LEWISTON — There’s been a lot of buzz in state political circles about independent expenditures in Maine’s U.S. Senate campaign lately.
And whether that spending works or backfires in Maine is a question some political observers are asking.
In June, former Maine governor and independent candidate Angus King challenged the other candidates in the race to reject outside spending on their campaigns’ behalf.
Money spent by an independent political action committee on behalf of a campaign is not subject to the same federal disclosure laws that campaign spending is, including not having to say who funds them.
“This money is distorting our politics and it is largely anonymous. Sen. John McCain referred to the way it all works as, ‘identity laundering’ — where you can’t really tell who is making these enormous contributions to people’s campaigns,” King said. “I think it is also this flow of money that has contributed to the public cynicism and distrust of government.”
King suggested the Senate campaigns in Maine agree to donate to charity an amount equal to the amount spent by any group independent of the campaigns.
“I think the people of Maine deserve to know where the money is coming from that is attempting to influence their vote in this election,” King said in June.
None of the campaigns took King up on his offer and since then more than $560,000 has been spent by groups, mostly outside of Maine, in support or opposition to the candidates here, according to campaign finance reports filed with the Federal Elections Commission.
King too has benefited from about $30,000 in outside spending, a point his opponents are quick to point out.
The issue of outside spending reared its head again last week when a Washington, D.C.-based, Republican backed Super PAC purchased $68,750 in television advertising in support of the Democratic candidate in the race, state Sen. Cynthia Dill of Cape Elizabeth.
King immediately criticized the ad as cynical.
“This is another example of out-of-state interests trying to tell Mainers how to vote,” King said in a written statement. “When is the last time the Republicans spent money promoting a Democrat? Why can’t they promote their own candidate? What a world we live in.”
Dill’s campaign shot back in a series of statements and a commentary, penned by Dill that was published in the Portland Press Herald earlier this week.
“It certainly did not take long for Angus King to jump on the Republican Super PAC that is airing television ads in Maine and use it as another way to ask voters for money,” Dill said.
“His campaign labels the advertising as ‘cynical.’ Given this immediate pounce to get Maine voters’ donations, and add more money to his coffers, I wonder who is really the cynical one here,” she said.
Dill’s campaign also said it was definitely not in the loop on the ad and had nothing to do with it. Likewise Summers’ campaign distanced itself from the ad.
“Our only comment on that is people are allowed to run whatever ads they want,” Summers’ campaign manager, Lance Dutson, told the Bangor Daily News. “We’re focused on Charlie’s race and his message to get Washington’s fiscal house in order.”
Here’s the breakdown of where the outside cash has come from.
* The largest expenditure to date was by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. The organization spent $400,000 on television ads in opposition to Angus King.
Shortly after their ads began airing, the U.S. chamber’s national political director went on tour in Maine with Republican candidate and Maine Secretary of State Charlie Summers, touting the national chamber’s endorsement of Summers.
* The next largest outside expenditure, $137,500, has been by Maine Freedom, a political action committee based in Washington. The group spent half of it on advertising in support of Dill and the rest for ads opposing King.
* In May a California-based super PAC, icPurple Inc., spent $23,667 on ads in support of King. That ad features two groups of children fighting over what color to paint their tree house. One insists on red the other blue. They settle on mixing the two colors together to get purple. “Vote Angus King for Senate,” the ad states. “He’s not a Democrat, he’s not a Republican, he’s an American.”
That PAC has also supported a Republican and an independent in U.S. House races in California.
Jim Melcher, a political science professor with the University of Maine at Farmington, said this type of advertising produced unreliable results in Maine, where voters are particularly resistant to people from away telling them how to vote or who to like.
“Mainers have a sense of fairness about some of these things,” Melcher said. “I don’t know how much most Mainers are really up on the intricacies of independent expenditure law, but if it comes to be a sense of fairness issue, what that may well do is lead to more resentment of it in general.”
That may not translate to resentment of any specific candidate but of the practice over all. “If people come to the conclusion that everybody is doing it they may not direct that irritation at a specific candidate it may just be, ‘it’s that damn mess in Washington, it’s those out-of-state people.’”
