Clean elections shouldn’t be tainted by allegations of dirty money.

Last Thursday, the Maine Supreme Judicial Court – as expected – upheld a decision by the state’s ethics commission that political advertisements paid for by the Maine Democratic Party and the Republican Governors Association fell outside state’s clean election laws.

The complaint was brought by Green Independent gubernatorial candidate Pat LaMarche, who argued the expensive partisan advertisements should have triggered matching funds to all publicly funded clean-election candidates, in the spirit of the legislation.

At issue is the legal term “express advocacy.” Although the MDP and RGA ads were clearly partisan, they stopped short of advocating for a candidate and instead treaded softly with vague statements on issues and policy.

“Tell Chandler Woodcock you support new solutions to change Maine’s direction,” one television ad stated. (Six ads were cited by LaMarche: two regarding Woodcock, four regarding Baldacci). But without key phrases – like “elect,” “defeat,” or “vote for” – the ads were not considered express advocacy.

Another regulatory crack exposed in the cauldron of this 2006 race is the question of financial disclosures of advocacy nonprofits. The Maine Heritage Policy Center, the author of the Taxpayer Bill of Rights legislation, has been criticized for being exempt from revealing its fiscal statements, given its high-profile politicking for TABOR.

The ethics commission has wisely decided to investigate this issue.

Maine’s 2006 gubernatorial race has benefited from the presence of four strong contenders, especially LaMarche and fellow independent Rep. Barbara Merrill, both who fiercely shed the also-ran label usually reserved for non-Democrat or non-Republican candidates.

They are potent, in part, because clean-election laws allow them to compete with the more established partied candidates. Politics has been stuck in two-party doldrums for too long, and the rise of qualified independent options is a sight for sore partisan eyes.

Yet while soft language in advertisements keeps the spigot of soft money open to Democrats or Republicans, outside clean-election law purview, more spartan independent campaigns will remain victims of fiscal inequality.

Lawmakers should address this loophole in clean elections, to ensure all ‘clean’ candidates stay that way.