A while back I was looking at the Web site for the Maine Commission on Governmental Ethics & Election Practices. I wanted to find out what was new with the Maine Clean Elections Act (MCEA). I discovered an interesting 2007 report titled, “Has Public Funding Improved Maine Elections?” It concludes that the law has been successful in many ways. However there are still areas of concern. An important one involves legislative and caucus political action committees, or PACs.

The report describes the PAC quandary succinctly: “Under the MCEA, publicly funded candidates may not raise money for their own campaigns, but they are permitted to raise private contributions for other purposes such as a PAC controlled by their legislative caucus or a PAC that they have personally organized for a race for legislative leadership. The practice of MCEA candidates raising money for PACs – particularly a PAC controlled by a single legislator – continues to be a contentious issue. Critics argue that it is inconsistent with the pledge taken by MCEA candidates not to solicit private contributions.”

Call me a critic. It is incompatible with the spirit of clean elections.

If a person voluntarily decides not to take private money, then how can the same person turn around and raise it for his party or his colleague? It just doesn’t make sense. And more dangerously, it makes people cynical.

Some want this practice changed. Last year, Rep. Charles Harlow of Portland sponsored LD 106, which would have barred clean elections candidates from taking part in PAC funding. It had numerous area co-sponsors, including Rep. Timothy Carter, D-Bethel, Rep. Tom Saviello, an independent from Wilton, and Rep. Richard Wagner, D-Lewiston.

The bill died in the Legislature. According to recent e-mails from Rep. Harlow, party leaders were concerned. Many people resisted it because they thought it would restrict party fund-raising. Harlow might reintroduce it next year, if he is re-elected.

I hope he tries again next year. If it became law, we all could be proud that Maine has helped clean elections reach its next logical step; to further accentuate the distinction between private and public money.

The best aspects of the bill are its clarity and consistency. Clean election candidates for public office should forgo the temptation to financially help their colleague or party. Instead, they should help them with ideas. What new approach to an important issue would wow their colleagues enough so they could be elected caucus leader? What innovative ways can they frame issues that will appeal to voters so their party can win more seats?

An interesting argument against LD 106 was made by the Maine Citizens for Clean Elections, a group committed to diminishing the influence of money in politics. In a letter posted on their website, they sympathized with the intent of LD 106. However they opposed it because, if it passed, “candidates who wish to engage in the perfectly legal fundraising activities of PACs would simply opt out of the Clean Election system and raise private money for their own campaign and for PACs.” The effect would be harmful: “This would in no way lessen the influence of big money on Maine politics, and so would have absolutely no benefit to Maine’s citizens.”

The underlying assumption in this argument seems this: candidates would choose to reject clean money because they don’t want to be restricted as to how they would help a colleague, or their party. Although candidates may believe in the spirit of clean elections, the practicality of moving up in their careers would be more important.

Is this assumption correct? In many cases I am sure it is. However, might it be possible that candidates would begin to do the opposite? Could the media and the public shame them into going completely clean?

The counterargument is it just won’t happen. Like everyone else, politicians have a hard time giving up control.

Another approach to reform is to rein PAC influence by limiting individual contributions and banning corporate contributions altogether. According to a 2007 newspaper column, that method is favored by the Maine Citizens for Clean Elections. That approach has merit. However the approach taken by LD 106 might gain more public support, because it is simpler.

Our state government’s integrity is real and significant. That doesn’t mean it is perfect, however.

We all should be more aware of the influence of organized private interests in Augusta – in whatever technique they try to peddle their influence.

Karl Trautman is chairperson of the social sciences department at Central Maine Community College. He received his doctorate in political science from the University of Hawaii. He can be reached at [email protected].