It’s very simple. King knew he wouldn’t be getting any party money. He made his challenge, to try and make himself look good to the voter and try to limit the money the parties might spend on their candidates. He’s very good at twisting things to make himself look good.
This senate race is a great economic development program to bring lots of dollars into Maine, even if it’s only advertising dollars.
Perhaps we could make a new industry by running lots of controversial candidates, petitions, etc.?
There was a bill before the 125th Legislature to tax corporate political contributions. The rate would have been 200%, but even at a lower rate it would bring in a lot of revenue to the state. Diane Russell (D-Portland) was the sponsor of LD663.
For King to try and take the high road here is laughable. The Virginia-born millionaire liberal lawyer is trying to pass himself off as just a good ‘ol regular joe, man of Maine. He was a lousy governor (blew a billion dollar hole in the state budget). Now he wants people to think he would stand athwart the Republican-Democrat divide in the Senate. Ha! King was a dem and is a dem, simply trying to pass himself off as an independent (AKA the Cutler plan). Mainers deserve better.
How can one blow a billion dollar budget when Maine statute prohibits deficit. If you knew the facts, you would realize that Maine state law REQUIRES a balanced budget.
Wouldn’t it be nice to actually have a chance to hear what each of these three people actually stands for and compare them by hearing them on the same stage.
The way this 3 way race is playing out gives Mainers no opportunity at all to hear from these candidates in their own voices in our communities.
How can this process ever lead to the right decision for Maine and for the U.S. Senate?
There is almost no detail at Charlie Summers’ campaign website on his positions on key issues..very vague only two specifics (1) repeal Obama Care and (2) create a Small Business Advocate ( an initiative that has accomplished nothing here in Maine)
Dill’s website gives a broader and more detailed sense of the issues she is committed to and most experienced in but doesn’t speak to many key issues I am concerned about and look to Congress to resolve..like Bank Reform while on the other hand it supports a wacky proposal that would allow states to impose the burden of sales tax collection and remission on out of state sales by businesses not domiciled in its state and with no presence in the state.
We really haven’t heard one word from King on what he is going to do for Maine or reminding Mainers who he really is and what he really stands for. What I recall is that he is not a friend of “we the people” opposing citizens initiatives and citizens referendum and not a friend of the working man.or a champion for fair wages and safe working conditions. His web site like Charlie Summers makes broad promises and has little concrete content.
I like King’s idea of addressing the balance of trade problem we have with Canada but he gives no specifics and I wholly agree with the rural wi fi access agenda..but Cynthia Dill championed that and it hardly seems honorable to steal her initiative for his campaign rhetoric.
How can we even compare and make an informed decision the way this campaign has played out so far?
Actually, where is the campaign? Is there one? Or are we supposed to just make our choices from the noise of manipulative and misleading outside interest group campaign ads and incomplete substantive news coverage in our main stream papers.
With what we know or can hope to know from this process we would do just as well to end the process right now with a draw of the cards including anyone else who wants to hop in.
.Highest card wins.
There will be several candidate forums as the election nears.
But how will we insure that these forums draw out the candidates positions on the most pressing issues facing all Americans..all Mainers..like Bank Reform?
All three candidates are shockingly silent on bank reform..none of them mention the importance of reinstating Glass Steagall or the imperative to complete the implementation of the bank reforms that are already law (Dodd Frank) but blocked by Bernanke and Jaimie Dimon.
If all we have to go by is what they have chosen to address in their respective web sites..we are lost no matter who we vote for..
again..we might as well have them draw for high card and settle it that way.
I thought it was very telling that Dill did not repudiate the republican PAC ad.
Of course, she can’t afford her own ad promoting her as the “only real democrat” in the race.
Donors don’t give to candidates that show no chance of winning & Dill is polling in the single digits.
The ad not only gives King an opportunity at a fundraising bump, but also showcases specific examples of why he really is an independent (pro-business, socially moderate).
The ad is certainly manipulative (Rs promoting a D to defeat an I) and I hope it does backfire!
But what is she supposed to say? The ad says things that are good and true about me, those are the reasons why you should vote for me, however, I don’t support the ad itself?
