine Clean Election Funding exists, a candidate would be foolish not to use CE funds. For the state senate, there is $20,000 of taxpayer provided funds just for the asking. If you decide to use your own money and/or raise more than the CE limit, your opponent(s) is provided matching taxpayer funds. A privately funded campaign is noble, but foolish as time could be better spent knocking on doors.
I can understand why a local newspaper likes CE funding. It helps candidates purchase many column inches of newspaper ads. Why wouldn't the Lewiston Sun-Journal be in favor of more advertising? The Costello family isn't running the paper as a recreational pursuit and nobody should blame the paper for supporting CE.
I would like to see CE terminated.
1. It draws some unsavory, shady elements who see a large pool of money there for the taking. While the agency overseeing the process, the Ethics commission, does a fine job of monitoring the CE program, there are just too many "consultants" perched on the telephone lines, just waiting to swoop in and make a killing. The Hartford candidate illustrated how the program can be "gamed". It lingers to this day, no?
2. With all due respect, there are scores of people in the Maine legislature who would find it impossible to raise funds in support of their campaign. Fund raising requires savvy, organization and work, as well as a "platform" that people with disposable income are willing to support. I think the make up of the Maine legislature would be quite different today if CE didn't exist. I'd like to see a legislature made up of people that have worked a plan to get elected.
3. Generally, there isn't enough "skin in the game" in Maine politics. People need to be more heavily invested in what transpires in Augusta. When people have to dig deep to support a candidate, they would tend to understand what their candidate actually stands for.
These, however, are rational points and I now realize that politics, especially Maine politics, is not a rational world. We are all diminished as a result.
Oh, by the way, I was killed, 70% to 30%, in 2002 election. I ran on a platform of lower taxes and less state spending. People wanted more taxes and more state spending. That they got...in spades.
verified Does no one else see the
Does no one else see the hypocrisy of someone like BobStone who preaches lower taxes and lower government spending and yet still ponies up to the trough to accept tax money to run? It is people like YOU, Mr. Stone, who can make up your mind, whether to practice what you preach, that is causing the depletion of this worthwhile program.
verified tron... Let me make it a
tron...
Let me make it a little clearer for you, "tron". As long as CE exists, a candidate would have to have rocks in his/her head to run as a privately funded candidate. Why would anyone want to raise $20,000 and have their opponent(s) sit there and be handed $20,000 and do absolutely nothing other than raise some seed money
Furthermore, if the fund raising went really well, and the privately funded candidate raised $40,000, then the opponents would be handed another $20,000 as matching funds if he/she/they were running as CE candidates.
My opponent ran as a CE candidate.
Perhaps you, a highly principled individual, would run under those conditions. I didn't play that game, because it is unfair.
I would have voted to repeal the law even though I made use of the funding to run. I see no hypocrisy, only common sense.
All the best,
Bob Stone
I think the bigger question
I think the bigger question is why anyone would need $20,000 or much less $40,000 in order to run a campaign? Flyers and signs will run you around $1,500 total for your district - what more do you need? Is the newspaper ad really that valuable today given readership declining? Same can be said for tv and radio - unless you can be sure your ad will run at a time and channel that a majority of your constituents will see, haven't you lost more than gained? Your money is getter spent getting your middle name changed to David or Diane, thus the ballot would read Doe, John D. or Doe, Jane D. Its clear that in this area, many people simply look for that D to symbolize democratic party and check on that candidate. Some can't even tell you the persons name when they walk out of the balloting. Invest in the name change, it might not hurt...
verified Well, "Bob", I think you
Well, "Bob", I think you have failed to see the reasoning behind the CE law. There are two distinct groups, the monied or monied connected gentry, IE Republicans, and the poor disadvantaged working stiff, IE Democrats. Now I realize there are exceptions to these classes, since people align themselves with different parties for different reasons, but this is the general rule.
Back in the 90's, the majority of people noticed that the Republicans were able to simply buy elected office, since they had access to more money. So to level the playing field, a grass roots campaign was launched to allow the less affluent the chance to compete. The level wasn't equal, but fairer. Naturally, the system could not exclude the monied gentry, since this is America, but common sense would dictate that those who could run on their own, without public funds, would do so. Obviously it hasn't happened that way. Instead of running on their own, and then repealing the law, some people have decided to run en masse to bankrupt the system. Doubt what I say, just look at the hordes of people running for the Republican gubernatorial nomination.
verified Good afternoon tron, I enjoy
Good afternoon tron,
I enjoy this blog. As a working stiff, and a "right wing ideologue" unenrolled voter, I won't have the time to follow the blog during the day when the next work week rolls around. I'll miss the interchange.
Is that the "class card" you are pulling out, tron? I think that is getting old, and bears little resemblance to rationality, but we know all about rationality and politics. My observation of the Maine Democrat Party is that it has no shortage of very well-healed good Democrats. Stephen King, Peter Vigue (Cianbro), John Orestis, Kevin Mattson, Severin Beliveau, just about every Portland attorney, are no pikers and very successful business types. Cruise around the parking lot at the Democrat convention and take a look at the vehicles if you need furhter support.
