Last Monday the Muskie Student Organization (MSO) launched a four-part discussion panel series to a full house in Room 131 of the Law Building. The topic of this first panel was the effect of Maine’s Clean Elections Act on the nature of elections in Maine. The panel was comprised of two senators, Republican Arthur Mayo of Bath and Democrat Beth Edmonds of Freeport; Roy Leonardson, former campaign manager for Peter Cianchette; Bill Hain, executive director of the Commission on Governmental Ethics and Election Practices; and Arn Pearson, executive director of the Maine Citizen Leadership Fund.
Maine’s Clean Elections Act, the first of its kind nationally, was approved in 1996 by a voter initiative. The CEA was created with the idea of cutting campaign costs, eliminating special interest money, and encouraging new candidates to run for office. To do this, the CEA instituted a voluntary public funding system where candidates would have to gather a certain number of $5 qualifying contributions from donors before they would be eligible for public funds.
Upon meeting the minimum required contributions, the candidate would receive a modest sum of money from the Citizens Clean Election Fund based on average costs of campaigns for the desired seat (House or Senate). Once candidates receive public funding, they agree not to accept outside money or to use their own funds. If a competing privately funded opponent outspends the publicly funded candidate, however, the publicly funded candidate is allowed comparable “matching funds” up to a considerably higher amount. The public money used to finance these clean elections comes from an automatic appropriation of $2 million each year, funds from a voluntary $3 check-off on state tax forms, and various other smaller sources of income, such as interest on the public account and money from fines.
The system went into effect in 2000 and seemed successful for a test run. Over a third of the candidates who won were clean election candidates, and participants in the program were almost equally divided among Republicans and Democrats. Several third parties also participated. In the 2002 elections, enthusiasm continued to grow, with participation roughly doubling and a majority of publicly funded candidates elected to serve in the Maine Senate and House. Based on the numbers alone, the public funding system seems to be a success. But panelists were quick to point out that the world of publicly funded elections is no utopia.
First to speak was Beth Edmonds on the problem of issue-advocacy, or “sham” ads. A glut of ads that urged voters to vote a certain way based on powerful symbols or raucous language appeared during the last few weeks of the 2002 election season. Since these ads do not explicitly say “vote for” or “vote against” a certain candidate, they escape being termed “express” advocacy, and therefore do not trigger matching funds for public candidates. Edmonds said the use of such a loophole was against “the spirit of the law.” She has put forth a piece of legislation that would call for more stringent accounting of vague “independent expenditures” while not limiting the amount allowed to be spent on them.
Privately funded Senator Arthur Mayo pointed out the fact that many candidates are not aware of literature that may be sent on their behalf that degrades their opponents. He reported on his personal experience with private campaigning, stressing that he never felt obligated to give out favors. He said he considered people “constituents first, donors second, or third.” His complaint with the private system was with the great amount of paperwork involved in the process, which he felt detracted from time he could spend meeting with constituents. Due to the CEA, private contributions and campaign expenses must be carefully accounted for, and contribution limits are cut down to only $250 for individuals, political action committees (PACs), and corporations.
However, though strict limits are set on the amount that can be given directly to an individual, huge amounts of money can be used on the candidate’s behalf without actually being accountable. Leonardson distributed literature showing clean candidates associated with PACs, as well as data tabulating the funds raised and funds spent–numbers which were sometimes not equal. “Where did the money go?” he said.
Leonardson’s attack on the CEA was that it did nothing to change how money influenced elections, and he expressed annoyance at the implication that politicians were bad people before the act came into play. He further criticized the fact that the ineffective legislation was funding itself out of the people’s pockets. “What I want,” he said, “is less money and more accountability.” The paradox is that limiting money spent by PACs on issue ads would be a breach of the First Amendment, but that without breaching it, truly “clean” elections are not possible. As an alternative, Leonardson suggested that any registered voter be able to contribute anything they wanted–as long as the money was accounted for within 48 hours and displayed publicly.
The question and answer session that followed the panel’s speeches brought up further shortcomings of the CEA. By “frontloading,” or buying most of one’s campaign advertising before primaries, privately funded candidates can evade triggering matching funds for their publicly funded opponents. Others felt that the availability of public funds enabled unfit candidates to appear on the ballot. Reacting to these criticisms, Bill Hain responded with a reiteration of the original goals of the act: “to get special interest money out of the process, decrease the amount of money in the process, and increase the number of candidates in the process. One of out three [that is, more candidates] isn’t bad.”
Organizers of the event were very pleased with the turnout. Fred Dyllon, a graduate student in the community planning and development program, explained how the panels were conceived as a way of opening a dialogue on timely and relevant issues. He contacted Doug Clopp at the Maine Citizen Leadership Fund, and the panel came together. Clopp said the high attendance of the event reflected very well on the University, where apathy is often prevalent. Though acknowledging the shortcomings of the Clean Elections Act, Clopp said it accomplished at least 80 percent of the job of cleaning up elections and was a landmark reform. Reflecting on environmental, health, and economic issues, he said, “This is the reform that makes all other reforms possible.”
Frederick Greenhalgh can be contacted at [email protected]