Clean elections, costly politics

In 1996, Mainers passed the Maine Clean Elections Act. The Act was supposed to remove special interests from campaign financing for Governor, State Senate and State House races. In the 12 years since, clean elections have become a massive burden on Maine taxpayers, another disadvantage to challengers facing an incumbent, and a limit on our right to support candidates.

Maine’s clean elections are taxpayer-funded political campaigns. Candidates qualify for taxpayer funding by collecting a certain amount of $5 checks from residents of the districts they hope to represent. Clean election candidates for Governor must now collect 3,250 checks to qualify, while candidates for State Senate and House must collect 150 and 50 checks, respectively. Collecting these checks entitles a clean elections candidate to receive a certain amount of taxpayer dollars for their campaigns. The most recent amounts distributed to clean elections candidates in contested races are as follows:

2006 Gubernatorial Primary – $200,000
2006 Gubernatorial General – $400,000
2008 State Senate Primary – $7,746
2008 State Senate General – $19,078
2008 State House Primary – $1,504
2008 State House General – $4,144

What has this led to?  In 2004, the total amount of taxpayer dollars given to clean elections candidates topped $2,799,617 for State Senate and House races. In 2006, that number climbed to $3,348,469, while another $3,534,615 was given to clean elections candidates for governor. We won’t know the final 2008 figures until after Election Day, but it’s a safe bet the number will climb yet again. Clean elections are a drain on the coffers.

Unless we eliminate clean elections, the amount of taxpayer dollars given to political candidates will only increase. And for what? Clean elections in Maine have curtailed our freedom to support candidates in a way we see fit.

Beyond doling out taxpayer dollars, the Clean Elections Act forbids clean elections candidates from accepting private campaign donations. Although third party groups can spend money on behalf of a candidate, that candidate’s opponent receives more taxpayer dollars, called matching funds, equal to the amount spent by that third party.

So, not only are we limited in how we can show our support, the one provision that allows outside groups to advance their chosen candidate leads to an even greater re-distribution of our tax dollars. For example, PolitickerME’s Wally Edge recently reported that the Maine Republican Party spent $55,000 promoting candidates for State Senate. These funds came from private donors, not taxpayer dollars. But, the Democrats running against those candidates will receive more matching taxpayer dollars. This hardly seems fair.

Sometimes, races have a clean elections candidate running against a traditional candidate, which means he or she declined taxpayer funding and chose to raise private funds. This decision is admirable, but it puts that traditional candidate at a significant disadvantage.  Although the traditional candidate can raise whatever is needed for the campaign, he or she can only raise a maximum of $250 per donor, and anything raised beyond the clean elections amount given to his or her opponent is matched with even more tax dollars from the clean elections fund.

Maine’s clean elections also present a new, artificial obstacle for candidates challenging an incumbent for their seat. In the State Senate and House, sitting legislators have the perks of incumbency — free district mailings, media interviews; the works. Incumbents also have materials leftover from their previous campaigns. This allows the incumbent to save on signs, palm cards, mail designs and other collateral. This puts any challenger at a disadvantage.

Often, there are candidates who are especially skilled at attracting financial support for their campaigns. Ordinarily, this fundraising prowess offsets the advantages of incumbency, leveling the playing field. But a skilled fundraiser running a traditional campaign against a clean elections incumbent is essentially raising funds for their opponent. The playing field is no longer level.

Mainers should repeal the Clean Elections Act. There are no upsides. Third party influence hasn’t decreased; in fact, you could argue that third party influence has increased. And elections are no fairer than they were prior to its passage. Does it make sense to continue clean elections with the tax burden, the curtailment of our right to support candidates, and the artificial roadblocks it presents to challengers? Not to me.