AUGUSTA — Lawmakers will soon vote on measures that could determine the viability of Maine’s Clean Election Act. 

The Maine Senate last week gave initial approval to a so-called “do nothing” bill that conformed Maine’s public campaign finance program with a U.S. Supreme Court decision. The decision outlawed publicly-funded candidates from receiving additional taxpayer money to counter additional spending by their privately financed opponents or outside groups.

Maine’s Commission on Governmental Ethics & Election Practices last year submitted alternatives meant to conform to the Supreme Court ruling but that still allowed Clean Election candidates to receive additional funding beyond the upfront money. The idea behind those proposals was to ensure that publicly-funded candidates remained competitive against well-heeled opponents. 

But to this point, Republican lawmakers have rejected those proposals. They’ve instead opted to allow Clean Election candidates to receive only upfront money — $5,000 for a House race and $21,400 for the Senate.

Republicans have also spurned attempts to increase the upfront amounts, arguing it can’t reconcile doing so given the state’s budget woes. 

Advocates for the Clean Election law don’t buy that reasoning. They point out that the alternative proposals don’t spend more than lawmakers appropriated last year for the Maine Clean Election Fund.

The group Maine Citizens for Clean Elections says the proposal Republicans favor will weaken the law because candidates will be vulnerable to outside spending. Additionally, they argue, the program could become less popular if Clean Election candidates realize they have less chance of winning. 

Republicans and Democrats have made heavy use of the Maine Clean Election Act. Both parties see it as a recruitment tool for candidates who may be averse to asking constituents for campaign money.

Nearly 80 percent of the legislators elected in 2010 ran as Clean Election candidates.

The popularity of the program has raised questions from Democrats about why some Republicans appear intent on weakening it. An emerging narrative is that because the Maine Clean Election Act gives challengers a chance, the GOP is attempting to protect incumbents and preserve its majority. 

Republicans, meanwhile, have begun citing abuses in the system. They also argue that the law has increased the amount of outside spending because Clean Election candidates have an inherent advantage over privately financed ones.

Such arguments may come to the Senate floor Wednesday when lawmakers take a second vote on the so-called “do-nothing” bill that passed last week.

Lawmakers will likely consider at least four floor amendments, including one from Sen. Roger Katz, R-Augusta, that would increase the amount of money Clean Election candidates can receive. Katz’s amendment would allow Senate candidates to receive up to $26,000, including $3,000 in private seed money. House candidates could receive up to $5,000.

Sen. John Patrick, D-Rumford, is expected to offer two separate amendments, including one that aligns closely with the recommendation by the Ethics Commission.

One of Patrick’s amendments would give Senate candidates $35,000 and House candidates $6,900. His second amendment would lower the initial disbursement amount, but would allow candidates to earn additional money during the middle of a race. 

Patrick’s second amendment is favored by citizens groups and was recommended by the Ethics Commission staff. However, the proposal has not garnered the support of Republican lawmakers. 

It’s also unclear if Katz’s proposal would fly in the House. 

If it doesn’t, Andrew Bossie, with Maine Citizens for Clean Elections, said state elections will see an increase in the prominence of political action committees. Leadership PACs can collect unlimited donations and then disperse the funds to either oppose or support selected candidates. 

Because the leadership PACs are not subject to donation limits, opponents say they increase the influence of special interests in policy making. Both political parties use such PACs during election season, arguing that they’re necessary to compete. 

Bossie was hopeful that lawmakers would support some measure to strengthen the Clean Election law. However, if they don’t, Bossie said Maine voters may have something to say about it in the near future. 

Mainers overwhelmingly passed the Maine Clean Election Act in 1996. Polling commissioned by Maine Citizens for Clean Elections shows the law remains popular. Advocates also believe that the Legislature is on the wrong side of the issue given the increased public backlash to the 2010 U.S. Supreme Court “Citizens United” decision.

Critics say the decision unleashed massive, often anonymous, outside election spending in 2010. Such spending and the often negative ads that accompany it could be unprecedented this year.

smistler@sunjournal.com

Clean Elections comparisions

Copy the Story Link