RSS

Info on crucial point on Clean Elections — call Sens. Langley or Rosen NOW

Tue, Feb 28, 2012

HCCN


You are all probably aware that the Supreme Court ruled Maine’s Clean Elections law unconstitutional, and people have been trying to figure out how to work around the problem. There is now legislation in the Legislature, coming up for a vote this week, that will do this by gutting the law.

Today, I got a phone call from Common Cause, asking me to contact my state senator, Brian Langley (see contact info for him and Sen. Rosen below), in support of the Maine Ethics Commission’s recommendation for an amendment to LD 1774 (why couldn’t it have been 1776??), which was described by the Clean Election campaign as:

“The Maine Ethics Commission recommended a strong alternative to matching funds, a “re-qualifying” option that allows candidates to earn additional funds to remain competitive in hotly contested races. This replacement would ensure the viability of the Clean Election program so that government remains accountable to Maine voters, not campaign donors. A strong Clean Election program is the best defense against corporate and special interest influence.”

I tried to find this option described on the Ethics Commission website, but the link to their report was messed up. Luckily, when requested, they fixed it quickly. You can find the report at

http://www.maine.gov/ethics/pdf/2011_report_on_MCEA_webversion.pdf

The option in question is “Legislative Proposal #2”, pp. 12-15, detailed on appendix p. A-8. Basically, it works this way: in addition to the present funding upon receipt of sufficient qualifying signatures, this option would offer two other additional levels of funding (“High” or “Maximum”), which could be obtained by House candidates upon obtaining 30 or 60 additional qualifying signatures by June 30, and by Senate candidates for 100 or 200 signatures by the same date.

2 Responses to “Info on crucial point on Clean Elections — call Sens. Langley or Rosen NOW”

  1. Dick Atlee Says:

    Thank you for the clarification, Ann! I should have remembered that those expenditures were independent, given that he was upset by them. I very much regret that error.

    Dick

    Ann Luther wrote, On 2/28/12 3:51 PM:

    _______________________________________________ HCCN mailing list HCCN@mainetalk.org http://mainetalk.org/mailman/listinfo/hccn_mainetalk.org

  2. Ann Luther Says:

    Thank you for this posting, Dick.  I just want to point out that Brian Langley did run as a Clean Elections candidate in his 2010 race against Jim Schatz.  There were huge, negative independent expenditures in that race by the Republican State Leadership Committee, which both candidates emphatically decried.

    You are all probably aware that the Supreme Court ruled Maine’s Clean Elections law unconstitutional, and people have been trying to figure out how to work around the problem. There is now legislation in the Legislature, coming up for a vote this week, that will do this by gutting the law.

    Today, I got a phone call from Common Cause, asking me to contact my state senator, Brian Langley (see contact info for him and Sen. Rosen below), in support of the Maine Ethics Commission’s recommendation for an amendment to LD 1774 (why couldn’t it have been 1776??), which was described by the Clean Election campaign as:

    “The Maine Ethics Commission recommended a strong alternative to matching funds, a “re-qualifying” option that allows candidates to earn additional funds to remain competitive in hotly contested races. This replacement would ensure the viability of the Clean Election program so that government remains accountable to Maine voters, not campaign donors. A strong Clean Election program is the best defense against corporate and special interest influence.”

    I tried to find this option described on the Ethics Commission website, but the link to their report was messed up. Luckily, when requested, they fixed it quickly. You can find the report at

     http://www.maine.gov/ethics/pdf/2011_report_on_MCEA_webversion.pdf

    The option in question is “Legislative Proposal #2”, pp. 12-15, detailed on appendix p. A-8. Basically, it works this way: in addition to the present funding upon receipt of sufficient qualifying signatures, this option would offer two other additional levels of funding (“High” or “Maximum”), which could be obtained by House candidates upon obtaining 30 or 60 additional qualifying signatures by June 30, and by Senate candidates for 100 or 200 signatures by the same date.