And good for the Democrats. It is nice to have such support for party objectives.
I find it curious your mention of Republicans "able to simply buy elected office, since they had access to more money." Really? Could you cite a factual basis to buying an office? By my recollection, Democrats have dominated Maine elections for nearly 40 years. Perhaps you and Jon Albrecht can collaborate on the name of the corporation that bought a governorship. Best of luck.
Oh, yes. I found your statement "just look at the hordes of people running for the Republican gubenarorial nomination" quite interesting. At noon, a check of the State Ethics website had the following individuals registered to run for Governor in 2010:
1. 4 unenrolled
2. 6 Democrats
3. 5 Republicans
4. 2 Greens
Some would doubt what you say, given the facts.
Enjoy the day.
All the best,
Bob Stone
verified tron... Let me make it a
tron...
Let me make it a little clearer for you, "tron". As long as CE exists, a candidate would have to have rocks in his/her head to run as a privately funded candidate. Why would anyone want to raise $20,000 and have their opponent(s) sit there and be handed $20,000 and do absolutely nothing other than raise some seed money
Furthermore, if the fund raising went really well, and the privately funded candidate raised $40,000, then the opponents would be handed another $20,000 as matching funds if he/she/they were running as CE candidates.
My opponent ran as a CE candidate.
Perhaps you, a highly principled individual, would run under those conditions. I didn't play that game, because it is unfair.
I would have voted to repeal the law even though I made use of the funding to run. I see no hypocrisy, only common sense.
All the best,
Bob Stone
verified In today's edition is an
In today's edition is an article on how the State will have to abolish whole programs to help our citizens, if not Federally mandated, and horrors of horrors, may even have to dismantle whole departments and there is talk of clean election funding? There are plenty of people who want to run for office and very little shortage of potential candidates. Letting them run on their own money or that of private supporters is the way to go. Private supporters have the common sense to cut the financial cord if these people do not perform, and if they are too beholden to those supporters, other candidates are quick to point this out and defeat them. Public funding takes this strong power out of the hands of the public and lets any fool run for office. Public funding also sets a threshhold under the cost of an election, and drives up the cost of the electoral process. The system has operated well since the inception of this country; let us go back to private or self funding of the electoral process and encourage thrift in these campaigns.
Advertisement
Advertisement
Most Popular Today
verified on "J. Ziehm: LePage forgetting his childhood"
Tina
Tina do you have family? I have two daughters that were single parents, they lived with us for some time after the grandkids were born. I have two nieces same situation. The thing is none of them ever applied for anything. They went to work in low paying jobs and worked their way up to a somewhat decent pay. Once on their feet they moved out. Please don't think I am unsympathic I have been there watched that and pit5ched in to make a bad situation better.
verified on "P. Nachman: Confidence probably misplaced"
Ronald, I do rail about debt
Ronald,
I do rail about debt growth, but the intention of this thread was to show Alan how the government is currently overarching its span of control. That is, how successful (or unsuccessful) the government manages its programs.
My healthcare arguments have never supported the current cost structure. My healthcare arguments have more to do with oBamaCare being the wrong solution, and in general, government controlled healthcare being the wrong solution. Anyhow, that is a topic for another day.
- Agree Agree (1)
verified on "Maine eyes $21 million in multistate suit against mortgage lenders"
George Bush in September 2008
when the stock market started crashing is the one who bailed the banks out by creating TARP in October 2008. During that fateful week of September 2008, a half a TRILLION dollars was taken out of the money markets (offshore? Must have been because to this day no one has been arrested for the electronic run on the banks that day!) in 90 minutes. The Federal Reserve pushed $180 BILLION dollars onto the market to stave off a total collapse. It worked temporarily, but then Bush said it was time to bail the banks out. He created a $753 BILLION dollar TARP (protects ya from the bad weather!) bailout and before he left office, he took $353 billion and gave it out to the Big Banks without strings attached. The Big Banks went wild with their new found money! In fact, after Obama won in November 2008, the Big Banks were on a high again and when Obama in early 2009 after being sworn in started adding strings to the bailout money, that's when the republicans of the nation started calling him a big meaning to the banks.
Guess how much Bush's TARP has cost Americans so far? $7 TRILLION DOLLARS. Had George Bush decided to give every single American who filed a tax return in 2007 a $50,000 check, our nation would have flourished and he would have been a hero leaving his presidency, but he didn't do that. Sad.
- Agree Agree (1)
In order to make comments, you must verify your account.
In order to comment on SunJournal.com, you must use your real name and include the town in which you live in your profile. A member of our staff will call you to verify this information. To join in, fill out your user profile completely and check the box "please verify my status." We'll get back to you within one business day to verify your account.
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.