When voters enacted the Clean Election law in 1996, Maine became the first state to venture into the territory of publicly funded political campaigns. Now, with the system undergoing its first electoral test, Maine must explore that uncharted territory between the letter of the law and its spirit.

At issue is whether candidates who accept public funds for their own campaigns — and the accompanying restrictions on spending — may actively raise private money for the unrestricted campaigns of others. The Commission on Governmental Ethics and Election Practices took up the question last month and resumes its deliberations this week.

The answer clearly will be yes, they may. The Clean Elections Law explicitly states how publicly funded candidates must conduct their own campaigns, but it is utterly silent on what those candidates can do on behalf of would-be legislative colleagues. How so-called Clean candidates fill that silence will speak volumes about the future of publicly funded campaigns.

The question is not merely theoretical; it is practical. Democratic Rep. Michael Saxl, the House majority leader, and Republican Sen. Richard Bennett, assistant Senate minority leader, are running for re-election as Clean candidates. At the same time, they are raising private money through political action committees for other candidates. Their leadership positions give their PACs clout, and their fund-raising efforts enhance the likelihood they will retain those leadership positions.

Republican Rep. Thomas Murphy, House minority leader, is a privately funded candidate for re-election. He sees a contradiction in the Clean/PAC combination, he admits it is perfectly legal, he asserts it ignores the intent of the law and of the voters who enacted it.

He is correct. Among the benefits touted by Clean Election proponents are that public funding frees candidates from the daily grind of raising money and eliminates the perception that they will be beholden to specific contributors. It certainly was not the intent of Maine voters that Clean candidates would use that free time to become beholden on a different level. Public funding is not about candidate convenience, it’s about public confidence.

This is not to say that publicly funded candidates cannot or should not help elect privately funded candidates they believe will serve the public well. There are many ways one can help — giving speeches, making phone calls, stuffing envelopes, even writing personal checks. But the Clean Election law is about one thing only — the influence of money on politics — and for Clean candidates to be actively contributing to a situation they, by their very existence as Clean candidates, concede is a problem falls somewhere between obtuse and hypocritical.

Opponents of public funding regularly warn that those who want to skirt campaign finance reform laws will always find new loopholes, so it is ironic that this loophole was found and is being used by public funding proponents. The next Legislature can fill this gap between letter and spirit but, until then, Clean candidates should just steer clear.