AUGUSTA, Maine — Members of the Maine Ethics Commission on Wednesday unanimously ruled that a Republican senator from Bangor didn’t improperly coordinate with a political action committee to funnel $73,000 into advertising targeting her opponent.

The commission ordered no further investigation into allegations raised by the Maine Democratic Party. The party pointed out in a formal complaint with the ethics commission in early October that Farnham was listed as a principal officer and decision maker for the Senate Republican Majority PAC when the committee purchased $73,000 in television advertising targeting her opponent, Democrat Geoffrey Gratwick.

The commission, however, did find the PAC at fault for failing to update its registration paperwork when the principal officers changed. The five-member commission assessed a $250 penalty, citing a Maine law that requires political committees to update their registration documents within 10 days of changing officers.

Democratic Party lawyer Kate Knox said the party didn’t accept Farnham’s explanation that she volunteered her name as a “placeholder” principal officer last winter at a time when both of the PAC’s principal officers — Senate Republican Majority Leader Jon Courtney and Assistant Republican Leader Debra Plowman — had resigned to pursue federal office.

“You are either in or you’re out, and candidate Farnham’s listing on the PAC registration form meant she’s in,” Knox said. “I know of no other corporation or organizational structure where principal officers are allowed to assert they’re not responsible depending on what the situation is.”

But Farnham, fellow Republican Sen. Tom Saviello of Wilton, and a Republican Party lawyer told ethics commission members Wednesday that the Bangor senator had no involvement with PAC fundraising or decision-making, and that her name should have been removed from the PAC’s registration paperwork months ago.

“I told them at the very beginning I would be a placeholder,” Farnham said. “I know that it was important to be done. It was not important to me. I said, ‘Put my name on here so I could be a placeholder for this PAC. I won’t be involved.’”

“It is unfortunate that my name wasn’t taken off there” when the committee found new officers, she said.

Much of the discussion before the ethics commission focused on whether the presence of Farnham’s name on a political action committee’s registration documents automatically indicated that she coordinated with the committee to spend money on her race.

Despite the commission’s finding that there was no coordination, “I don’t fault the complainant for bringing it up,” said commission Chairman Walter McKee.

It is illegal for candidates to coordinate with outside organizations that are spending money on their races. If coordination happens, it’s considered a contribution to the candidate. And in Farnham’s case, she can’t accept any contributions because she’s receiving public campaign financing under the Maine Clean Election Act.

The ethics commission also discussed whether a political committee should list officers who are considered “placeholders” and don’t intend to be involved in committee affairs.

“It is not good enough to, in retrospect, say you were a placeholder and define that term completely outside of the statute,” said Knox, the Democrats’ lawyer. “Candidate Farnham told us she was a decision maker [through the registration documents], and it is solid evidence that she played a significant role in the PAC’s affairs.”

But Republican Party lawyer William Logan said Maine law requires that coordination actually take place.

“There is no ‘per se’ coordination that says, ‘If you’re the principal of a PAC, then the PAC can’t spend money on you,’” he said. “It is theoretically possible to create a firewall. Perhaps it’s not advisable, but there is no per se coordination in the statute or in regulations.”

Since they filed the complaint at the beginning of October, Democrats and affiliated groups have made the ethics allegations against Farnham a political rallying point, calling attention to them recently at a rally in Bangor and in a series of anti-Farnham radio and TV ads sponsored by the Committee to Rebuild Maine’s Middle Class, a political committee backed by Democratic-leaning groups.

The Senate District 32 race between Farnham and Gratwick has attracted more spending from outside groups than any other state legislative contest this election cycle. As of late Wednesday, outside groups supporting Farnham or Gratwick had spent $414,000 on the race.

The Maine Ethics Commission on Wednesday also took up two other complaints involving the Farnham-Gratwick race: one that Democrats filed against Farnham alleging she was late in reporting an expenditure for video production, and another that Republicans filed against Gratwick alleging some of his campaign mail lacked a required funding disclosure statement.

In both cases, the ethics commission found the candidates in violation of the law, but did not assess any penalties.

Join the Conversation

47 Comments

  1. Good for Senator Farnham!

    The Democrats have been attacking her for weeks on this issue. Turns out there was no wrongdoing! All this shows is that the Democrats are grasping at straws in this election and do not have anything to stand on. They have done nothing to fix this state and are only looking for a chance to get back into power so they can continue to drive Mainers down the road to serfdom! 

    1. The Dems will claim that the process is corrupt and the findings are all lies and she is guilty, because they say so.

    2. You don’t see any problem with her former committee spending that obscene amount of money in her behalf on negative advertising to help her get relected? 

      She used to be the chair of that committee!

      Says allot about her…. thats for sure!

      How much was spent on her behalf to let potentioal voters know about her voting record and what she stands for?

      Answer that one!

