There was one clear message after this year’s election that didn’t come from the voters – the state’s Clean Election law is broken.

In the last month of the campaign, more than $1.2 million was spent by political action and party committees, which are not bound by the same rules as candidates. Half of that money was spent on legislative candidates, most of whom are so-called “Clean Election” candidates who are bound by the rules. These politicians campaign with public money in an attempt to keep special-interest money and big spending out of local elections.

The law, while well intentioned, is failing miserably at keeping outside money from influencing the outcome of elections. Since the Clean Elections Act went into effect in 2000, the amount of money being spent on candidates has only increased. In fact, it’s nearly doubled in the last four years.

The local candidates who benefit from or are attacked by campaign materials purchased with this money often have no control over it. State Democratic and Republican leaders control the money using political action committees to raise and spend it, independently from the campaigns the money ultimately affects.

For example, according to the latest campaign finance reports covering Oct. 1 through Oct. 26, the Maine Democratic State Committee raised nearly $1 million. To trace all that money to its source, one has to follow it back through a web of political committees, unions and private donors, many with an interest in influencing the outcome of elections.

In this case, the money came from other political action committees like the Maine Senate Democratic Campaign ($135,000) and the Maine House Democratic Campaign Committee ($85,900). It also came from outside the state, from sources like the Democratic Governors Association ($305,000), which is based in Washington, D.C., and from private donors, like Donald Sussman ($60,000) of Paloma Partners Management Co., and Plum Creek ($15,000), the group of investors developing Moosehead Lake.

Much of the money raised by the Maine Democratic State Committee was used to help re-elect Gov. John Baldacci. However, some of it was also spent on key legislative races targeted by Democratic leaders. The money is used for phone banks, fliers and even TV ads.

This practice is not unique to the Democratic Party. Republicans have political action committees of their own. The Maine Republican Party, for example, raised $349,669 in the latest filing period. The Republican Governors Association in Washington, D.C., contributed $200,000, and the Maine House Republican Committee contributed $115,000.

Often, this money is used for mailings that attack one candidate or another, campaign material that is often misleading. Nevertheless, it’s often effective when it comes to influencing the outcomes of close elections.

The candidates who benefit from this financial support are not always happy to get the help. In fact, Paul Lavin, the assistant director of the ethics commission office, said he often gets calls from candidates who are surprised and concerned about the amount of money being spent on their campaigns.

That money, in turn, triggers matching money for publicly financed opponents, who often have no idea how to spend the large amounts of cash they receive in the weeks before the election. Many of them try, however, in an attempt to stay competitive.

Lavin estimated taxpayers would spend $7.5 million this year on Clean Election candidates. That amount will most likely increase in coming years, and not just because more candidates are participating in the program.

That money would be well spent if it were doing what the law intended – reducing the total amount of money spent on local elections, keeping big spenders outside of local races from influencing them and keeping elections “clean.” Since it seems to be accomplishing none of those things, the Legislature should look at revising this law to keep these powerful political action committees from influencing races, or consider doing away with it.

-Brendan Moran, editor