will N.H. follow in Maine’s footsteps and offer public funds for political races?

In political races, candidates are judged largely on how much money their campaigns rake in, but it’s difficult to measure to what degree politicians are influenced by the special interests and private donors that contribute to their campaigns. In Maine, candidates have figured out a way to sidestep that complication. In 1996, a public referendum established the Maine Clean Elections Act. The law allows candidates running for governor, state Senate or the state House of Representatives to use public funds to finance their campaigns, instead of relying on private contributions. Tax money collected from Maine citizens funds these “clean” elections.

New Hampshire is in the early stages of considering similar legislation. On May 16, Gov. John Lynch signed House Bill 794, paving the way for the formation of a seven-member committee to explore the possibility of establishing a public financing system for certain elections. Sponsored by Rep. Jim Splaine (D-Portsmouth), HB 794 has been nicknamed the Granny D Bill, in honor of longtime New Hampshire activist Doris “Granny D” Haddock. The commission, also nicknamed after Granny D, is expected to get underway sometime in June and will report its findings on Dec. 1. 

With the possibility of such legislation on the horizon in New Hampshire, it makes sense to look north and see what impact the law has had in Maine. While the situation in Concord is different from that in Augusta, residents in both states share many of the same values, including honesty, self-reliance and protecting what is uniquely theirs.

Some people think the Maine Clean Elections Act has opened the door to more progressive legislation, as politicians are less influenced by special interests. Others think funding campaigns with tax dollars is inappropriate. Either way, it’s difficult to gauge the law’s success.

“It’s so hard to isolate the clean election effects from other factors,” said Allison Smith, co-chair of Maine Citizens for Clean Elections, an advocacy group that works to protect and promote the MCEA.

Despite her reluctance to single out specific pieces of legislation that the clean election bill made possible, Smith identified certain issues that have been addressed thanks to the MCEA.

“From what legislators tell me, we never would have gotten so far with health care reform,” she said.

The Maine Legislature passed a law to control the price of prescription drugs several years ago. According to Smith, the law passed because legislators knew they would not have to depend on drug company funds for future elections.

Smith also believes that public election funding has had environmental benefits. “One of our coalition colleagues, the Environmental Coalition in Maine, has passed 100 percent of its legislative agenda in the last cycle,” she said.

In 2006, a producer responsibility law went into effect in Maine. The law requires that manufacturers take responsibility for the full life cycle of the products they make, including covering the costs of recycling and disposal. The law has forced computer companies to pay large sums to help dispose of the toxic materials used in the construction of monitors and other high-tech gadgets. Many people attribute its passage to the fact that fewer politicians rely on corporate money for their campaigns.

Passing significant legislation in Augusta is still a challenge, but with the clean election law having leveled the playing field, the solid Maine values of environmental stewardship and caring for neighbors has been put on the front burner, according to Smith. “Clean elections are at least in part responsible for that, now that the legislature is representative of the people,” she said.

A coalition of advocacy groups operating under the name of the Maine Voters for Clean Elections introduced the MCEA more than a decade ago. Voters approved the act by a margin of 320,755 (56.2 percent) to 250,185 (43.8 percent). The Maine Commission on Governmental Ethics and Election Practices administers the program.

In order to qualify for public funding, candidates are required to collect signatures and raise a certain number of $5 donations from voters. The candidates then receive limited funding to run their campaigns, with matching funds if their opponents use privately raised funds. Candidates that volunteer for the MCEA program have to rely completely on public funds.

“The fundamental difference is that a clean election candidate is receiving public funds and a traditional, privately funded candidate is going out and raising private funds,” said Paul Lavin, assistant director of the Maine Ethics Commission.

According to a study report compiled by the Ethics Commission, key benefits of the Maine Clean Election Act include: encouraging first-time candidates to run for political office, allowing more challengers to compete against incumbents in general elections, providing more options for voters, controlling spending in legislative campaigns and allowing candidates to spend more time communicating with voters, rather than raising funds.

According to the report, House candidates receive $512 if they are running unopposed in primary elections and $1,504 if they have an opponent. Candidates for the Senate receive $1,927 if they are unopposed in primaries and $7,746 if they have an opponent. Gubernatorial candidates receive $200,000 regardless of their opposition.

During the general election, candidates for the House receive $1,745, if they are unopposed, $4,362 if they are opposed. Unopposed Senate candidates receive $8,033, while candidates with an opponent receive $20,082. All gubernatorial candidates receive $400,000.