      People should see thru negative ads like this particular one and vote for the other guy….if only to protest against all the negative advertising… I know I plan on voting just that way….

      Maybe if enough folks decided to do this, the constant barage of negative political ads would finally stop?

  2. Legal does not = ethical . Nichi plead ignorance… should have plead willing ignorance . She just got caught . Willing ignorance = not ethical = incompetence . The charge remains correct .

    1. The charge was NOT correct,  and the staff and the commission, including two Democrats, said so unanimously.  What more do you need to know that she was not involved in the allocation decisions?

      1. The committee actually found a violation and fined the PAC $250. It seems that they believed Farnham’s rather feeble argument that her name should have been retroactively removed. Sounds like Romney and Bain Capital to me.

        1. Got to watch out for those PACs.  She should have seen the possible downside of her participation.

    2. And a group of bi-partisan fact finders who actually reviewed the case completely and unanimously disagree with you.  If you were my student in Logic 101 I would have given you an F. 

      Just like the Obama campaign’s vitriolic attempt at destroying Romney’s character backfired on them, this effort too shall reap bad kharma going forward in Maine politics. 

    3. You can get hung with ethic’s violations, esp. since you adamantly backed duHoux and his married(?) lover, Herbst.  I’m waiting for you to back Martin’s view that repaying his debts to Irving weren’t linked to the legislation favoring them, talk about smelly ethics

      !

  3.  I know of no other corporation or organizational structure where
    principal officers are allowed to assert they’re not responsible
    depending on what the situation is.”  Obama does it all the time!

  4. Can’t beat her with real issues, so they spend tens of thousands of dollars lying about her.  Glad the Ethics Commission (2 Republicans, 2 Democrats, 1 Independent) unanimously came to the conclusion that the Democrats lied.  This only makes it that much more clear that I’ll be voting for Nichi next Tuesday. 

    1. Where did it say the democrats lied? The Dems filed a legitimate complaint. The republicans who have done the same. The ethics commission ruled. Done.

  5. Still waiting for the Democrats to apologize for smearing her name through the mud. …. (and now they have no excuse because the decision was unanimous!)

    1. There is no need to apologize.  Republicans would have done the same thing.  The Dems, however, need to shut up about it now.

  6. This entire situation is based on biased hate.  The dems will stop at nothing.  They have shown their true and ugly colors in the attacks on this woman.  The truth always shows up and this time the negative liberal ranting has come back to hit them in the face.

    1. Ah the H word again.  The Rs must know a lot about that.  Excessive use and practice of it themselves?

  7. Read this piece and the one about John Martin.  Seems like it doesn’t matter which party the politician belongs to.  They all play fast and loose with the rules – to benefit themselves.  Anyone making excuses for, or believing the line of bullpuckey given by,  a politician needs to take off their blinders.

  8. You can throw rumors out there about anybody, then they have to go on the defense to clear their names.
    In politics you are guilty until proven innocent.
    Most of the ads I’ve seen skirt the truth.
    2 old people talking I don’t want to lose my medicaid so I’m voting for King, what it implies is,  if you vote for Dill she will cut you medicaid… Total lies.

    If you vote for me I won’t shut the sun off. I won’t freeze all the water on the planet. the people would assume that the other party wants to turn the sun off and freeze all water.
    It really does show you that politicans believe people are less smart then a tree stump and will believe any crap thrown at them.

  9. Please read the article carefully. Senator Farnham allowed her name to be used as head of this PAC *after* she filed papers to run for re-election as a clean elections candidate. Her title was “Chief Decision-Maker and Fundraiser.” Now she and her lawyers have asserted that having her name on record as head of this PAC means nothing. Regardless of party affiliation, do you really want to be represented by someone who is not willing to be held accountable when she has given her name to something? We’ve seen far too much of that, on both sides, in Augusta. “Ooops,” is no way to have a responsible, trustworthy government.

    1. The only “oops” here is from the Maine Democratic Party for spending so much money running ads that are now shown to be completely false.  

  10. $250.00 is that all, no wonder they do sloppy paperwork. If the ethics Commission is serious the penalties need to go much high.

  11. “The party pointed out in a formal complaint with the ethics commission in early October that Farnham was listed as a principal officer and decision maker for the Senate Republican Majority PAC when the committee purchased $73,000 in television advertising targeting her opponent, Democrat Geoffrey Gratwick.”

    $73,000 spent on this BS…and you want to send these people back to the legislature?

    Personally, I’m sick and tired of watching the news on TV and having to sit through all the  negative ads like this one……

    There should be some respect between the candidates and there should be laws against spending this kind of money to buy an election….

    Too bad this money isn’t donated to help the schools with their budget problems instead of  badgering people over and over and over again with the same garbage! 

    That goes double for the Republican ads against King…Total BS! 

    That committee, and others like it, should be ashamed of itself!

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *