The investigation and penalty levied by the Maine Commission on Governmental Ethics and Election Practices against Maine Leads has set a strong precedent for ensuring transparency and prompt financial disclosures by any organization wishing to influence voters in this state.

On Nov. 19, Maine Leads — which ran the campaign behind Question 2, the excise tax cut — was fined $10,000 by the ethics commission for failing to properly register with the state. The penalty could have been $2 million, but this level of enforcement was unnecessary. The precedent was most important.

Maine Leads billed itself as a grassroots political organization, but its behavior tiptoed between general and express advocacy for political causes. The ethics commission’s investigation found the organization had paid for signature gathering for specific questions, as well as funded political action committees.

In short, Maine Leads was behaving like a PAC, which are highly regulated under Maine law, without disclosing anything about its financial background. This subverted the intention of campaign finance law, which intends to allow voters to know whose dollars are being spent to sway their opinion. The ethics commission rightly found that this activity wasn’t allowed under the law.

Campaign finance is a cat-and-mouse exercise in tracking money raised and money spent. Money always finds its way into the system (and probably always will) so the public should demand, at the very least, its regulators to know where the money has come from and where it is going.

It’s in important distinction, as the freedom of political money and political speech are closely guarded under the First Amendment. Transparency in campaign financing protects the public’s right to engage in political activity, and its right to know who is politicking to influence electoral outcomes.

Maine’s ethics commission is, by its nature, not an investigator. Given the complexity and time demands needed for campaign finance inquiries, it remains a good question whether this smallish agency should handle such detective work in-house, or rely on the expertise of others.

This discussion should amplify as its the panel embarks on its next major assignment — a look into the finances of the National Organization for Marriage and its advocacy on behalf of Question 1.

Yet the Maine Leads case should show skeptics — of which we were one — that the ethics commission is able to conduct and execute an investigation and enforcement of campaign finance laws. The public is not served if this agency is a passive regulator, unwilling to tackle challenging cases to uphold the law.

By taking this case to fulfillment, the ethics commission has done good work, while sending that message that failing to comply with Maine’s campaign finance regulations will not be taken lightly.

[email protected]