AUGUSTA, Maine — Despite Maine’s taxpayer-funded Clean Election Act, which the majority of candidates for the Legislature use to fund their campaigns, more than $12 million from corporate and well-heeled donors has found its way into Maine elections over the past decade, according to a report released Thursday by a group called Maine Citizens for Clean Elections.
While the authors of the report said contributions to political action committees run by politicians and major political parties sully Maine politics by allowing big-money influences to infiltrate governance, some of the legislators who have been the most successful in fundraising for their PACs said the reality is that when it comes to elections, spending less than the other side usually equals lost elections.
“I’m not sure anything you can do in law is going to change the system,” said Joshua Tardy, a former Republican legislator and House minority leader from Newport who is now a lobbyist. In the report released Thursday, Tardy is listed as the third most successful legislator in terms of fundraising over the past decade, having taken in more than $1.5 million for the House Republican Fund PAC.
“There are at least two sides to every election,” said Tardy. “In order to be competitive you’re going to have to raise as much as the other side.”
Andrew Bossie, executive director of Maine Citizens for Clean Elections, said Thursday that so much money coming from large donors raises the question of whether candidates serve constituents or their major donors first.
“We don’t want our lawmakers to be beholden to any one contributor or group of large contributors,” said Bossie. “That we allow big campaign cash to come into our political system has an impact on our elections.”
The Maine Clean Election Act, which was supported overwhelmingly by the public in a 1996 referendum vote, limits donations to privately funded candidates at $350 apiece and other than $5 “seed money” contributions at the beginning of a campaign does not allow taxpayer-funded candidates to raise any money for their own campaign. However, both Clean Election and privately funded candidates could benefit from third-party PACs as long as the candidates were not involved in either planning the campaign expenditures or handling the money.
Until the law was changed this year, Clean Election candidates for House, Senate and the governorship were given additional public funds, to a certain amount, to match what was raised by privately funded opponents.
There are no limits in Maine law on how much anyone can contribute to a political action committee and few limits on how the PAC can spend that money — even if it directly benefits a particular candidate and even if it benefits a Clean Election candidate — as long as a candidate doesn’t benefit from his or her own PAC or the money isn’t given directly to a candidate who has decided to accept only public money. Those who run the PACs decide where the money goes, often to the most hotly contested races.
According to the report, which is titled “PACs Unlimited: How Legislator PACs Distort Maine Politics,” the stakes are huge. The Senate Democratic Campaign Committee, which was run by Sens. Phil Bartlett and Barry Hobbins, and the House Democratic Campaign Committee, run by Reps. Emily Cain and Seth Berry, raised $2.6 million and $2.3 million respectively over the past decade. Republicans rounded out the top five with Tardy’s House Republican Fund, $1.5 million; the Maine Senate Republican Committee, run by Sens. Carol Weston and Richard Rosen, $1.1 million; and the Maine Senate Republican Majority, run by Sens. Jonathan Courtney and Kevin Raye. Most of those legislators also were listed a second time among the 32 legislator PACs that the study focused on, and many of them were elected as Clean Election candidates.
The study also addressed where the money to legislator and caucus PACS comes from. Since 2002, there have been 152 contributions of more than $15,000. The 10 highest contributors in the study period were Donald Sussman, $379,000; Robert Bahre, $54,000; John Wasileski, $35,500; Robert C. Monks, $35,000; Justin L. Alfond, $33,000; Richard Dyke, $30,000; Cyrus Y. Hagge, $26,850; John Orestis, $25,750; and Gary Bahre, $17,000. Piles of money also come from the legal, health care, banking and finance, and pharmaceutical sectors, which all have given $400,000 and up since 2000, according to the study.
The Maine Citizens for Clean Elections study was limited to PACs run by legislators and does not include money given to a range of other PACs, such as those that are founded around a specific ballot question. Bossie, the organization’s executive director, said more studies on PACs and other issues will be released in coming months as part of a series called the Money in Politics Project.
Weston, who is no longer a legislator, said the extra money is essential to virtually anyone’s race for a statewide public office.
“It takes money to win elections. As much as we might like to say it doesn’t, it does,” she said. “You have to find a way to reach voters with your message.”
