How Much Can A Maine Clean Elections Candidate Raise In Seed Money

Question 1
Blazon	Initiative
Origin	Citizens
Topic	Elections and campaigns
Status	Approved a

Maine 2015 election
Question 1 - Elections
Question 2 - Senior citizens bail issue
Question 3 - Transportation bail issue

All 2015 U.S. measures

The Maine "Make clean Elections" Initiative, Question ane was on the November 3, 2015 ballot in Maine as an indirect initiated land statute, where it was approved. The initiative strengthened the Maine Make clean Elections Act.

Voting yep would accept increased funding for the Maine Make clean Elections Fund; increased penalties for violating entrada finance disclosure rules; adjusted political ad disclosure rules; and allowed candidates to authorize for additional funds.

Voting no would have kept current laws unchanged, including the funding for the Maine Clean Elections Fund and electric current disclosure and qualification rules.

The measure increased funding from $2 million to $3 million for the Maine Clean Elections Fund. The additional funding came from eliminating $six million in "low-performing, unaccountable" corporate revenue enhancement exemptions, deductions or credits "with piffling or no demonstrated economical development effect."^{[1] [ii]}

The initiative increased penalties for violating campaign finance disclosure rules. Finances reported late are penalized at 100 percent, rather than the former $5,000. Penalties and sanctions are doubled for violations when they occur inside 24 days before an election and tripled when violations occur within xiv days.

Advertisements and communications are required to disclose the campaign's top three funders.

The measure also allowed candidates to qualify for supplemental funds and required disclosures regarding gubernatorial inaugurations and transitions.

Election results

Maine Question 1
Result		Votes	Percentage
a Yes		119992	54.96%
No		98343	45.04%

Election results via: Maine Secretary of State

Text of mensurate

Ballot title

The ballot championship was:^[3]

"

An Act To Strengthen the Maine Clean Ballot Act, Amend Disclosure and Brand Other Changes to the Campaign Finance Laws Exercise you lot desire to alter Maine constabulary to allow publicly financed state candidates to authorize for boosted funds nether certain limits and rules in the Maine Clean Ballot Act, to improve the disclosure of who pays for political ads, and to increase penalties for violations of campaign finance constabulary?[4]

"

Summary

The summary was:^[5]

"

This initiated bill makes the post-obit changes to the laws governing campaign finance reporting and disclosure and the Maine Clean Election Human activity. one. It authorizes the establishment of gubernatorial transition committees for the purpose of raising money to finance a Governor-elect's inauguration and transition into function and establishes requirements regarding disclosure and acceptance of donations from persons involved in lobbying. 2. Information technology amends the Maine Make clean Election Human action past adding a system of optional supplemental funding for participating Maine Make clean Election Act candidates who collect additional qualifying contributions. iii. Information technology establishes new baseline initial distribution amounts for Maine Clean Election Act candidates. 4. It authorizes the Commission on Governmental Ethics and Election Practices to impose enhanced penalties for entrada finance violations occurring shortly earlier election day. v. It increases the baseline penalties for failure to file required reports. six. It increases the maximum penalties for sure campaign finance violations. vii. It requires communications that are independent expenditures to include a conspicuous argument listing the peak 3 funders of the entity making the independent expenditure. 8. It increases the amount of the annual transfer to the Maine Make clean Election Fund from $2,000,000 to $iii,000,000. ix. It requires the Committee on Governmental Ethics and Election Practices to written report annually on the Maine Clean Election Fund's projected needs, including an operating margin of 20%. x. It repeals the seed money requirement for gubernatorial candidates. 11. It adjusts the number of qualifying contributions required for initial certification of gubernatorial candidates from 3,250 to iii,200 to correspond to the increments established for supplemental funds distributions. 12. It doubles the seed coin cap for legislative candidates. 13. It provides dominion-making authority for the Commission on Governmental Ideals and Election Practices regarding several of the statutory changes. xiv. It directs the articulation standing committee of the Legislature having jurisdiction over taxation matters to report out legislation to eliminate corporate tax expenditures totaling $half-dozen,000,000 per biennium, prioritizing low-performing tax expenditures.[4]

"

Full text

The full text of the measure tin can exist found here.

