A handful of cases suggest that candidates could recruit their own competition for money and electoral gain

LEWISTON – While the most recent allegations of questionable candidate recruitment involved politicians from southern Maine, Lewiston and its surrounding communities have not been immune to the practice.

On Monday, a former Green Independent candidate from Cape Elizabeth wrote to the state’s ethics commission, saying that she had been manipulated into running for public office by two Republicans, themselves candidates for election at the time, and an activist for the Green Independent Party, who were all working together.

The accused denied the allegations quickly and without reservation.

And, while the potential practice of recruiting one’s own opponent or “fragile” candidates in other races in order to attract more public funding for a campaign or to pull support from another campaign does not appear to violate state law, it does raise numerous ethical questions.

In January, the Commission on Governmental Ethics and Election Practices handed down the biggest fines in the history of the Maine Clean Election Act to a quartet of political players who had misused public campaign financing in a way similar to what was alleged Monday.

The ethics commission found that two candidates and two political consultants had misused taxpayer money and failed to maintain proper campaign records.

Evidence was also uncovered that suggested a conspiracy to recruit unqualified and marginal candidates, including at least one man who was described as homeless and living under a bridge.

Candidates and consultants

The scheme appears to have been designed to draw money from the state’s Clean Election Fund and to put electoral obstacles into the path of political opponents and to utilize candidates that would not be able to mount legitimate campaigns or be credible witnesses in any public proceedings.

Independent state Senate candidate Julia St. James of Hartford, who is a self-described weed farmer and Wiccan, was fined $13,000 and ordered to repay $11,088 in clean election money she had received. Green Independent candidate Sarah Trundy of Minot was fined $500 for failing to keep records of how she spend clean election money and ordered to repay almost $3,000 of her clean election money.

Political consultant Daniel Rogers of Auburn was fined $17,500 and consultant Jessica Larlee was fined $15,500.

During the investigation of the Trundy and St. James campaigns, it was discovered that Rogers was involved in a campaign dirty trick in Biddeford in which a fake organization was created for the sole purpose of tricking voters about a candidate’s position on gay marriage.

It was also discovered that, in addition to recruiting St. James and Trundy as candidates, Rogers and Larlee also attempted to recruit a third, Major Isaac Pike, who was described by police at the time as a transient and as having a criminal record that included assault and weapons convictions.

During testimony before the ethics commission, Larlee said that Pike’s recruitment was a ploy meant to distract Democrats during the election. Rogers, however, said he was a legitimate candidate.

While the ethics commission stopped short of declaring Trundy and St. James “sham” candidates, it found much to be concerned about. Trundy played only a small role in her own campaign, the commission said, and St. James’ was beleaguered by problems and inappropriate activity.

The commission found that Larlee had taken advantage of Trundy by convincing her to run.

Common thread

According to several people involved in the investigation and with knowledge of the candidates, both Trundy and St. James could fairly be described a vulnerable to manipulation, and certainly the description is appropriate for Pike.

It’s could also fit for two candidates in southern Maine.

On Monday, Anne Jenness filed a complaint with the ethics commission alleging that Republicans Mike Mowles, himself a candidate, state Rep. Kevin Glynn and Green Independent Ben Chipman duped her into running for the state House of Representatives.

Mowles and Chipman denied any unethical conduct and said that Jenness’ accusations were wrong and filled with half-truths.

Jenness, who described herself as suffering from depression, surviving on disability payments and deeply in debt, was the second person from that area to complain of questionable recruitment.

Jonathan Wayne, the executive director of the ethics commission, describe a similar allegation to his board in a May 10 memo.

According to that report, first-time candidate Steven Haskell told Wayne that he felt “taken advantage of” by Glynn and Mowles, who had recruited him to run against Glynn in a Republican primary and done much of the work on his campaign. Haskell’s candidacy would have meant more public money for Glynn’s campaign.

Haskell eventually dropped out of the race and Glynn did not receive additional campaign funding.

“Steve Haskell describes himself as bi-polar, and subject to mood swings,” Wayne wrote in the memo. “He has lost two jobs recently. He has never run for office before, and did not express to me a convincing rationale for his Senate campaign. Given these limitations, it raises the question why party activists like Glynn and Mowles would view Haskell as a viable candidate for the Maine Senate.”

