The simple part of a complaint by Green gubernatorial candidate Pat LaMarche is whether a television ad campaign by the Republican Governor’s Association is advocating that voters elect GOP candidate Chandler Woodcock. Of course it is – especially where the campaign, after offering its ideas about the dismal condition of Maine under Gov. John Baldacci, extols the wonders of candidate Woodcock and then flashes on the screen: “Chandler Woodcock Governor.”

Ms. LaMarche has complained about this to the Maine Commission on Governmental Ethics and Election Practices, which is expected to meet Sept. 22 when it will consider the issue. State statute and commission rules are clear about what constitutes express advocacy, thereby requiring the group that aired the ad campaign to file an independent expenditure report, which would in turn trigger matching funds for other Clean Election candidates and raise the spending bar for Gov. Baldacci, who is running on private funds.

Advocating expressly for a candidate, the rules say, means using words such as “Jones for House of Representatives” or “Jean Smith in 2002.” Is “Chandler Woodcock Governor” an equivalent in the context of the pro-Woodcock ad? Sure. It is a clear plea for voters to act by supporting his candidacy.

The second question raised by the LaMarche complaint is whether state Sen. Woodcock or his campaign in any way cooperated, consulted or worked in concert with the RGA in the production of this ad, which would be a serious violation. Both the candidate and the RGA say there was no connection between the two, and there is no evidence to the contrary.

A separate issue, not before the commission, concerns the ad campaign’s accuracy. One ad laments, for instance, Maine’s $733 million structural budget gap. This is insulting to Maine voters for a couple of reasons. The ad assumes Mainers don’t know that a budget gap – in this case, one a couple of years old – is a projection of

a future shortfall, a measure made by analysts to tell lawmakers how much money they must trim from a hypothetical budget based on a wide range of spending assumptions.

Budget gaps are common but they do not persist because they are not allowed to. The RGA believes, apparently, that Maine voters are too numb to figure out the Legislature and the governor balance (sometimes well, sometimes through pure hokum) the budget in each biennium and, often, within a biennium.

One further complication: Each of the three well-funded challengers in this race are running almost solely against Gov. Baldacci, who was the unmentioned target of the RGA ad. If the commission agrees that the ad campaign amounted to express advocacy, it would attempt to mitigate the whack at the governor by awarding two of the governor’s opponents even more money to run against him. Assuming the RGA ads were effective, this amounts to a net penalty to the incumbent for no good reason, and it does so on the taxpayer’s dime.

This flaw in the Clean Election system was pointed out when the act was drafted and has yet to be adequately addressed.