October 7, 2013

In South Portland campaign, oil allies outspend opponents 10-1

The latest campaign-expense disclosures show in-kind donations play a key role for all parties.

By Matt Byrne mbyrne@pressherald.com
Staff Writer

Petroleum-handling companies and their allies in South Portland have donated tens of thousands of dollars to defeat the contentious Waterfront Protection Ordinance on the Nov. 5 ballot, raising nearly 10 times as much money as their opponents.

click image to enlarge

In this Sept. 18, 2013 file photo,Protect South Portland, a group opposing the exporting of tar sands out of Casco Bay, held a press conference to list 216 local businesses supporting their efforts. Deb Hutson, a realtor with Keller-Williams Real Estate, speaks at the press conference.

John Ewing / Staff Photographer

Related headlines

Related Documents

Protect South Portland campaign finance filing
Save Bug Light campaign finance filing
Natural Resources Council of Maine campaign finance filing
Maine Energy Marketers Association campaign finance filing

Tar Sands Campaigns - Top Donors

Four groups are registered to raise and spend money in the campaign over the Waterfront Protection Ordinance in South Portland. Two of them, the Natural Resources Council of Maine and Save Bug Light, an affiliate of Environment Maine, did not raise any cash in the three-month period that ended Sept. 30. Below are the top individual donors to the opposing campaign groups:

PROTECT SOUTH PORTLAND

Anna Lundquist, South Portland $242.45Karen Sanford, South Portland $200Timothy A. Boggs, Cape Elizabeth $193.90Louise Tate, South Portland $145.35Six donors gave $100 each

WORKING WATERFRONT COALITION

Portland Pipe Line Corp., South Portland $30,000Gulf Oil, Framingham, Mass. $20,000Sprague Energy, Portsmouth, N.H. $10,000Cianbro, Pittsfield $10,000

In the three-month period that ended Sept. 30, the Working Waterfront Coalition, which represents the Maine Energy Marketers Association, received $70,000 in cash donations from four corporate donors.

In the same period, the three organizations that are campaigning to pass the ordinance raised $7,302.82.

The imbalance is even more apparent for in-kind donations, the non-cash contributions of service or time by supporters of a committee’s cause.

Allies of the Working Waterfront Coalition gave about $205,000 of in-kind help, while the three groups advocating for the ordinance brought in $26,876.26 of the same type of assistance.

At issue is the proposal that South Portland residents petitioned to get on the ballot, to change the city’s zoning to prevent so-called tar sands oil from flowing through South Portland and being exported from its deep-water port.

The Working Waterfront Coalition says that if the law is enacted, it will spell the rapid demise of virtually all waterfront businesses that handle petroleum, in addition to some businesses that do not.

Tar sands refers to the raw, dense form of petroleum, technically known as bitumen, that is mixed with sand, clay and water in underground deposits. To process the substance into usable products, all of the non-petroleum elements must be removed after extraction.

The remaining bitumen at room temperature has the consistency of cold molasses, and must be heated or diluted with chemicals for it to flow through a pipeline. The bitumen must also undergo preliminary refinement before it is considered to be a form of crude oil.

Vast deposits of the substance have been known to lie under the Alberta wilderness since the 1930s. Alberta’s government says that proven reserves equal about 170.8 billion barrels of crude oil, most of which is locked up in oil sands. For years, the form of petroleum was too expensive to extract and process to be profitable.

For Portland Pipe Line Corp., which has seen decreased demand for its services, tar sands could be a lifeline.

The three ballot question committees that are promoting the ordinance are Protect South Portland, whose members proposed the law in May; the Natural Resources Council of Maine; and Save Bug Light, a group affiliated with Environment Maine.

Spending by the opposing groups differs greatly.

The three groups supporting the Waterfront Protection Ordinance have collectively spent $7,087.08, while the Working Waterfront Coalition has spent $25,883.36 on the campaign.

The fundraising and spending habits mirror predictions by both camps last month.

Protect South Portland’s proponents have, from the start, depended on volunteers from the community. Their tactics rely on personal interactions and vote-counting through canvasses. Teams of volunteers fan out across the city each weekend with clipboards and literature. Large fundraising figures were never part of the plan, organizers said.

The Working Waterfront Coalition, meanwhile, has hired professional political consultants, advertisers and marketing firms to plot strategy and reach out to voters. It plans automatic telephone calls and has sent direct mailers.

The campaign spent $15,000 on a study that explored the economic repercussions of a disappearance of petroleum companies from South Portland, which it said would lead to job losses and higher home-heating bills.

The study, by economist Charles Lawton, did not examine whether the proposed law would likely lead to the industry shutdown, only what would happen if it did.

In terms of individual cash donations, the two camps were far apart as of Sept. 30.

(Continued on page 2)

Were you interviewed for this story? If so, please fill out our accuracy form

Send question/comment to the editors




Further Discussion

Here at PressHerald.com we value our readers and are committed to growing our community by encouraging you to add to the discussion. To ensure conscientious dialogue we have implemented a strict no-bullying policy. To participate, you must follow our Terms of Use.

Questions about the article? Add them below and we’ll try to answer them or do a follow-up post as soon as we can. Technical problems? Email them to us with an exact description of the problem. Make sure to include:
  • Type of computer or mobile device your are using
  • Exact operating system and browser you are viewing the site on (TIP: You can easily determine your operating system here.)