Wayne concluded in the memo that he has serious concerns about the situation, but was hesitant to put this matter on the agenda for the commission because there did not appear to be a violation of election law.

Play it again

In a second memo to the ethics commission board, this one dated May 19, Wayne describes a fourth example of questionable candidate recruitment from the 2004 election, this time involving Stavros Mendros, a Lewiston City Councilor and two-term Republican member of the House of Representatives.

In 2004, Mendros was running for the state Senate against Democratic incumbent Peggy Rotundo, D-Lewiston.

During the primary campaign seeking the Republican nomination, Mendros faced a write-in campaign by Yvette Silva. He petitioned the ethics commission to receive additional clean election funding for his campaign, arguing that he was in a contested primary and that Silva was a serious candidate. The commission agreed and Mendros received an additional $4,973 for his primary campaign.

After the election, Wayne wrote that he became concerned about the situation and conducted an interview in November 2005 with Silva. When he explained to Silva that her candidacy resulted in extra money for Mendros, she responded, “This sounds like I’ve been used.”

Silva, who served six years on the city’s school committee, had supported Mendros in the past.

Silva had decided to run a traditional campaign in the primary. Mendros, Wayne wrote, encouraged her to run but did not initiate the campaign. He did, however, help her fill out the paperwork to get on the ballot and he helped with her petitions. When Silva failed to qualify for the ballot, Mendros encouraged her to run as a write-in candidate.

While running against Mendros, Silva relied upon him for many campaign functions, Wayne wrote. Mendros “took care of” having about 100 brochures printed and helped Silva fill out her campaign finance reports, which included activity that Silva said she hadn’t done.

“In her heart, she intended to run. Mendros may not have planned what happened, but he could have manipulated events,” Wayne wrote in the memo.

Reached Wednesday at her home, Silva said that now she didn’t feel the same way as she had when she spoke to Wayne in 2005.

“I don’t see anything wrong with it,” Silva said. “Eventually, it comes down to the voters anyway. My intention was to beat him out, but it didn’t work out that way.”

Silva received five votes in the primary and raised only $280 for her campaign.

Silva said that when it became necessary for her to take care of her parents, who were in declining health, she couldn’t continue her campaign and needed help.

“I would have helped him, too, if he had asked,” Silva said of Mendros.

“If the law allows for it, then he can do it,” Silva said. “If there’s something wrong with it, the law needs to be changed.”

Messages left for Mendros were not returned.

Back to 2006

Jay Taylor was briefly a candidate for the state Senate this year, seeking the Republican nomination to face Rotundo this fall.

Taylor listed as his residence 617 Main St., Apt. 4, in Lewiston, the same address where Mendros is registered to vote and which Daniel Rogers listed as his address during ethics commission proceedings. On his original paperwork, Taylor, who is a professional petition worker, listed Mendros as his treasurer. He then changed his treasurer to Paul Madore, a Lewiston political operative who runs the conservative Grassroots Coalition and is a professional signature gatherer.

Taylor declared his intentions to run as a Clean Election candidate, but did not submit qualifying contributions. He withdrew from the race and was replaced with a new candidate, Larry Poulin.

Taylor dropped out of the race on July 5.

His explanation at the time to the Sun Journal was cryptic: “It was a judgment call on my part,” he said. “If I wanted to maintain my employment, I needed to leave the race.”

Taylor did not return a message left on his cell phone.

Limited problem

In the packet of information provided to the ethics commission for its Aug. 23 meeting, Executive Director Wayne recommended that the commission take no action on the Jenness complaint of Aug. 14, but he did discuss two potential problems that the questionable recruitment of candidates could create.

According to Wayne, the recruitment of opponents, particularly in party primaries, could increase the cost of the Maine Clean Election Act. The practice could also lead to a lack of confidence in the system.

“While no laws or rules appear to have been broken,” Wayne wrote in connection with the Haskell and Jenness situations, “this type of activity might strike many as unethical – particularly because of the fragility of some of the particular candidates recruited. If there is a perception that such activity is permitted and may even be advantageous to candidates, that could discourage others from adhering to high ethical standards and potentially weaken the public’s confidence in the electoral system.”