In 1996, Maine voters were presented with a question of whether they wished to change the manner in which candidates seeking the offices of governor, state senator or state representative could fund their campaigns. Since 2000, the state has provided a public funding option using tax dollars from the state general fund that re-quires an average annual contribution of $2 million.
My involvement with this issue began with my work with legislative candidates in 2002. I have found that the initial public funding distribution can permit a candidate to appropriately fund a modest campaign effort, which, coupled with a good personal effort, can get a message out and be effective.
The concern I have is related to the matching fund portion of the law that provides additional monies (twice the initial distribution) to publicly funded candidates if their opponent or other support groups put money into the campaign effort through independent expenditures. These matching funds ballooned to over $463,000 in the 2008 election cycle and this year will set a record at both the legislative level (currently it is over $700,000) and for the governor’s race (this will exceed $1.5 million).
The constitutional issues related to publicly funding campaigns in a number of states that enacted similar legislation are varied but rest on a couple of fundamental questions:
ä Does the use of public tax dollars have a chilling or restrictive effect on opponents who decide to run a traditional privately funded campaign?
ä Does the use of taxpayer dollars improve the election process and eliminate special-interest influence in elections?
From my experience the effect is not beneficial in either instance. We clearly have not eliminated special-interest monies in the election process if you consider what occurs in an election cycle when special-interest groups do a mailing strategically worded to avoid falling into the category of matching funds but including infor-mation that compels the target candidate to issue a response. Their response can trigger matching funds for their opponent to do a subsequent mailing.
The timing of our case has been challenged by those supporting the public-funded option, which is a valid question. I was approached about this matter after early summer decisions in the Arizona, Florida and Connecticut cases, which changed the dynamics of how the judicial branch was viewing this issue. Remember in Maine, where we have offered public funding since 2000, there had been a decision rendered in Daggett v. Webster that upheld the public funding method in Maine. There had been no cases that changed this position until the above-referenced cases were heard.
Our case was prepared in July and filed with the courts here in Maine. The state attorney general represents the defendants in this matter and asked for dismissal of the case or, failing that, an extended time to research the matter. Our attorneys recommended filing for the temporary restraining order so as to expedite the process. This resulted in the case making its way through the appeals process and finally arriving at the U.S. Supreme Court where it raised some interest from the justices. But, due to timing, they declined to hear it and sent it back to the lower court where it will now get a hearing.
The basis for this suit goes to the heart of an important constitutional issue: Should our government be involved in funding political opponents in a manner that impinges on the rights of a candidate who chooses not to take taxpayer dollars to run for office, and does this adversely affect that person’s right to free speech?
On a personal note, I also think it is time we revisit the question of taxpayer dollars being used in elections, especially when the growth of this system seems to be taking off and other essential services and programs in state government are suffering from cutbacks and reduction. For those of us who wish to be chosen to govern-ment, we should lead by example and reduce our consumption, not increase it.
Andre Cushing, R-Hampden, is the state representative for District 39 in the Maine House of Representatives. He is one of the plaintiffs in the suit challenging the matching funds provision of the Maine Clean Elections Law.