Background

MCEA

The Maine Make clean Elections Act (MCEA) was enacted in 1996 through a ballot initiative titled Question 3. MCEA was designed to provide full public financing to candidates for the positions of governor, state representative and land senator.^[6] The Maine Commission on Governmental Ethics and Ballot Practices described the process of obtaining public financing under MCEA:

"	Candidates who cull to participate may accept very limited private contributions at the commencement of their campaigns (seed money contributions). To become eligible, candidates must demonstrate community support through collecting a minimum number of checks or money orders of $5 more made payable to the Maine Clean Ballot Fund (qualifying contributions). After a candidate begins to receive MCEA funds from the Land, he or she cannot accept private contributions, and almost all appurtenances and services received must be paid for with MCEA funds.[4]	"
—Maine Commission on Governmental Ethics and Election Practices[half-dozen]

Support

The campaign that supported the initiative was led by Mainers for Accountable Elections.^[7]

Supporters

Officials

• Sen. Roger Katz (R-xv)
• Sen. David Dutremble (D-32)

Organizations

• Allen Avenue Unitarian Universalist Church building
• Brennan Centre for Justice
• Common Cause
• Republic for America
• Demos
• End Citizens United
• Environment Maine
• Environmental Health Strategy Center
• Every Vox
• Food & Water Watch
• Free Speech for People
• League of Women Voters^[8]
• Maine Center for Economic Policy
• Maine Citizens for Clean Elections
• Maine Conservation Alliance
• Maine Quango of Churches
• Maine Instruction Association
• Maine Equal Justice Partners
• Maine People's Alliance
• Maine Small Business Coalition
• Maine Unitarian Universalist Advancement Network
• Maine Women'south Lobby
• NAACP Portland Branch
• People for the American Mode
• Public Citizen
• Sierra Social club
• United Steelworkers

Businesses

• Ben & Jerry'southward Homemade Holdings Inc.^[9]

Arguments in favor

Sen. Roger Katz argued in a cavalcade on CentralMaine.com:^[10]

"

Information technology will strengthen transparency and accountability in elections by increasing fines and penalties for those who intermission our election laws and requiring wealthy special interests spending money on set on ads to disembalm their summit donors directly on their political advertisements so that Mainers know who is trying to influence their vote. It as well will limit the influence that wealthy donors and special interests have on our political system past reforming our state's public entrada finance system.[4]

"

The League of Women Voters of Maine said the initiative aligned with the tradition of the group, namely, "the ideal of one person, one vote." The organization too argued:^[eight]

"

When big-money donors spend in political campaigns, they create a feedback loop in public policy that further advances their own interests, deepening the political and economic chasm between themselves and ordinary people. Mainers have rejected this type of influence in the past by enacting the Clean Elections Act, and we're eager to practice it again now.[4]

"

The Maine Center for Economic Policy, a inquiry organization focusing on economic well-being, endorsed the measure:^[eleven]

"

In order to truly strengthen this state'due south economy we need to ensure that politicians are accountable to everyday, middle-form Mainers who are struggling to get by, pay their bills and continue food on the table – not wealthy individuals and big corporations that can write big campaign checks. These reforms volition likewise get in possible for anyone to run for part - not just the independently wealthy, those dependent on the existing political infrastructure, or people beholden to moneyed interests. Until we limit the influence of big money on our representatives and increase transparency in Maine elections, special interests volition continue to block progress on issues that bear on Mainers throughout this country.[four]

"

The Sierra Club Maine, the country'southward largest volunteer environmental organisation, also endorsed the initiative, noting:^[12]

"

Sierra Club Maine is endorsing this referendum because we need make clean elections to have a make clean environment. A off-white electoral process and transparent campaign financing regulations are essential to protecting Mainers' environmental heritage, health and safety, and to transition our state to a clean energy economy. We won't be able to achieve these critically-important public interest goals until we put command of elections dorsum in the easily of Maine voters – not special interests and corporations.[4]

