Ethics at home

Since the November election, the attention of Maine, as the rest of the nation, has been upon Florida and its curious elections practices. That’s understandable, but now, with the show apparently over, it is time to look within and make some needed electoral adjustments here at home

A good place to start would be with campaigns in general, the Clean Elections Act in particular. It’s a good law, the result of a 1996 citizen initiative referendum that won with strong voter approval. Its intent is to allow candidates to run for state office without having to spend all of their time raising money or becoming beholden to special-interest donors. The $5 donation required to become eligible sufficiently demonstrates public support, the tax-return check-off is voluntary, the participation by more than 100 legislative candidates its first year in use is an excellent. And the need for campaign finance reform at the federal level, where the undue influence of money upon lawmaking is demonstrable, is of such importance that Maine must continue to lead the way.

There are, however, problems. Small problems, but ones that must be fixed if public confidence is to be sustained. The first arose early this summer over the question of whether candidates who accept public funds for their own campaigns – and the accompanying restrictions on spending — may actively raise private money for the unrestricted campaigns of others. It came up because that is precisely what. Democratic Rep. Michael Saxl, the new speaker, and Republican Sen. Richard Bennett, now co-president, did by running as Clean candidates while raising funds for PACs to support candidates not running under the public-funding law.

It clearly was legal – the law is silent upon what Clean candidates can do for others – but it was hardly observant of the spirit of the law. The purpose of public funding is not to free up candidates’ time so they can raise money for others. That it is legal is an oversight in the law, a loophole that the Legislature must mend.

Another issue came up this week when the Commission on Governmental Ethics and Elections Practices launched investigations of three Clean candidates. One unsuccessful candidate used public funds for more than 30 restaurant meals with campaign volunteers and to pay for a car repair. One mingled the public funds with private, one has failed to provide adequate documentation on campaign expenses covered by the public funds.

All three candidates may be found to be in compliance with the letter of the law. If there are violations here, they may be the small infractions that result from differing interpretations of the new law and misunderstanding of the untested rules.

However, these all are situations that must not continue. The purpose of the Clean funding is for candidates to campaign; that is, to get their message to the public. Candidates need to meet with volunteers, but they do not need to meet at restaurants with the public picking up the tab. Candidates need transportation and a mileage allowance is reasonable, but by no stretch should the public pay to repair a car used mostly for personal transportation. One fundamental precept of those who regularly use public money, such as charitable institutions, is that public and private funds must be kept separate especially. Another is that expenses charged to the public side must be unquestionably legitimate and fully documented.

These, too, are easily fixed by more explicit guidelines and the changes should not be hard for both parties to agree upon, since both parties made good use of the law. The Clean Elections Act is, after all, not about candidate convenience but about public confidence. And after what the public’s seen in Florida, its confidence is pretty fragile about now.