Clean Elections Undermined By Two Parties
By Editorial
No matter how much legal hairsplitting the candidates, their representatives and their parties throw at us, the ads aired by both the Republican Governors' Association and the Maine Democratic Party on behalf of, respectively, Chandler Woodcock and Gov. John Baldacci are about trashing their opponents and electing one of those guys governor of Maine. Plain and simple.
And that means that the intent of the state's landmark Clean Elections law is being cynically undermined by the majority parties and their candidates running for governor. |
And that means that the intent of the state's landmark Clean Elections law is being cynically undermined by the majority parties and their candidates running for governor.
Here's how the Clean Elections Act works: Each Clean Elections candidate for governor (Woodcock, Green Independent Pat LaMarche and Independent Barbara Merrill) is given $400,000 by the state to spend on their campaigns after the primary. If the privately funded Baldacci spends more than that on his campaign, it triggers matching funds for the Clean Elections candidates. And if Clean Elections-funded candidates accept outside donations that allow them to spend more, they're breaking the rules.
That sets up a situation where the governor, trying to keep his competitors from spending lots of money, would want to keep his campaign expenses down. What better way to do that than have independent groups like the Democratic Party and other partisan organizations run so-called "issue ads" that don't expressly call for the governor's re-election? Then the considerable expense of producing and running the ad doesn't appear on the governor's campaign balance sheet, triggering matching funds for his competitors.
But since it's politicians who passed the Clean Elections Act, the definition of an issue ad is so broad it's ludicrous. As long as the so-called independent group doesn't coordinate the ad with the campaign and the ad doesn't expressly say "Baldacci for Governor" or "Vote for Baldacci" they're free to say "John Baldacci is the finest governor in Maine history," or "Woodcock is an idiot and Baldacci's I.Q. is 700 points higher than his and he loves his mother more, too," and, believe it or not, viewers are supposed to swallow the claptrap that it isn't a campaign ad. And while the ads run for Baldacci by his party don't go quite that far, they're pretty close. How many times do we need to watch Woodcock walking backwards before we get it through our thick heads that someone thinks he's not qualified to be governor?
As for Woodcock, the Republican Governors' Association has similarly gone all out — within the huge loopholes offered to them by the issue ad definition — to advocate for their candidate's campaign. Woodcock's campaign, like Baldacci's, maintains that they've met the legal requirement not to consult with the independent group and that the language of the ads doesn't constitute express advocacy for his campaign.
Oh, please.
What this all points to is the problem of writing and administering a law that tries to control speech.
There are good intentions behind such state and federal laws — to give more people a chance to run for office and to limit the effect of big money on the electoral process. But, as the current situation points out, it doesn't always work that well.
The Legislature could go back to the law and try to close some loopholes, but in the end the centuries-old American tradition of free speech may be a stronger force than a complex set of rules and regulations that are drawn up by politicians and then administered by more politicians and their appointees.
