The Portland city clerk and Maine Ethics Commission have determined that Old Port magazine did not violate local or state election regulations when it published a news story advocating against a question on the Nov. 3 ballot.

The finding by City Clerk Katherine L. Jones effectively concludes that the magazine was functioning as a media outlet and not as a political action committee when it published a story in mid-October that opposed the scenic views referendum.

A political action committee that supported the measure, Save the Soul of Portland, contended that the magazine failed to include a required disclaimer for political advertising on the story. The referendum, Question 2, failed by a vote of 11,793 to 7,002.

Maine Media Collective, which publishes the magazine, registered a political action committee with the city shortly before the article was published. But in a Nov. 5 letter to Peter Macomber of Save the Soul of Portland, Jones said that neither the magazine’s PAC nor another PAC from which it received funding – Portland’s Future – had made any campaign expenditures.

As a result, Jones concluded, neither PAC violated any disclosure requirements under Maine law. Jones wrote that the PACs were also in compliance with city regulations for campaign finance reporting.

Jonathan Wayne, executive director of the Maine Ethics Commission, said Tuesday there will be no formal finding by the ethics panel because the complaint was not forwarded by the city clerk, who is in charge of administering campaign finance law for municipal elections. He said he did speak with Jones about the complaint in Portland.

“I expressed my preliminary view on behalf of staff that there is a broad exception in state finance law for newspapers and magazines to publish editorials and commentary related to elections,” he said. “Their expenditures in publishing commentary and editorials are exempt from some campaign finance requirements.”

Maine Media Collective formed a political action committee with the city shortly before the Old Port magazine issue in question was published. The PAC listed a $9,000 donation from Portland’s Future, another PAC that opposed the scenic view question.

Kevin Thomas, publisher of Old Port magazine, said Tuesday he is thankful the city clerk conducted a careful review and for “correctly concluding that we have fully complied with all campaign finance laws and regulations.”

“It is unfortunate that the baseless complaint was filed in the first place, but we are glad that it did not become a distraction in the election last week,” he said.

Anne Rand, spokeswoman for Save the Soul of Portland, did not respond to a request for comment Tuesday. Macomber, president of the Save the Soul of Portland PAC, also could not be reached for comment.

Macomber said in his October complaint that he understands that the exemption for “legitimate media organizations” is necessary to allow them to editorialize and advocate for and against causes, but said that was not the case here.

“We don’t believe the exemption anticipated a media organization raising money from individuals and businesses for the sole and specific purpose of influencing the outcome of an election, and failing to inform their readers of their financial interest,” he said. “This, we believe, raises serious legal and ethical questions that deserve to be answered.”

Gillian Graham can be contacted at 791-6315 or at:

ggraham@pressherald.com

Twitter: grahamgillian