AUGUSTA – The state ethics panel was in a fining mood Wednesday, handing out a total of $15,000 in penalties for campaign finance reporting violations.

Taking the brunt of the punishment from the state Commission on Governmental Ethics and Election Practices was the Merrill for Governor campaign that received two $5,000 fines for violating seed money restrictions during the candidate qualification phase.

The complaint against publicly funded independent gubernatorial candidate Barbara Merrill of Appleton was filed by John Michael of Auburn, another independent candidate for governor, who is seeking public funding for his campaign. Michael maintained Merrill had stated in her June 2 seed money report that she had incurred no debts or obligations as she worked to gather enough $5 contributions to qualify as a publicly funded candidate.

In order to qualify for up to $1.2 million in public funding, Maine Clean Elections gubernatorial candidates each must collect 2,500 $5 contributions.

Michael, who is appealing the commission’s decision to deny his request for public campaign funding, claimed Merrill’s 42-day post-primary report filed July 24 reflected payments of $1,500 and $8,300 respectively to Harold James Webster and Dyer Associates.

Webster told the panel Wednesday that, as campaign manager, he had reported that both were paid on June 16 for either gathering $5 contributions for Merrill or for providing consulting services to the campaign during the qualifying period.

Vinton Cassidy, an ethics panel member, said it was pretty clear to him that Webster’s use of the word “reimbursement” to describe the payments did not square with sworn affidavits submitted by the parties to the panel Tuesday in which they stated there was never any intention to indicate the campaign had acknowledged an obligation to them.

“The wording is in violation of the election laws. The question is: Why?” said Cassidy.

“Because I’m an idiot,” Webster responded.

Speaking for the Merrill campaign Wednesday, Phil Merrill, the candidate’s husband and deputy treasurer, said there was never any understanding or implied obligation to the two paid employees that they would receive any remuneration for their efforts while acting as “volunteers” during the pre-qualification period. The fact that the campaign finance report indicated that both employees were paid for work performed in conjunction with collecting $5 contributions was the fault of “inartful wording,” he said.

Under Maine law, candidates for governor are permitted to raise up to $50,000 in seed money that can be used to pay for contribution-gathering services. Merrill said Wednesday that the campaign had, in fact, raised $6,255 in seed money – but chose to keep those contributions to a minimum in an effort to avoid what the campaign perceived as excessive fundraising.

Commission Chairman Jean Ginn Marvin said that while some aspects of campaign finance reporting can be complicated, the violation before the panel did not fall into that category.

“The remarks on the form are clear,” she said. “This is not anything that’s tricky. These forms mean something, and when you fill them out, you have to mean what you say.”

Ultimately, the board was left with the choice of believing what was on the report or the affidavits from Phil Merrill, Webster and Dyer that maintained they were not paid during the qualifying period. The board voted 3-1 against Merrill and could have gone as far as to disqualify her taxpayer-funded campaign. The commissioners concluded such a draconian response would be disproportionate to the offense and imposed a $5,000 fine for each violation – half of the maximum penalty allowable under state law.

Phil Merrill, who had suggested a fine of $1,000 after the panel’s finding, was still attempting to make sense of the ruling immediately after the commission’s decision. He said it was possible that the campaign might appeal the ruling to Superior Court, but that he really did not know whether that would happen. State law maintains that the campaign cannot use Maine Clean Elections funds for fines, so it is likely the money will come either out of the Merrill household or possibly from a third-party contribution.

“I think we can meet it, if we have to,” Merrill said.

In another fining incident, the Maine Democratic Party received a $5,000 penalty for nondisclosure of more than $3,200 in mailings for the re-election campaigns of Rep. Walter Ash, D-Belfast, and Sen. Lynn Bromley, D-South Portland. The expenditures were part of a $22,000 mailing contracted in June and mailed on July 20 and July 14, but were not reported for the campaign finance report filing period that ended July 25.

Maine Democratic Party attorney Michael K. Mahoney said there was no mistaking the fact that the party had erroneously omitted the Ash and Bromley mailings from its report. He attributed the oversight to a “communications lapse within the party” resulting in a corrected amended report that was 22 days overdue. Although Mahoney submitted a letter Monday suggesting the commission should perhaps reduce the staff-recommended $5,000 fine to around $720, he told the commission Wednesday the party would not object to the $5,000 fine.

In other business …

The Commission on Governmental Ethics and Election Practices also:

. Dismissed a complaint by Merrill claiming the Maine Democratic Party had authorized a push poll – a poll designed to change a respondent’s opinion of a candidate by imparting negative erroneous information about the candidate.

. Dismissed a complaint filed by the Maine Democratic Party against Merrill and Republican gubernatorial candidate Chandler Woodcock on the allegation both had acted to manipulate the Maine Clean Elections law when they contributed $5 to each other’s campaigns. Democratic leaders argued that the act amounted to a quid pro quo – an agreement barred under Maine law.

. Dismissed a complaint filed by the Maine State Building and Construction Trades Council, a labor organization with Democratic leanings, charging that the Maine Economic Research Institute may have acted improperly as a special interest group in a recent newspaper supplement that endorsed mostly Republican legislative candidates.