How about Dill says something like:
“This is what American politics has devolved to. I am the democratic nominee for U.S. Senate, yet my own democratic party has not assisted me in raising the money necessary for TV airtime, nor has a democratic PAC aired anything supportive of my candidacy. Perhaps I should be “grateful” that a republican PAC is trying to bolster me, in an effort to hurt King and elevate the republican nominee in this race. Instead, I feel distain for this transparent attempted manipulation of this important election.”
Angus King says he’s the one to make a dent in the Senate dysfunction which led to Olympia Snowe’s decision to call it quits.
It’s unfortunate that his plan for doing as a freshman senator what the veteran Snowe concluded was not possible is below the horizon of the Maine media, if indeed it exists.
As was reported earlier this week, there is at least one SuperPAC created for Maine that appears to be lurking until after 30 September, conveniently so as to avoid having to file a financial report before the November election.
Gerald ,
Very interesting article you wrote at Dirigo Blue ( above link)..isn’t it amazing all these folk whose connections and motives we know nothing about are targeting and manipulating state elections for federal ( and possibly even state offices..the “Maine Freedom” ad is associated with a group committed to electing Governors who promote a specific republican agenda).
You are doing really valuable work that serves us all in pointing to and writing about these influences and how they confound, rather than facilitate, our important choices as Mainers for one of our two senate seats.
I think we all have to work as citizens to try and tease out the existing agendas and abilities of each of these candidates and also to form a citizens agenda..it is the “we the people” who should evolve a platform for Maine to which we want our Senator accountable .
Perhaps we can start a “citizen’s platform” process…or begin without waiting for someone to do it for us, to pose our questions to each of these three candidates.
Mine to each would be ,”what is your position on furthering implementaion of Dodd Frank and on reinstating Glass Steagall”..to me none of us have no future unless the Dodd Frank reforms , already law, are allowed to take effect and unless we re instate Glass Steagall. It is my litmus test issue and was the main reason I was hoping Snowe would be replaced..she had been voting “present” on any issue to do with bank reform citing her husbands interests against reforms. None of these three candidates even mention this at their web sites.
I am very anti King but I am intrigued to know whether there is any Depth or meat to his Canada initiative..I too think we have to completely rethink our relationship with Canada but I don’t know whether he actually has anything worth thinking about to offer in that regard. And obviously I would want to ask him about any rethinking he may have done on wind subsidies given the poor performance of wind to date and the high costs its has imposed on electricity consumers.
Charlie Summers just seems like an empty suit..a blank slate to me.his web site offers no meat at all and he has never come to the fore in any positive or impressive way in his present capacity.
We can’t give this critically important seat away without a much more substantive engagement with each and an opportunity to question each..us “we the people”
I know you will be doing your part to make our choices as informed as they can be and I thank you for that.
If you do some research, you might realize you like King. He’s come out in favor of reinstating Glass Steagall. And you bring up wind, didn’t the wind project he was involved with result in a massive reduction in local property taxes for Roxbury residents?
John,
I have been doing lots and lots of research on King..including going back to his term as Governor//I see nothing anywhere on his support for reinstatement of Glass Steagall nor on ending speculation in food nor on implementing Dodd-Frank. Not even mentioned at his website.
I have also been doing lots of research on wind..the euro experience and our own..many questions about whether we are getting the returns or ever will get the returns for the amount of subsidy we are pouring in.
He has mentioned one or two ideas that seem possibly interesting but I haven’t seen them developed anywhere.
I am not so far impressed.
The ads should identify their group PAC name, their major donors and the location in which they are based. They should also have to announce that their message hasn’t been endorsed.
There is no love for Dill in the Katahdin region-
King might get some votes, but Charlie Summers is out in front as the person that can help get people back to work.
Seems to me that King might also suggest that politicians should not benefit from laws and regulations were they have appreciably more information than other investors might have available.
I don’t care who says it… Angus King or Joe Blow, or if he engages it in himself… this kind of donating is manipulative and deceitful. We need to hold ALL OF OUR ELECTED OFFICIALS to higher standards.
There are other options.
http://www.daltonsenate.com
non-party
no donations
addressing the issues