Rep. Paul Davis Sr., R-Sangerville, said the Clean Election system took a step backwards this year when the Legislature upheld a court decision that providing matching funds — money to equal a Clean Election candidate’s opponent’s fundraising — is unconstitutional. As a result, the system provides about $19,000 for Senate candidates and about $4,000 for House candidates. By contrast, some Senate candidates in recent years have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars.
“I don’t think there’s enough money in the Clean Election system to run a campaign,” said Davis, whose Senate Republican Leadership for the 21st Century PAC raised $182,000 over the past decade. “If you have a candidate and you want him to win and it’s a close race, you need to try to influence the results or they aren’t going to win.”
Davis said he has been a Clean Election candidate in the past but because of the elimination of the matching funds he has decided to run a privately funded campaign for his re-election bid.
“I don’t want to limit myself to the amount of money I am allowed to raise if I need to,” he said.
Sen. Phil Bartlett, who ran the Senate Democratic Campaign Committee PAC, which raised $2.6 million in the past 10 years, agreed.
“The reason we participate in leadership PACs is to make sure our candidates are not overwhelmed,” he said.
Dr. Anthony J. Corrado Jr., a government professor at Colby College who specializes in campaign finance at the state and national levels, said many states put limits on the amount PACs can raise, while Maine does not. He said PAC money in Maine politics is nothing new.
“A Clean Election system is not designed to eliminate all private fundraising or private money,” said Corrado. “Its main value is that it does make resources available to candidates who would otherwise not be able to run and it allows candidates to spend their time running for office rather than fundraising.”
Corrado said the elimination of matching funds through the Clean Election system likely will increase the influence of private cash in Maine politics.
“We may see some of these PACs and outside committee gain more influence in forthcoming elections because money they spend independently against clean candidates won’t be matched with public funds,” he said.
Bossie said the core of the issue is whether money from corporations and big donors comes with strings attached when it comes to legislative business. He suggested improvements to the system, including stronger disclosure laws
“It’s important to everyday voters to understand who’s funding political messages,” said Corrado.
That notion was backed up by a Critical Insights poll commissioned by Corrado’s group, the results of which also were released Thursday. It found that 88 percent of Mainers viewed the Clean Election system as important, while 78 percent said reforms are needed in the area of special interest funding in politics.
But Weston, Bartlett, Tardy and Davis said big money tainting politics is rare in Maine.
“I’ve been in this business since 1998 and the only place I’ve ever heard of this is in the news media,” Davis said. “Nobody ever calls me up and says the outside money is bad. I don’t hear it. Bottom line is that I think we just need to elect honest people … so it’s not an issue one way or the other.”
DO NOT send money to Priorities USA Action, a PAC supporting a candidate who believes in indefinite detention without trial, drones flying over America to spy, and high taxes coupled with unlimited government spending.
Sussman has spend LOTS more than $379,000 on Maine politics. He does it the typical way: sneaky, funneling it here and there. Please………try not to be disillusioned.
How DO you libs like that Wall Street Fatcat Donald Sussman trying to buy up Maine politics, all for himself, anyways??Just wondering.
How do conservatives feel about the Koch Brothers buying up the politics of multiple states?
George Soros, who as a boy passed out free one way tickets to Auschwitz, has outspent the Koch Brothers by a factor of five.
Soros is more insidious. He is buying/ funding news outlets that might otherwise fail in order to support his message. That includes directly funding reporters.
Oh and Murdoch’s hands are clean?I think not.
LOL
Fox News, NY Post, Boston Globe, Washington Times…….. to name a few.
All right wing news outlets that would fail (with the exception of Fox News which ran a net loss of over $1 Billion dollars it’s first 5 years) if not for the big pockets of Murdock, Rev Moon and other republican billionaires.
Boston Globe conservative??? You have to be kidding.
Sorry, meant the Boston Herald but my point still stands.
I understand what Murdock is doing (I think) but Soros is going further up the pipeline. He is funding news sources that might otherwise fail.
All of the news outlets I named (I meant the Boston Herald instead of the Globe) would have failed long ago if not for the deep pockets of their billionaire right-wing backers.
