What is a think tank and how is it different from a political action committee? This question is more than just “inside baseball” for political junkies as the Maine Ethics Commission looks into the conduct of The Maine Heritage Policy Center, scheduled for today in Augusta. What’s at stake is whether Maine voters are entitled to know who paid for a key player in one of the state’s most visible political campaigns, and how the money was spent.

A well-run think tank typically doesn’t need to disclose finances. But MHPC’s bad management allowed advocacy for the Taxpayer Bill of Rights to become its “major purpose” during the past political cycle. In doing so, it took on a key, defining feature of a PAC and so ran afoul of the laws the commission is charged to enforce.

Think tanks like MHPC work alongside PACs. PACs typically propose ballot initiatives like TABOR and directly promote them. They accept contributions for these efforts and use the funds for what we normally think of as campaign activities – purchasing advertising, mailing out fliers and the like. Because a PAC’s stock in trade is direct promotion of a ballot initiative or candidate, they have extensive reporting responsibilities so voters know who is behind these campaigns. In contrast, think tanks exploit unpaid media exposure by writing opinion pieces, press releases and the like. Their officials can advocate aggressively without, in theory, becoming part of the campaign.

“Promotion” is just one defining feature of a PAC under Maine law. That an organization takes on a political campaign as its “major purpose” is another. How does that apply here? An analogy from the stock market clarifies this. A PAC is like a stock with its single-issue “major purpose.” Think tanks are like mutual funds – a balance of various issues and purposes. Financial managers may shift a fund’s investments, but avoid getting too focused on a single stock because that would defeat the purpose of a mutual fund. Likewise, think tanks that get overly focused, as MHPC did promoting TABOR, run the risk of taking on a “major purpose.” Think tanks that cross over this line without establishing a PAC and disclosing their funding and expenditures run afoul of Maine laws designed to safeguard transparency in the political process.

TABOR was obviously an “all hands on deck” undertaking for MHPC. Resources set aside for other interests were redeployed. For example, MHPC’s director of health care reform initiatives, Tarren Bragdon, found himself out stumping for TABOR.

But just what exactly constitutes “major purpose”? Is it most of an organization’s output? The language of the law is lower than the high standard of “sole purpose” that MHPC Executive Director Bill Becker misstated on WLOB radio-FOX Television in Portland last week. The commission needs to determine the appropriate threshold. Then, after ascertaining the degree that TABOR work dominated MHPC, it can assess whether it took on PAC status under the “major purpose” definition.

Time is another factor. Is “major purpose” defined over the entire lifetime of an organization, or perhaps by an initial mission statement? Or is this best determined by examining a particular calendar year or political cycle? The mutual fund analogy helps here, too. Tracking a fund over its lifetime has historic interest. But focusing on what is in the portfolio in the present year or cycle is much more useful for managing investments. By this token, that MHPC had a balance of interests in the past is irrelevant. The issue is whether MHPC’s all-out effort for TABOR should invoke PAC registration and disclosure requirements.

It is now up to the Ethics Commission to determine how much TABOR dominated MHPC while MHPC dominated the campaign promoting TABOR. The case first went before the commission Oct. 20, and has since become contentious. MHPC has “confused” the commission staff with misrepresentations, self-contradictory statements and inconclusive evidence cherry-picked by MHPC’s legal team. The staff notes that, “If the Commission cannot trust that it is receiving accurate information, it cannot perform its statutory requirements.” Under these circumstances, it is appropriate and necessary for the commission to invoke the full range of its investigatory powers by taking testimony under oath and by subpoenaing MHPC’s officers for much-needed documentation of its finances and activities.

The case against MHPC is the occasion to begin the process of examining and clarifying the proper role and responsibilities of all “think tanks” and “policy organizations” that take an interest in specific ballot initiatives. The Ethics Commission must make sure they operate properly within Maine’s regulatory framework. We should not permit them to serve as a smoke screen clouding the hard-won transparency we now enjoy in our political system.

Carl Lindemann brought the complaint against the Maine Heritage Policy Center to the Maine Ethics Commission, scheduled to be heard today. His e-mail address is Socratic@cyberscene.com.