Clean Election law supported, survey reveals

AUGUSTA – Some candidates choose to run under Maine’s publicly funded campaign law to avoid the perception of being ingratiated to contributors and special interest groups.

Many are too embarrassed to ask their friends for money. Others share deep-seated philosophies about the need to sever the link between politics and money in state government.

For state Sen. Chandler E. Woodcock, the decision to seek office under the 7-year-old Maine Clean Election Act was prompted by concerns voiced by a single constituent.

“It has to do with my wife,” said the Farmington Republican. “Before I ran the first time, we had a discussion about finances and she said, ‘You will not spend a nickel of our money to run for political office.’ I was left with the option of not running or running under the Clean Election Act.”

Woodcock was among more than two dozen lawmakers who spoke in support of the state campaign funding law, which was the focus of a new survey released Tuesday by the Maine Citizenship Leadership Fund. The four-month review of more than 230 Clean Election candidates who ran during the most recent statewide election cycle produced the following conclusions:

. 96 percent of the candidates said they were “very” or “reasonably” satisfied with the Clean Election system;

. 51 percent said a publicly funded campaign was a factor in their decision to run;

. 55 percent preferred a publicly funded campaign because it allowed them to spend time on issues with voters instead of fund raising.

“Candidates are really grateful to have the Clean Election Act and they’ve expressed this gratitude over and over,” said Alison Smith, survey coordinator for the Maine Citizen Leadership Fund. “And they’re really proud that Maine has gone to the trouble of creating this public funding system and very proud that we lead the nation with our model.”

Seventy-seven percent of all state senators and 55 percent of all state representatives currently in office ran as Clean Election candidates. Senate candidates qualified for more than $52,000 in contested general elections, and House candidates qualified for nearly $13,000 in contested general elections.

Two gubernatorial candidates also staged publicly funded races during 2002 – Republican James Libby of Buxton received $328,000 and lost in the primary, and Green Independent Jonathan Carter received $900,000 in public money for his unsuccessful bid in November. But Smith said their opinions were not sought for the survey because the MCLF wanted to focus on legislative campaigns.

Smith emphasized that 94 percent of the candidates who used Clean Election funds said they likely would use them again in future campaigns. Under the law, the program’s perpetuity is supposed to be guaranteed by a $2 million annual allocation from the state’s General Fund and another $290,000 a year on average from a special state income tax check-off.

Despite its apparent popularity, Smith and others worry that the program’s future is anything but certain because not all Mainers support the use of taxpayer dollars for political activities. Other critics include special-interest lobbyists who feel alienated from lawmakers who don’t accept private contributions. Then there are party candidates who are staunch proponents of traditionally financed campaigns. Some Republicans and Democrats resent the implication that they are somehow “dirty” politicians whose votes are purchased by their contributors because they’ve chosen not to run as Clean Election candidates.

Douglas R. Clopp, Democracy Project coordinator for the MCLF, agreed it wasn’t exactly a coincidence that his organization was holding its press conference at a time when lawmakers are considering a bill that would change the name of the law from the Maine Clean Election Act to the Publicly Funded Election Act. The measure, LD 243, received a 7-6 ought-not-to-pass recommendation last month from the Legal and Veterans Affairs Committee. Like many other divided reports, the bill is awaiting action in the House.

While some might wonder what’s in a name, Clopp is highly concerned about any nontechnical changes to the law.

“We need to only look to Massachusetts for a very succinct lesson in how to repeal a citizens’-initiated Clean Election law,” he said. “House Speaker Thomas Finneran changed the name and then defunded the act. For us, this is the beginning of a very slippery slope.”

In fact, Maine already raided its Clean Election Fund a year ago under Gov. Angus S. King when the state needed to take the money to balance the budget. Because of what Clopp described as a “loophole” in the law, even the taxpayer checkoffs are vulnerable to budget appetites under a provision that allows the governor to transfer the money to the state’s Rainy Day Fund where it then can be transferred back into the General Fund.

“Last year the Legislature withdrew $6.5 million out of the Clean Election Fund … leaving us with about $4 million from which $3.1 million was used in last year’s elections,” Clopp said. “What little we had left after that got sucked up this year to fund about $230,000 for the veterans home in Machias.”

The Clean Election Fund received its annual $2 million allocation in January. But Clopp knows his organization faces growing numbers of political candidates seeking publicly funded campaigns, while lawmakers with proposed legislative programs can find little or no money for funding.

“Whatever money is left in the Clean Election Fund is going to look attractive to folks,” he said. “So we need to send a message to the Legislature that we are concerned about whether we will be able to meet our obligations in 2006.”