In a story last week by Maine Center for Public Interest Reporting, the political action committee spending by state Sen. John Tuttle, a Sanford Democrat, came under scrutiny.
Tuttle, in a follow-up interview with the Journal Tribune, said he “understands the Maine Center for Public Interest Reporting is totally against leadership PACs.”
MCPIR’s John Christie commented on Tuttle’s assertion.
“We’re not for or against” PACs, Christie said Saturday. “We’re a straightforward news organization, investigating a news story.”
The MCPIR story outlined how Tuttle spent funds contributed to his leadership PAC by a number of companies. It pointed out that since 2008, Tuttle spent about $17,000, of the $31,000 he’d collected, reimbursing himself for travel and auto repair expenses and paying his wife and daughter for bookkeeping and computer-related work.
Tuttle, in an interview with the Journal Tribune Thursday, said he’s been upfront in his reporting to the Maine Ethics Commission and said he’s followed “the letter of the law.” He noted that in addition to contributions to the campaigns of other candidates, some PAC money went to assist constituents ”“ purchasing heating oil for one and helping another with funds to get to an out-of-town job interview.
While the Maine Ethics Commission examines reports for completeness and accuracy, Director Jonathan Wayne said that is the extent of the commission’s scrutiny.
“It is rare we would raise questions with … the appropriateness (of PAC spending), because under the law, they have the discretion of spending for purposes they deem appropriate,” Wayne said Thursday.
Tuttle, who said he supports review of the rules around PACs, also said this will be his last campaign. He is challenged in the Senate District 33 race by Republican David Woodsome of Waterboro. The district includes Cornish, Limerick, Newfield, Parsonsfield, Sanford, Shapleigh and Waterboro.
— Senior Staff Writer Tammy Wells can be contacted at 324-4444 (local call in Sanford) or 282-1535, ext. 327 or [email protected].
Comments are not available on this story. Read more about why we allow commenting on some stories and not on others.
We believe it's important to offer commenting on certain stories as a benefit to our readers. At its best, our comments sections can be a productive platform for readers to engage with our journalism, offer thoughts on coverage and issues, and drive conversation in a respectful, solutions-based way. It's a form of open discourse that can be useful to our community, public officials, journalists and others.
We do not enable comments on everything — exceptions include most crime stories, and coverage involving personal tragedy or sensitive issues that invite personal attacks instead of thoughtful discussion.
You can read more here about our commenting policy and terms of use. More information is also found on our FAQs.
Show less