Payments are made using money from the Maine Clean Election Fund, a special revenue account created by the MCEA. Money for the fund comes from an annual transfer of $2 million from Maine’s General Fund, income from a check-off option on Maine income tax returns and qualifying contributions raised by candidates from voters. Money in the fund collects interest and that money is recycled back into the fund in subsequent years. Payments of late filing and other penalties also add to the total.

In 2006, the total payment of public funds to legislative and gubernatorial candidates was just shy of $7 million. That amount has gone up each year since the act first passed. 

While some people disagree with using taxpayer money to fund political campaigns, the number of candidates participating in the MCEA has skyrocketed since 2000. According to the report, the rate of participation by general election candidates rose from 33 percent in 2000 to 62 percent in 2002 and 81 percent in 2006.

In the House of Representatives, Democrats participated at a rate about 23 percent higher than Republicans, the report said. Among candidates running for state Senate, Democrats and Republicans have collected public campaign funds in roughly similar numbers.

The majority of candidates taking advantage of the MCEA are women. “Women choose it more, they like it more, it helps them win more,” Smith said. “There is no question it has opened the door to a lot of people that wouldn’t have run before, and a lot of those people are women.”

In 2000, Deborah Simpson used public funds to become a state representative. Prior to that, Simpson was working as a waitress. “I hadn’t run for office. I had volunteered, but I wasn’t an insider,” she said.

Her decision to enter politics came after visiting the statehouse in Augusta. “I looked around and it was mostly older people,” she said. She thought state government would be more representative if it included more working class people in their 30s and 40s—people like Simpson. “People who have a closer relationship with the struggle of working families,” she said.

Since entering office, Simpson has focused on child support issues and domestic violence legislation. She has also been chair of the Maine Judiciary Committee. 

“(The Clean Election Act) provides opportunity and resources to candidates that have a lot to offer and have support in the community,” Smith said. “It allows people to go to the capitol, to know there’s no strings attached to their votes. Their heart is with their district, not with those that would fund their next campaign.”

Not only are there now more candidates to choose from in Maine, there is more legislation on the table that may not have been considered before. “Policy makers are more willing to ask more challenging questions of people who appear before them,” Simpson said. “They’re not worried about where they’re going to get their funding.”

The number and diversity of voters writing $5 checks for candidates has also increased. “The elections are funded by way more people than ever before,” Smith said.

However, some candidates still choose to raise funds privately. The study cites three main reasons why these candidates decline to participate in the MCEA. Some candidates don’t approve of public funds being spent on political campaigns. Many don’t want to burden Maine taxpayers. Some candidates also believe that the system of private fundraising used in most state and congressional elections produces more qualified elected officials.

The Maine Ethics Commission has continually tweaked the Clean Elections Act to ensure that public funds are not misused. Candidates who receive public funds are required to submit receipts and spending reports. Following the 2004 elections, two candidates that had campaigned with public funds were found to have used the money for purposes other than their campaigns. The candidates were reprimanded and the funds were returned, according to the report.

“Maine people decided that to get big money out of politics is a good investment. There is widespread agreement that most special interests don’t invest in a campaign without expecting something in return,” Smith said.

In other states, clean election laws have been challenged through legal and political avenues. Massachusetts passed public financing legislation, but it was later abandoned after too much political infighting. The Maine Clean Elections Act was challenged right out of the gate, Smith said. The American Civil Liberties Union and the Right to Life group questioned the law’s constitutionality in court, but both failed to have their cases heard before the Supreme Court. 

“We crafted a very sound law and mounted a vigorous legal defense,” Smith said.

As a result of the clean election law, Maine has achieved parity of spending in legislative races. The winners usually spend about as much on their campaigns as the losers. “In Maine, people don’t win or lose because of how much money they’ve raised,” Smith said.

The MCEA has also become a valuable recruiting tool for both the Republican and Democratic parties. They are able to attract good, civic-minded people by advertising the fact that campaigns are honest.

“Parties thought of it as a loss of control. Now they view it as a recruiting tool. With this tool in their toolkit, they are able to recruit people in an area where their party hasn’t had a strong candidate,” Smith said. “This is the most exciting and positive reform that can be contemplated.”

With the recent signing of HB 794, those words are particularly relevant in New Hampshire. “I think with the correct people on the commission—and we’ve assembled some good possible members—it will come up with a ‘clean elections’ law, a campaign public financing law that will work in New Hampshire,” Rep. Splaine said in an email. “We’ve made some progress, some great progress.”

Although Splaine acknowledges that the road to passing a clean elections law in New Hampshire could be a bumpy one, he feels it will prevail in the end. “The big problem, of course, as in Maine and elsewhere, will be sustainable funding, and the process for qualification and oversight. But I think it can be done,” Splaine said.