A Senate Committee will today consider a plan to provide public funding for candidates for governor, the state senate and executive councilor. Champions of the measure, say public funding will curb the influence of special interests and open up the political process. But party leaders in Maine, which adopted so-called clean election statutes several years ago, say public funding comes with plenty of challenges.
Under the plan sponsored by Democratic state senator Clifton Below candidates would qualify for public funding by collecting a requisite number of individual campaign donations of $5, and complying with certain limits on pre-campaign fundraising. According to Senator Below, making public funds available to those seeking to do the people?s business makes perfect sense.
"There?s so much at stake in terms of the public interest, I don?t know why we should not be thinking about public funded mechanism. Otherwise we risk government being controlled by private, monied interests."
Under Below?s proposal, Gubernatorial candidates could receive up to 1.2 million dollars for primary and general election; those running for the executive council $100,000; and state senate hopefuls $40,000. The plan?s bears some resemblance to those recently added to the books in Massachusetts, Maine, Vermont and Arizona. Below says in those states the effects of public funding are beginning to be felt..
"The states where it?s actually been put into effect, Maine and Arizona in particular, it?s been considered somewhat successful. It has not in particularly favored one party or the other. Republicans and democrats have both taken advantage of it. And a few of them have succeeded in getting elected even though they were perhaps outspent."
But according to Gwethalyn Phillips, director of the Maine state Democratic Party, public funding has scarcely changed certain basic political realities.
"If the goal of the process is to keep money out of politics. It has done no such thing."
What Maine?s clean election laws have done, says Phillips, is made it somewhat easier for parties to recruit challengers. And she points out that some 50% of those running under the clean election laws since have opted to use the public money?..But even so, the process has seen some abuse. Dwayne Bickford of the Maine state republicans gives two cautionary examples culled from both parties.
"One of them used a majority of the money to take people out to dinner, another one used it to buy five computers and a network and reimburse himself for travel to his ?campaign office,? which was out of his district."
Another problem say Maine political party officials is how clean election laws have increased the amount of independent expenditures ? those ads, mailings and phone calls made on a candidates behalf without their knowledge?..Gwethalyn Phillips of the Maine democratic party says the practice causes problems for office seekers of every persuasion..
"The candidate has their own campaign then a variety of special interest groups flood in with mailings and phone calls. And the candidate and the parties can?t have discussions about all these thins. So the candidate loses control over his or her message and the money comes in from all kind of directions."
But given the present circumstances: a looming budget deficit, and a bill that requires 6 million dollars of state money without a specified funding mechanism, local candidates aren?t likely to be contending with the by-products of clean elections laws anytime soon?..And though campaign finance reformers stress the Senate passed a similar provision in 1999, the chamber?s is now republican controlled..?and a fiscal bill that without leadership support isn?t likely to fly??. The bill also lacks to backing of the state political parties. New Hampshire GOP Chairman John Dowd says changing current campaign law would be a waste of time? Meanwhile, the New Hampshire Democratic Party has no position on the issue.
