AUGUSTA — The Legislature is taking another look at the state's popular program of public financing for political candidates, starting with public hearings next week on competing bills that would either tighten up the program or kill it. The Legal and Veterans Affairs Committee will take up a bill Wednesday to get rid of the Clean Election Act, the voter-approved law that authorizes public financing. Also up for review that day is a separate bill to prevent taxpayer-funded candidates from raising money privately for political action committees.
All told, well over a dozen bills have been proposed in the Legislature to reform the public-finance system, although many of them have not yet been drafted. The two bills that will be considered Wednesday are the first to be reviewed this year by the committee, which has jurisdiction over legislation involving elections.
The sponsors of both bills say they face an uphill fight in the Legislature. That is especially true for the bill to repeal the Clean Election Act because it is so popular in the Legislature. Last year, 78 percent of the legislative candidates relied on public funds rather than private funds.
Even Republican Rep. Gerald Davis of Falmouth, the sponsor of the bill to get rid of public financing, concedes that the Legislature probably will defeat his bill, at least this time around.
Davis says the fight is worth fighting anyway because the state cannot afford the program, which is expected to cost more than $10 million next year, and taxpayers should not have to pay to promote political views with which they disagree.
"I just feel that it's unsustainable" because the state is strapped for cash and the cost of the program will rise as its popularity increases, Davis said, asking: "Why should any person subsidize with his tax dollars ideas that he finds repugnant?"
Sen. Kenneth Gagnon, D-Waterville, who co-chairs the Legal and Veterans Affairs Committee, takes a different view. Gagnon said the Clean Election Act has encouraged more people to run for public office and it has reduced the influence of special interests on campaigns.
Davis' bill is going nowhere, Gagnon predicted, because "there are too many people on both sides of the aisle (in the Legislature) who support the concept" of public financing.
Sen. Arthur Mayo, D-Bath, sponsor of the other public-financing bill up for a hearing next week, does not share Davis' opposition to the Clean Election Act, which Mayo relied on for the first time last year in his successful re-election bid.
Mayo's bill would preserve the program, but block taxpayer-funded candidates from raising money privately on the side for political action committees, or PACs. The way the law is written now, publicly financed candidates cannot use private funds for their own legislative campaigns, but they can raise money privately to help other candidates run for office or to help themselves run for leadership jobs within the Legislature.
A review of campaign records by the Portland Press Herald/Maine Sunday Telegram last year found that 20 publicly funded legislative candidates raised $825,750 privately for PACs through Oct. 21, 2004.
Supporters of that practice say it is acceptable because PAC contributions are publicly disclosed, PAC money is not co-mingled with state funds, and barring taxpayer-funded candidates from having PACs might discourage candidates from using the Clean Election Act to pay for their races.
Mayo, who disbanded his own PAC last year, disagrees.
"The public just doesn't buy the concept" that candidates can take tax dollars for their own campaigns and simultaneously take private dollars to help pay for other races, he said.
Any candidate who uses state money to run for office "should not be raising money from you or anybody else" at the same time, Mayo said, because the voters want publicly financed candidates to forgo special-interest money.
Other reform bills up for review in the Legislature this year would restrict but not outlaw PACs for taxpayer-funded candidates, make it harder for candidates to qualify for public funds, and prevent candidates from spending tax dollars for "personal travel" and "personal items." Hearings on those bills have not yet been scheduled.
Last year, a few publicly financed candidates spent tax dollars on personal meals, charitable contributions, out-of-state travel, shoes and car repairs, according to a review of public records last December by the Press Herald/Telegram.
Staff Writer Paul Carrier can be contacted at 622-7511 or at:
pcarrier@pressherald.com