Even Fox News would have failed it Murdock was not willing to lose over a $Billion dollars to get teh news coverage (opinion) he wanted. The Washington Times has never made a profit but the Rev.Moon keeps funding it.
Also, if you want real news reporting you don’t go to any of the sources I named (unless you like Fox New’s obvious bias against the Democratic Party in general and Obama in particular) because they are barely above the National Enquirer level and in some cases not even that high up.
Murdock has taken the WSJ ( a once respected RW paper) and started it’s descent into a rag paper, unfortunately.
You need to stop drinking the Kool Aid, George Soros born in 1930 and was only 14 when the German’s occupied Hungary and 15 when the Soviets liberated Hungary.
The Koch Brothers have given over $100 Million dollars to conservative politics and they are just one of many conservative billionaires and millionaires whi have given hundreds of Millions or billlions of dollars to conservative politics.
Exactly. And during the month of May, the Koch Brothers and a few other oil rich conservatives donated more money to Romney’s campaign than Obama was able to raise from 13,000,000 individual donors. Oh yeah conservatives! Keep telling yourself Romney is a man of the people or just keep dreaming.
I wish they’d stop with the WWII silliness about Soros…but he has influenced American elections longer and stronger than Koch Bros could hope for.
What proof do you have of that?And don’t post something from MHPC.Real facts please.
Since you are a true skeptic, just check the election fillings for the referendum question on voter registration and determine for yourself the mega dollars Sussman pumped into that vote. Well north of $100,000 for sure. New Link on spending for political campaigns etchttp://byowd.pinetreewatchdog.org/elections/ All you ever wanted to know about campaign spending and then some.
I hate to think what is coming up with all the political ads. It should be by law totally limited to what the Clean Election doles out, not out of state contributors. Candidates should run on their own merits, not slam ads from an opposing party. And I think Lobbyists should be banned by law also. The consituants should influence the people in office to what is right, not big money giving them kickbacks and perks
How about checking into “Pickles” Cynthia Dill’s PAC raising funds from Roxanne Quimby AFTER her election and paying it to herself to write a blog. Nah..that doesn’t matter…
lawyers
In other news, it’s dark out at night.
Both sides benifit so nothing will get done… close enough to a paid prositute.
Is there anything that ISN’T affected by big money these days?
“In order to be competitive…”
Competitive? Is this some sort of game? If so then the winners are the politicians and the people who fund the pacs, and the losers are “We, the People” ….
The next GOP banking scam will make the last one under W. Bush seem like small potatoes…
Vote GOP and bankrupt the USA…!!!
Exzcuse me , didn’t Obama triple the national debt with the stroke of a pen ?
yup, and blamed the results on Bush
Right, because everything was a blank slate when he got into office and everything that had happened before had no impact?
There is impact, and then theres blaming everything that goes wrong on the previous guy. No other president since Johnson had ever blamed the previous president as much as Obama, and no other president in history spoke of military success buy our troops as something he had done.
Example:
Bush’s speech after the capture of Saddam Hussein:
“The success of yesterday’s mission is a tribute to our men and women now serving in Iraq . The operation was based on the superb work of intelligence analysts who found the dictator’s footprints in a vast country. The operation was carried out with skill and precision by a brave fighting force. Our servicemen and women and our coalition allies have faced many dangers in the hunt for members of the fallen regime, and in their effort to bring hope and freedom to the Iraqi people. Their work continues, and so do the risks. “Today, on behalf of the nation, I thank the members of our Armed Forces and I congratulate them!”
Obama’s speech after the killing of bin Laden:
“And so shortly after taking office, I directed Leon Panetta, the Director of the CIA, to make the killing or capture of bin Laden the top priority of our war against al Qaeda, even as we continued our broader efforts to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat his network. Then, last August, I was briefed on a possible lead to bin Laden. It was far from certain, and it took many months to run this thread to ground. I met repeatedly with my national security team as we developed more information about the possibility that we had located bin Laden hiding within a compound deep inside of Pakistan . And finally, last week, I determined that we had enough intelligence to take action, and I authorized an operation to get Osama bin Laden and bring him to justice. “Today, at my direction, the United States launched a targeted operation against that compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan.” Obama did not once acknowledge our brave men and women who fight for our country.
Nice selective edit. You neglected to add this part of his press conference announcing bin Laden’s death:
Over the last ten years, thanks to the tireless and heroic work of our
military and our counterterrorism professions, we’ve made great strides
in that effort. We’ve disrupted terrorist attacks and strengthened our
homeland defense. In Afghanistan, we removed the Taliban government which had given bin Laden and al Qaeda safe haven and support.Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/05/02/transcript-obama-announces-killing-bin-laden/#ixzz1xE6OeIj5
He has also not only thanked Seal Team 6 and given them credit for their part at every available moment, he has also commended them with medals.
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. – Voltaire (1750AD)
Obama said “I” when referring to Osama’s death, you cant get around that.
Much like Pelosi saying “we must pass it to see whats in it”
I dont trust them- In fact I dont trust many politicians, including Romney
Neither Obama nor Romney will not pledge to leave the 2nd Amendment alone
Both think a mandatory governmental healthcare system “is for the good of the people”
And I dont quite feel the warm and fuzzy about how Romney feels about the Quimby National Park
Yes the 2nd amendment has worked out real well.Ask the families of murder and family violence victims each and every day.It barely makes news anymore.All those costs should be billed directly to the NRA and the gun manufacturers.
If guns were suddenly outlawed, and only criminals had guns, should we bill you…?
—-
Actually,,, our governor doesnt mention Baldacci’s name as often as you indicate and going to war with Iraq got sweeping approval from the Democrats.
While leaving Iraq happened on Obamas watch, it was the Bush administration that outlined a drawdown of troops that would have already happened by now.
///
I suppose you think that 911 was a plot to take us into war, but that would mean that the majority of the Democrats in DC bought into it.
Bush didnt cause the war, and the Democrats wanted payback just as the rest of the nation.
/1/1/1/
Guess again-
After 911, nearly 100% of the Democrats in Washington wanted to go to war.
He doesn’t do it by name, he broadly blame the democrats for everything……
You have to follow the money. Did the poor and the democrats end up with the trillions we have seen evaporate? No. Corporations and banks did.
Notice the economy is still weak but corporate profits have NEVER been higher.
And yet a governor from a small struggling state has more affect on national issues like fat cat union bosses and corporate windfalls like Solyndra. Yeah Right
It is so sad that even though there is absolutely nothing more undisputed and more obvious than the simple fact that the economy is still very weak and that corporations and banks are turning their greatest profits ever… it’s sad that there are still some people who just can’t see the forest for the trees. I really wish they’d all wake up and smell he coffee before it’s too late.
Corporate Giants and banks did nothing to improve the economy with their tax breaks they so desperately needed to help turn the economy around. Does anyone remember just a few years ago when we were being told that the corporate giants, part of the top 2% would not be able to hire to replace the millions they laid off unless they continued to receive the huge tax breaks? Well, they got their tax breaks, are making money hand over fist and it appears they lied about helping the unemployed. Either that or they changed their minds after getting their tax breaks.
Do a little research. Percentage increases in federal spending have been far larger under Republicans than under Democrats. It’s easy to say Democrats are the big spenders, but they aren’t. President Bush increased federal spending by about 2.6% per year. President Obama has increased federal spending by about 1.3%. Go to thinkprogress.org.
President Reagan caused the national debt to explode. President Bush I slowed it down and President Clinton got it under control. Then President Bush II really put dynamite under it. Where was the Tea Party then? If they had started their campaign before the election in 2004, I might have joined, but they were strangely silent as long as a Republican was in the White House.
You might attempt to track spending not so much as who was in the White House, but who controlled Congress… the true source of all spending.
Clinton was at his best when dealing with a Republican Congress; Reagan at his best when dealing with a Democrat Congress; Bush’s biggest spending occured with a Democrat Congress his last two years; which hs carried over under Obama’s first two years.
thinkprogress? That info you source has been laughed out by almost everyone, media included.
Did the word ‘progress’ disturb you? The economic analysis was done by an economics professor at the University of Oregon named Mark Thoma. He has a doctorate in economics from the University of Washington. He is easy to find. Just google him.
Let me see if I can figure out what you wrote. “That info you source has been laughed out by almost everyone, media included.” I think that means the source of my information has been laughed at by almost everyone, media included. Did I get it?
Obama had to bail out all the Bush Cronies on Wall St that put us in the Bush Depression.
Clinton left George W. Bush (AKA – He Who’s Name Cannot be Spoken by GOP Candidates) with the best economy in decades and massive budget surpluses.
We were on the glide path of paying off out national debt.
What did the GOP and Bush do? They cut taxes for the rich and plunged us back into Red ink.
Then he lied us into a trillion dollar in Iraq and borrowed money from China to pay for it.
Then vice president Cheney told us the “Reagan proved that deficits don’t matter”.
Bush and the GOP gave Obama the worst recession in generations, massive budget deficits and even great debt.
Obama turned the economy around and saved us all from a Great Depression.
The GOP wants us all to think that history began in January 2009 and that George W. Bush was never president.
We know better.
Yessah
No he didn’t…… Obama has cut spending more than any president in the last 50 years and that accounts for the stimulus. Besides Clinton, all presidents since Eisenhower have grown spending by more than 5% per year. Under Obama it is a 60 year low at 1.4 %. That is less than the rate of inflation and at a time we are recovering from the damage of the Bush recession.
Also consider that Bush claimed his tax cuts would be revenue neutral. They have added about $3Trillion to the deficit since they were enacted.
Your GOP lie machine obscures this info but that doesn’t mean it wasn’t so.
Go ahead and listen to them some more and support Romney. He WILL blow up the deficit and further deregulate banking so the elites can take what you planned to retire with since they have already stolen the equity in your home. Elect Romney and in 2016 we will have seen another collapse of the economy, millions more foreclosures, double digit unemployment and a deficit that would make Bush blush. Romney is playing from Bush’s playbook and is surrounded by his advisers. Expecting a different outcome is idiocy.
The annual growth in spending under George W. Bush was 2.6%. Under President Obama it has been 1.3%. Since the presidency of Richard Nixon it has been Republicans who have raised government spending the most.
Tell it to Michaud & Dill
All sides are doing it. Don’t be a hypocrite.
There is “campaign donations” in both camps, but its interesting that Unions back Michaud & Quimby and the green money machine support Dill…
I like how Tardy says the system can’t be changed,since he’s benefited the most from it.If that doesn’t prove the system HAS to be changed,nothing does.
And this is likely one of the reasons why the Supreme Court has such a low approval rating.
The so called Supreme Court has become an arm of the Republican Party. They don’t even know what the Constitution is anymore.
How long did it take this group to figure out money influences Elections. No wonder nothing ever gets done.
Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 50 (2010) effectively made capitalism our political system. The only way to try to return to some semblance of democracy is to amend the constitution.
Perhaps, but be certain to include Big Union support when reducing Corporate influence.
Joshua Tardy is right: there’s not much anyone is going to do to change things, and he’s a good example of why: lobbyists become legislators, legislators become lobbyists become fundraisers become lobbyistsbecomelegislatorsfundraisers….you get the picture – everything gets so intertwined one can’t tell where each leaves off. Though we may thump our chests from time to time and insist that, to us wise and deep-thinking Maine Yankees, money isn’t as important as a candidate’s character and qualifications, we’re just whistling through the graveyard. What we know down deep (or perhaps on the surface) is that what we call democracy hasn’t got a chance in the face of the now-entrenched permanent election/campaign industry. If it was the other way around, the big money folks wouldn’t bother bombarding with robocalls, endless nastiness in tv ads, outright lies and shell games. It may have always been thus, certainly since the appearance of the factions called parties that Washington warned about, but the sheer magnitude of it today threatens to overwhelm us. Since they have been the creators of the web of confusion, no one should expect either major party to push back with any sincerity. The whole ugly mess is largely their creation, and we’ve gone along with it. It appeals to our love of spectacle and membership in fan clubs.
It’s nice to envision cleaning it up with real reform and constitutional amendments, but who is going to do it, and how will either get done without the assistance of the very hucksters who built it? Let’s face it, we have always been dazzled by hucksters, for hokum is a cornerstone of our national culture. “We have met the enemy and he is us” – Pogo.
