December 2, 2012

Political fundraising: 'Enough is enough'

The Citizens United ruling is bypassing citizens. Let's take on the PACs and keep Maine elections clean.


The election is finally over. The mail arrives with three more fundraising solicitations for Maine political action committees (aka PACs) -- the 78th and 79th solicitations. Our law office has received contribution requests from 48 separate committees (which are only a fraction of the 158 total registered PACs). Apparently holding an election does not interrupt the fundraising for a minute.

click image to enlarge

Staff Photo Illustration/Michael Fisher

I have been around politics in Maine and the nation for almost half a century. I have chaired the Maine Democratic Party, been listed on Nixon's enemies list, served in both branches of the Legislature, run for governor, and entertained presidents at our home. I am not unfamiliar with the practice of raising political money.

But this year, even I have to say, "Enough is enough." The 2010 U.S. Supreme Court decision known as Citizens United unleashed the floodgates: More than $2 billion was spent in this year's presidential election. We are all familiar now with the campaign for Maine's open U.S. Senate seat, where more than $11 million was spent, much of it by out-of-state PACs.

What is new is the extent to which these practices are now infecting races for the Maine Legislature. Maine was once a state where a legislator was elected after knocking on hundreds of doors and spending a few hundred bucks putting up yard signs. This year, however, more than $3.5 million was spent by and for Maine candidates. The previous record, set in 2010, was $1.5 million.

Some races were notorious. Almost a half-million dollars was spent on a single state Senate race in the Bangor area alone. What's more, both candidates were Clean Election candidates who received $18,124 apiece in taxpayer funds to run their general election campaigns. The remaining amount, at least $418,000 or 92 percent of the total spent in that race, came from PACs from outside that Senate district. On top of this, the Republican candidate in that race was listed as a principal officer of a PAC that spent more than $161,000 to oppose her opponent!

This is a far cry from what Maine voters expected when they passed the first Clean Election ballot initiative in the country in 1996.

For a while, the Clean Election law worked. Most candidates, both Democratic and Republican, used public financing. This meant they could not accept donations from outside sources. The availability of public funds enabled many talented people to run for office who would not otherwise have been able to afford it.

But now the system is fraying. The Citizens United decision has made it easier to raise, attract, and spend private money. The governor and Maine Legislature reduced Clean Election funding this year by eliminating "matching funds," which increased candidate funding when he or she faced a large disparity in spending. As a result of these changes, only 56 percent of legislative candidates participated in Clean Election funding in 2012, down from a peak of 81 percent participation in 2008.

Nowhere is the fraying more evident than in the expanding role of privately funded PACs created and sustained by candidates who are themselves Clean Election-funded. Let me state this again for emphasis. Did you, as a Maine voter, understand this? Candidates for the Maine Legislature, who are themselves funded by taxpayers under the Maine Clean Election Act set up, on the side, privately funded PACs to help other legislators.

In 2010, 295 candidates for Maine's Legislature ran "clean" and received more than $3 million in taxpayer funds to run for office. These same candidates indirectly benefited from another $1.5 million in "independent expenditures" spent by PACs on their behalf. This year, 239 "clean" candidates received more than $1.5 million in taxpayer funding, and another $3.5 million in independent expenditures by PACs.

(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 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.)