AUGUSTA, Maine — Maine’s election watchdog agency is trying to clarify that news organizations owned by political candidates and their immediate family members are not subject to the state campaign finance and disclosure requirements that govern candidates, political action committees and other organizations working to influence elections.
A rule recently proposed by Maine Ethics Commission staff would clarify that the cost of producing news at a candidate-owned news organization doesn’t qualify as a campaign expenditure as long as the outlet is considered a news organization under Maine election law and the outlet offers “a pattern of campaign-related news coverage that provides reasonably equal coverage to all opposing candidates.”
The rule proposal comes two months after Donald Sussman, husband of U.S. Rep. Chellie Pingree, who represents Maine’s 1st Congressional District, purchased a majority stake in MaineToday Media, publisher of the Portland Press Herald, Kennebec Journal in Augusta and Waterville Morning Sentinel.
Maine’s election rules long have carried a provision that exempts news organizations from having to file campaign expenditure reports for news and editorial coverage of political candidates, said Jonathan Wayne, executive director of the Maine Ethics Commission. But that exemption hasn’t extended to news organizations owned by candidates and their immediate family members.
“We think it would be helpful to provide some guidance on that,” Wayne said. “I acknowledge this could have application to MaineToday Media, but the commission staff believe that it is an issue that should be clarified for other media as well.”
At the moment, the rule proposal wouldn’t affect MaineToday Media, as Pingree is a candidate for federal, not state, office. MaineToday Media’s interim CEO, Pat Sweeney, said in a statement that the company is reviewing the proposal.
The ethics commission is accepting public comments on the rule proposal through July 6, and commissioners expect to take up the proposal at their July 25 meeting.
The addition to the press exemption is modeled after Federal Election Commission rules that say the cost of producing a “bona fide news account” at an outlet owned by a candidate does not qualify as a campaign expenditure.
In Maine elections, Wayne said, that exemption means news outlets:
• Don’t have to register with the ethics commission as political action committees and file campaign finance reports.
• Don’t have to file expenditure reports if they spend $100 or more independent of any candidate to influence an election.
• Don’t have to carry disclaimers that indicate whether a candidate has authorized the publication and who has funded it.
“The effect of the exemption is to take the publication of a news story or editorial out of campaign finance regulation,” Wayne said.
Suzanne Goucher, president and CEO of the Maine Association of Broadcasters, said the proposed addition to the press exemption rarely would apply to Maine broadcasters. They don’t often editorialize and their owners seldom run for political office, she said.
“It does seem to me like the commission is really splitting hairs,” Goucher said.
The Maine Press Association, the primary trade group for Maine’s newspapers, hasn’t yet discussed the proposed addition to the press exemption, said Mike Dowd, Maine Press Association president and editor-in-chief of the Bangor Daily News. He said the group planned to submit public comments to the ethics commission.
This latest rule proposal follows two earlier rounds of rule proposals that sought to more clearly define a news organization for purposes of campaign finance rules. Those pending proposals would add Internet-based publishers to the existing press exemption.
“This is something the commission staff initiated in order to provide clearer guidance to the public on the press exception,” Wayne said. “We wanted to clarify how the commission would interpret being a periodic publisher of news.”
The definition of a news organization under Maine election rules is the subject of a pending lawsuit in U.S. District Court in which the American Civil Liberties Union of Maine is challenging the Maine Ethics Commission on behalf of the creator of the Cutler Files, a political website that took aim at independent candidate Eliot Cutler during the 2010 gubernatorial election.
ACLU of Maine has argued that the website was a political blog whose contents would have been exempt from campaign finance rules had they been disseminated through a newspaper, television station or other news outlet.
The civil liberties union’s interest in the ethics commission rule has to do with “the rights of bloggers or electronic news producers to be regarded as the press,” said Zachary Heiden, ACLU of Maine’s legal director.
“Now, this rule is also trying to get at the way far other end of the spectrum,” he said. “It’s an interesting dichotomy. They’re trying to craft a rule that’s going to look at both ends of the spectrum of financial means.”
An interesting twist.
