BOOTING CAMPAIGN SPOUSES

Two Maine lawmakers last week picked up where the Maine Ethics Commission left off not long ago in setting rules for the circumstances under which spouses of publicly funded candidates may be paid for their work on a campaign. They couldn’t, under a bill by Democratic Reps. John Piotti and John Brautigam, except for some reimbursements.

This is likely a brighter line than needs to be drawn – there’s no pattern of funding abuse by family members here – but it’s better than the status quo, which includes too few guidelines.

The Maine Clean Elections Act legislation comes after a notable instance during the 2006 gubernatorial campaign, with candidate Barbara Merrill essentially paying $109,000 to her husband, Phil Merrill, to help her in the race. Mr. Merrill is an experienced politician and a longtime Democratic activist, so his employment in his wife’s campaign wasn’t surprising. But his pay, even though it raised no ethical red flags for being out of line with pay at competing campaigns, created an impression of a family profiting through the act.

The act funds candidacies with public dollars not only to encourage more people to run for office and diminish the influence of large donors, but also to improve the image of money in politics. The Ethics Commission, given a chance last month to set rules for candidates who hire relatives, instead passed the job to legislators.

The commission’s executive director, Jonathan Wayne, offered the commission three options on dealing with the practice of hiring family members, which as he pointed out, erodes public confidence in the act. The commission could prohibit the practice among publicly funded candidates, impose a cap on how much is paid to family members or simply require candidates to more fully disclose family relationships on financial reports.

It’s worth noting that in the U.S. House, a bill that banned candidates’ spouses from being paid to work on campaigns passed easily in July.

One concern with choosing the prohibition is that for some legislative races, family members may be the most committed, most practical choice. Setting a cap on limiting their pay to a standard rate would keep that choice available. Clearly, this isn’t a major issue, and an outright ban is much simpler.

But it also sets limits on spending to solve a problem that exists mostly theoretically. Merely by creating clear operating rules for hiring relatives, lawmakers could ensure the issue is before the public and that no impropriety is tolerated.