Public campaign funding has growing pains

loading...

AUGUSTA – State Rep. Nancy Smith says she would never have run for the Legislature if it hadn’t been for Maine’s public campaign financing system. Now, she’s planning to use it for a third time.

Smith, a Democrat who owns a small farm in Monmouth, said her supporters and friends “don’t have deep pockets,” and raising private funds for a campaign would have been “too overwhelming.” So she turned to the Clean Election Act.

“It’s a great program,” Smith said.

Nearly a decade after the birth of Maine’s pioneering program, the Clean Election Act is having growing pains, even as other states experiment with similar laws and look at adopting programs of their own.

Approved by voters in 1996, Maine’s Clean Election process has proven to be immensely popular with legislative candidates like Smith, drawing participation by more than 600 of them since it was first used in 2000.

In Maine, it’s bankrolled one full gubernatorial campaign and another that lasted through a primary. Three Republican candidates for governor are hoping to qualify for “clean” funding for next year’s race.

Supporters say the law has unlocked doors for political newcomers who would otherwise lack the money to run campaigns, while giving voters more choices and diminishing the influence of big donors by de-emphasizing private fund-raising.

But problems have arisen, too, in Maine’s and some other states’ Clean Election systems, triggering calls for reforms in what was intended to be a reform in the first place.

Cases of abuse, however, “represent a teeny, teeny fraction of the candidates who participate in the Clean Election Act,” according to Jonathan Wayne, executive director of Maine’s Commission on Governmental Ethics and Election Practices.

Maine’s campaign finance oversight panel is in the midst of its biggest investigation ever as it tries to track down where $40,000 in taxpayers’ money went in a pair of legislative campaigns run by third-party candidates.

During a hearing earlier this fall to get an accounting for the money, the ethics commission heard accusations of theft, drug abuse, financial mismanagement and campaign smears.

In a bizarre turn during a hearing, Jessica Larlee, a former treasurer for state Senate candidate Julia St. James, objected to St. James’ presence in the room because she feared attacks from her psychic energy.

St. James, of the unofficial Fourth Branch Party, said thousands of dollars were spent for campaign materials and mailings that never materialized.

She was defeated in the election for an office from which she had hoped to relax Maine’s marijuana laws.

Asked by the commission for receipts for campaign expenses, Larlee said she would look in a jar where she kept them and said her desk looked “like an advertisement for attention deficit disorder.”

The commission is to issue its findings on Dec. 16.

In two earlier Maine cases, the ethics commission found funds had been improperly spent by candidates on items like personal rent, meals, personal auto repairs and travel in the 2000 elections. The commission ordered reimbursements and fines.

The most recent case in Maine inspired a call for reform from the Maine House Democratic leader, Rep. Glenn Cummings of Portland, who claims the distinction of being the first legislative candidate in the nation to receive public financing.

Cummings wants more restrictions on how money can be spent and an increase in the number of $5 contributions that candidates need to collect from individuals in order to qualify for Clean Election funding.

Under Maine’s system, qualified candidates must also agree not to raise private funds and to limit spending.

Nonparticipating candidates may raise and spend money without limitation. If a participating candidate is outspent by a candidate raising private funds, matching money becomes available.

In Arizona, whose Clean Election System was created in 1998, former state Senate candidate Yurikino Cenit “Yuri” Downing-Garcia faced prison time after pleading guilty to perjury in a case dealing with of misuse of public campaign money. An arrest warrant was issued when he failed to show up for sentencing.

Additionally, Arizona’s campaign finance commission is trying to oust a legislator who the commission ruled had overspent on his 2004 public-financed campaign and failed to report sufficient detail about his campaign finances. The case is pending in state court.

Opponents of Arizona’s system, which is similar to Maine’s, have failed in several court attempts to terminate the program. No reforms are pending in Arizona, where citizen-initiated laws are hard to change.

In Maine, there have been bills to repeal the system, but doing so “would be a significant uphill battle,” said House Republican Leader Josh Tardy, who believes the Clean Elections Act is a poor use of taxpayers’ money.

Tardy, R-Newport, said lawmakers are very reluctant to undo laws passed by referendum. Besides, many lawmakers from both parties avail themselves of the system, in which costs amount to only a fraction of 1 percent of the state budget.

Despite the abuses that have cropped up in Maine and Arizona, “Overall, the benefits outweigh the cost,” said Nick Nyhart, executive director of The Public Campaign, a nonprofit, nonpartisan group that focuses on what it calls special-interest money in campaigns.

The Clean Election laws in Maine and Arizona have drawn attention in Connecticut, where the Legislature is considering adopting a similar program as part of a larger package of campaign finance reforms.

Other states have various forms of public financing. North Carolina’s system applies to some judicial races and New Mexico’s for elections of corporate regulators.

New Jersey had a pilot program in two legislative districts during the November election for Assembly. A number of cities are experimenting with partial public financing systems, The Public Campaign says.

Massachusetts had a Clean Election law, but it was killed by the Legislature last year.