Basically allowing the rich to buy their way into power. What else is new in this fallen democracy.
Elites rule anyway they can! as do the 1 %’ers.
The Pingree Rule
Why is there virtually no outrage posted here? Where are all the liberals and why are they not condemning the corrupting influence of big money?
Come ooonnn. The liberals complaining about something that will help their causes? Never happen
This is a terrible development. Outrageous. Why would such and exemption be in the best interests of the public or more broadly, democracy.
This exemption would amount to a political favor to one specific candidate. It creates a fundamental unfairness to any candidate that does not happen to own a news outlet.
I could not support any candidate that would play the game this way.
I tend to vote democratic because I hate the deficits republicans have created in Washington but this would keep me away from the candidate that is the beneficiary, without a doubt.
This is a bad move politically and a terrible move for democracy and fairness. I am tired of watching our system of government corrupted by those who are wealthy and choose to use their power to pervert justice and gain an unfair advantage.
C’mon fellow progressives, can I get an Amen up in here?
The American people seen mostly beaten down, weary, dispirited, and so on. Others simply accept their corporate masters, or hate liberals so much, their masters easily manipulate them.
Heck, even union members are rebelling against their masters. What is happening in the world?
That is so true.
Guess we can look forward to the Waterville Daily LePage, the Brunswick Times Angus, the Poliquin Daily Advertiser, the Collins Chronicle, and other news outlets as our politicians seek to get their message out.
What’s really sad is that this is not so farfetched as it sound’s given the amount of money that the Koch Brother’s, Rove’s ‘Crossroad’s and Norquist’s people literally trucked into Wisconsin for the last 2 weeks of the recall election. One can but hope that when the Citizen’s United case is re-heard, and it’s all but an inevitability at this point, that this type of free ‘hype’ is gonna be called for what it is, namely a campaign contribution that’s gonna require disclosure. Free speech means that you are free to speak your mind. But it requires you to stand up, be responsible for what you say and take whatever comes out of it, just as the next person does. That’s what these postings provide for, don’t they ?
If the case is reheard, are you expecting that unions will be held to the same standards as corporations, that they also have their donations called campaign contributions? Or are you hoping that only corporations will lose free speech?
When will the media realize that those phone banks managed by teachers are perhaps the most effective way to persuade voters ever designed?
I have, in over 30 years of collective barginning time, never ever had anyone complain that their donation, of any type, be hidden or restricted in it’s source or name. The fact that the CU case has, by definition, been called into question is exactly that, that the campaign donation’s source’s are trying to hide from their responsibility’s under said First Amendment. If you want to speak out, then fine, Do so, and have the gut’s to be responsible for your speech and arguement’s you make as a result. That’s what this Country is all about, the right to have your say, do it responsibly, without fear of being censored in any way shape or form.
That Rove, Koch Brother’s and Norquist’s bunch are all trying so hard to hide their position’s, and their MASSIVE CASH CONTRIBUTION’S, should tell everybody, of any political persuasion that still believes in The Constitution, that these CU group’s are trying to buy the public’s opinion, and vote, thru sheer emotonal fear and ‘Chicken Little’ tactic’s. And that is one huge reason to start asking those not so nice or polite questions as to just what the moosehumping is going on, who’s behind it and who stands to profit from these fear and emotional terror tactic’s.
With all due respect you never addressed my question. Does your quest to overturn the CU case only pertain to corporations or are you including unions as well. If I read into your response it would suggest that you are in favor of unions maintaining the current status quo but would have corporations revert back to pre SCOTUS ruling, am I correct?
Gotta make it easier for money to buy love . . .
so coporations can support them through ad revenue. another way to wash bribes and make them look shiney
The Duke and Duchess of North Haven are gonna love this…
Here is the simple solution they pay the same as anyone else then there are no question of ethics or favoritism. equal time equal pay real simple.
Has Rupert Murdoch cast a spell on Jon. Wayne? What the hell kind of favoritism is this to legitimize at a time when when major political manipulators like Su$$man and others own/control major media groups?
This is outrageous!