Husband, wife team scrutinized for use of Clean Elections funds

A Democratic Skowhegan husband and wife team has come under scrutiny for possible misuse of almost $3,000 in Clean Elections funds.

Paul Hatch ran for State Senate in District 26, losing to Republican Peter Mills by 3,706 votes. His wife, Pamela Hatch, ran for House District 85, losing to Republican Donna Finley by 335 votes.

According to a memo from Jonathan Wayne, executive director of the state ethics commission, the Hatch’s couldn’t show proof of $2,973.54 of public funding between their campaigns.

Wayne's memos can be viewed here and here. 

“Without these documents, the Commission staff cannot be confident that the campaigns, in fact, made these reported expenditures,” Wayne’s memo states.

The couple were of the 61 2006 candidates selected for random audit, meaning they had to show proof for all of their expenses which used public funds. According to statute, all Clean Elections candidates are required to keep documentation for any purchase over $50.

In a written response, the Hatches stated they had lost the receipts in question.

“My daughter and I have spent many, many days over the last several months going thru every room and box in our house to try to find the missing information,” Pamela Hatch wrote. “We had little success.”

The Hatches have extensive campaign experience, Wayne’s report shows. Pamela Hatch has run in every election since 1992 for a legislative seat, and Paul Hatch has been a candidate in every election since 2000. They both have received public funding in the past three elections, totaling $119,554 in public funds over the years.

Undocumented expenditures by Pamela Hatch were:

Postage for mailings: $585

Printing costs for campaign literature: $457.63

Postage for Get Out The Vote Postcards: $480

Campaign literature: $357.35

Total: $1,879.98

Undocumented expenditures for Paul Hatch were:

Campaign postcards: $73.56

Salary for a driver: $100

Postage for postcards: $920

Total: $1,093.56

Most of the commission’s concerns involve the $920 in postage, paid in cash. There are conflicting reports over when the purchase was made and how the campaigns covered it, Wayne’s memo states.

“In hindsight it would have made sense, as we look back to have done our transactions by personal check or by credit card so we would have had some proof of purchase especially since we lost the receipt,” Paul Hatch stated in his written response.

The audit will be considered by the commission’s board at the Dec. 7 meeting. Commission staff has recommended several options, including accepting the expenditures, requesting other evidence or disallowing all of the expenditures. The Hatches would face civil penalties in any case, but if the expenditures were rejected then they would have to return the whole amount in question.