Maine’s chance to push back against big money in politics

Politics inevitably focuses on differences and conflict.

But come November, voters are going to have an opportunity to decide on a ballot question that brings together Republicans, Democrats and independents.

This week Mainers for Accountable Elections launched its campaign to pass meaningful election reform that focuses on transparency, accountability and reducing the impact of big money in campaigns.

A “yes” vote on Question 1 will give everyday voters a greater voice in our elections.

At the launch in Augusta this week, a broad grassroots coalition of individuals and groups concerned about good government and the negative consequences of money in politics came together to kick off the campaign. (Disclosure: A colleague of mine works on the campaign.)

The initiative will do several important things, all of which will improve the way campaigns are conducted.

First, it increases transparency by requiring outside groups to list their top funders on political advertisements, such as TV ads, radio spots and direct mail.

The increased disclosure is important because it lifts the veil that hides the source of political spending and allows voters to know who’s really behind political advertising. That’s a great tool for voters when they are being bombarded by sometimes negative and untrue ads.

Second, the initiative increases the fines and penalties for people and groups who violate Maine election laws.

We’ve seen this time and again. Our laws just aren’t strong enough to deter big-money special interests — often from out of state — who treat ethics commission fines like just another cost of doing business.

When you have millions of dollars in dark money at your disposal, a small fine is no more significant than paying the light bill.

Third, it will reduce the influence of large contributions and big money in elections by strengthening Maine’s Clean Elections Act, which allows candidates to run for office without being dependent on donations from wealthy special interests.

In 1996, Maine voters made history when voters approved the Clean Elections Act, which set up a system of public financing for candidates for the Maine House of Representatives, Maine Senate and governor.

At its height in 2008, 81 percent of candidates for the Legislature participated in the clean elections program. And in 2010, 89 percent of Democrats running for the House and 94 percent of Republicans running for the Senate ran as clean elections candidates.

Candidates like the system because it reduces the amount of time they spend chasing dollars, increasing the amount of time they have to talk to actual voters in their districts.

The Clean Election Act gave candidates the option of raising qualifying contributions of just $5, which were then matched by public dollars. It’s a logistical challenge and a test of organization to qualify for the program.

Once a candidate qualified, they would also be able to receive matching dollars if their opponent or an outside group exceeded spending caps in the race.

It was a groundbreaking and effective system that helped to keep the amount of money in legislative races in check.

But in 2011, the U.S. Supreme Court blew the system up, when it ruled against matching funds in the Arizona.

This year’s initiative, which will be Question 1 on the statewide ballot, creates a new system that allows candidates to re-qualify for funding if their opponents or outside groups go beyond spending limits.

In June, The New York Times and CBS News conducted a nationwide poll on the topic of money in politics. As they described the results: “With near unanimity, the public thinks the country’s campaign finance system needs significant changes. There is strong support across party lines for limiting the amount of money individuals can contribute to political campaigns, limiting the amount of money groups not affiliated with candidates can spend, and requiring unaffiliated groups to publicly disclose their donors if they spend money during a political campaign.”

That’s what this campaign is about.

Some voters look at money in politics, and they’re tempted to throw up their hands and think that there’s nothing that can be done. But real reform is possible.

After Watergate, reformers passed a series of good government reforms. Those laws made a real difference. That work continues today.

It starts with common-sense measures like Question 1 that we know will work.

David Farmer

About David Farmer

David Farmer is a political and media consultant in Portland, where he lives with his wife and two children. He was senior adviser to Democrat Mike Michaud’s campaign for governor and a longtime journalist. You can reach him at dfarmer14@hotmail.com.