““I’m not sure anything you can do in law is going to change the
system,” said Joshua Tardy, a former Republican legislator and House
minority leader from Newport”
Ahhh….wrong Mr. Tardy, there is, in fact, a way to clean up the system. We need a constitutional amendment that explicitly states that freedom of speech is a right granted only to living PEOPLE and not the artificial, state created commerce vehicles known as corporations. Corporations are nothing more than a legal entity created to simplify the pooling of resources and limit a group of owners individual exposure to liability. The freedoms granted by the Constituion are already, in a way, granted to a corporation through the individaul rights of its owners. To give additional rights to what is essentially an immortal colletion of pooled wealth with a fiduciary responsibility to maximize its owners wealth is insane and basically, it gives the owners (generally 1%ers) an additional “super vote” when it comes to politics. Scalia was DEAD wrong and is very much conflicted with his relationship to the Koch brothers. So, to summerize Mr., Tardy, you have two options to “change the system”: 1) pass a consititutional amendement as mention earlier or 2) replace the conflicted (and corrupted?) SCOTUS Justices and have them correct the error that is Citizens United. Of course, both of these options would make you, as a lobbyist, irrelelvent. I’m thinking that that isn’t such a bad thing. What about you?
Not only Scalia but the worst of all-Thomas.Funny how conservatives are fine with someone getting preferential treatment when it’s one of them.
Money spent by PACS could pay off the national debt. I haft to sift the sand of lies told about politicians.
That image makes one think of sifting out a cat box.Same result.
Thanks to the SCOTUS Citizens United decision.
I don’t vote because I believe it’s all a big charade. Even if there is a candidate who’s values somewhat line up with mine (which there’s only been one in my 30+ years of being eligible to vote), they can’t truly represent me. Besides, the machine has gotten too big for a good candidate to effect any real change. But ….. in regard to PAC money, it really shouldn’t make a difference to the truly educated voter. People who really do their homework and identify with a worthy candidate (no matter how fringe) are not going to be swayed by thousands of media ads for the preselected frontrunner. These folks, if principled, will stick with their candidate, even if they have to write their name in. If the general populace, though, is swayed by exposure and name recognition, then I guess we as a nation get what we deserve. Just my two cents (adjusted for inflation of course).
PAC money or not. The Big Fix is in by the Republican Party in Maine. If you vote Republican in Maine might as well throw your vote down the sewer because of Republican Voter Fraud.
Gambling a Rick’s?
//////
Well my grandparents were right the big companies, and the lobbyists has their hand in our pockets. I wonder what happen to real men who are honest or was there ever any who really care about their state etc. Yes the Lobbyists and Big Companies should be banned by law from
given money so they can get what they want. Money shouldn’t be even in the picture to get voted in office for they should be voted on their own merits and honest. If the government wants to get out of debt then they should take a big pay cut and not give themselves pay raise for work they didn’t deserve. I like to see them walk in our shoes and get pay the minimum wages and try to keep their home/apartment and put food on the table for their family let alone find a good job with good health insurance etc. I bet they wouldn’t last a day but run back to their old ways and it’s like you can’t change a zebra’s strips if you try. What I really like to see is if they can run without any help from big companies and lobbyists and their money let alone anything that can be use to cheat. I would love to see them run on their own Merits and Honest for that is what a real honest man would do. But I guest they are not real men who has Merits and Honest for their country but only use Money, Lies to get voted in.
Follow the British system — call an election three months in advance, the candidates have three months to campaign, hold the election — DONE! This constant 12-months-a-year electioneering is obscene, costs billions and proves nothing, excepting that a group of people can command more than their “fifteen minutes of fame”. Where we once had citizen legislators, we now have gridlock. Nothing is accomplished and re-election is the only goal. I am so sick and tired of the vast amounts of money, the posturing, the ugliness and the lies. Can I be the only one?
Time to resurrect the Jacobins and start building some guillotines!
But seriously, I think the media is the answer. Every ad or posting should be reviewed immediately by an independent and trustworthy organization. Falsehoods and excess rhetoric would be met by a point by point correction.