A divided ethics commission decided last week not to subpoena records from the conservative Maine Heritage Policy Center to determine if the organization’s efforts on behalf of the Taxpayer Bill of Rights qualified it as a political action committee – a designation that would allow people to get a better look at its finances.

Instead, the Maine Commission on Governmental Ethics and Election Practices voted to require the think tank to file a less-restrictive campaign finance report used by some other nonprofits that got involved in political campaigns during election season.

Carl Lindemann, a freelance writer whose complaint to the ethics commission prompted last Wednesday’s hearing, said he likely will appeal the ruling to Superior Court.

Lindemann readily admited he wants to get at the source of the Maine Heritage Policy Center’s funding and find out whether outside groups helped fund its work on the Taxpayer Bill of Rights. The spending and tax cap proposal known as TABOR was defeated, 54-46 percent, on Nov. 7.

Lindemann’s attorney, John Branson, argued before commissioners that if they designated the policy center as a political action committee, people would be able to see if “they got a big check” from Americans for Limited Government, which backed other spending reforms and property rights initiatives across the country in the last election.

“It’s a way to conceal where some of the really big money was coming from,” said Branson about the Maine Heritage Policy Center, which he referred to as the public relations arm of the TABOR campaign.

Staff members from the Portland-based policy center engaged in numerous debates on TABOR, sent out press releases and were quoted often in stories about the campaign. They also wrote the version of TABOR that appeared on the Maine ballot.

Bill Becker, head of the Maine Heritage Policy Center, argued his organization was not a PAC, but has existed now for four years, doing work on fiscal and tax policy, health-care and education reform.

“I never claimed we do not talk about TABOR. Of course we do,” he said, since his organization wrote the proposal Maine voters considered. TABOR, however, is not the reason the policy center exists, he said.

And, it was pointed out that other organizations like the Maine Center for Economic Policy and the Maine Municipal Association also were very visible in the anti-TABOR campaign.

Under law, political action committees, or PACs, are defined as groups whose “major purpose” is advocating the passage or defeat of a ballot question. They have to raise money on behalf of a cause and spend in excess of $1,500 to promote it. PACs have to file regular campaign finance reports listing who contributed money and how they spent it.

The official political action committee for TABOR was the TaxpayersBillofRights.org and it reported receiving $120,000 from Americans for Limited Government and another $100,000 from the National Taxpayers Union.

Becker refused to say whether Americans for Limited Government had contributed to his organization in 2006, when asked by reporters. “We do not disclose our donors,” he said.

Mavourneen Thompson, an ethics commission member, pushed for further investigation of the policy center, and called for using the panel’s subpoena powers to look at records.

“It’s very clear to me that it very well may be a PAC,” she said.

The vote, however, was tied, with the two Democratic representatives on the commission voting for further investigation and one Republican and the independent member voting against. The fifth member, Jean Ginn Marvin, a Republican, removed herself from the discussion because she’s on the board of the Maine Heritage Policy Center.

“Significant purpose is different than major purpose,” said Michael Friedman, the commission’s independent member. “I don’t think a single campaign issue necessarily takes them away from the major purpose of the underlying organization.”

Friedman said if the policy center works on another TABOR-like initiative in the next election cycle, that could change his opinion about whether it is a PAC.

When it was clear the votes were not there for further inquiry, the commission agreed to require the Maine Heritage Policy Center to file what’s known as 1056-B report for organizations that are not political action committees but engage in campaigning for a ballot question. They must report what, if any money, they received specifically for a campaign issue and what money or staff time they spent on behalf of that issue.

Only 10 nonprofits filed 1056-Bs in the last election, according to a review done by Dan Billings, an attorney for the policy center, and people on both sides of the TABOR debate told the commission the rules around the forms are too vague. Some organizations filed nothing at all and others listed their in-kind support in the campaign on the official PACs of the pro and anti-TABOR groups.

The Maine Heritage Policy Center was given 30 days to file its 1056-B, but it likely won’t reveal much about the think tank’s major donors. Becker said only four to six donors referenced TABOR with their donation checks, and none included the heavy-hitters rumored to be backing the organization.

Lindemann told the commission that he was behind one of those donations, asking a friend to send in a $125 check to see what happened.

Copy the Story Link