"

Maine's U.Due south. Sen. Angus King said:^[13]

"

It will toughen fines and penalties for those who intermission Maine's election laws so they are truly held accountable to the people. And it volition encourage strict entrada spending and contribution limits by strengthening the country's landmark Clean Elections system and then that candidates throughout Maine tin run for function without being reliant on special interests and big coin donors. I've watched as Maine's Clean Elections system has transformed the country's Legislature and opened the door for everyday people like plumbers, teachers, carpenters and firefighters to be able to run for office and compete against deep-pocketed or well-connected opponents. Past putting a focus on low-dollar donations and taking special involvement money out of the equation, Clean Elections makes a $5 donor go a political histrion in our organization and ensure that politicians answer to the people. That's why Democrats, Republicans, Greens and independents have been such strong supporters of the system. Unfortunately, because of misguided changes at the state and federal level in recent years, our Clean Elections system has been severely weakened. Question 1 gives us an opportunity to make it strong one time once more. By passing Question one, we can halt the unprecedented shift in campaign financing and return control of our elections to the easily of the people, restoring religion in our political organisation and protecting the fundamental principle of having a government that is of, by and for the people.[4]

"

Campaign contributions

The Mainers for Accountable Elections commission raised $1,329,997.31 as of October 29, 2015.^[14]

Committee info:

PAC	Amount raised	Amount spent
Mainers for Accountable Elections	$ane,329,997.31	$1,287,918.75
Total	$ane,329,997.31	$ane,287,918.75

The post-obit is a list of those who contributed $9,000 or more to the entrada supporting the initiative:^[15]

• Maine Citizens for Clean Elections
• Sean Eldridge
• Maine Educational activity Association
• Every Voice
• MPRC
• Common Crusade
• Pat Stryker
• Communications Workers of America
• Katie McGrath
• Jeffery Jacob Abrams
• Proteus Action League BQC
• Cyrus Y. Hagge
• National Education Association

Opposition

In tardily September, Rep. Joel Stetkis, (R-105) created the NO on Question one campaign to begin pushing opposition against the initiative.^[16]

Arguments against

Rep. Joel Stetkis said:^[16]

"

Question 1 is zip but an assault on the Maine citizens who want a citizen legislator to represent them. And I say that after looking at this: The front group that calls themselves the Mainers of Accountable Elections are trying to convince us that if this was to pass that this would really reduce the power of the ultra wealthy special interest groups in Maine elections. ... It'south a apartment out prevarication. ... I've got a nautical chart on (Facebook) that actually maps out where the money is coming from, supporting or being funneled into this grouping Mainers for Accountable Elections. Every bit information technology turns out, when yous expect at the July finance report submitted to the state by this group, they've received nearly $312,000 dollars and over $300,000 dollars comes from special involvement groups, political activity committees and ultra wealthy donors from Massachusetts, New York and Washington DC. Every bit it turns out, these are ultra wealthy special interest groups and their partners that take been active here in Maine for years, whether its hunting bears or traditional values or gun rights. So all of a sudden are we to believe that these groups have brought theirs staffs here to the state of Maine (and) spent hundreds of thousands even millions of dollars to protect us from them?[4]

"

Rep. Lawrence Lockman (R-137) said:^[17]

"

Information technology borders on scandalous that anybody would suggest taking scarce money out of the General Fund to spend on robocalls, negative ads and lawn signs. Every dollar from the Full general Fund that goes to fund political campaigns is one less dollar for all of these urgent needs.[four]

"

Gov. Paul LePage (R) said:^[18]

"

This is the biggest scam on Maine people, this is truly, truly most getting the wealthy, wealthier and the poor people, dumb — keep them dumb — impaired them downwardly. This is a scam.[4]

"

Author Nathan Strout said in an editorial on TheMaineWire.com:^[xix]

"

The liberal groups behind the clean elections initiative, like the Maine People's Brotherhood, know how to work the system in guild to keep donors private, and they've been doing it for years. Why, then, would they back up a referendum that would reveal those donors? The answer is that the referendum's reforms are superficial. Let'due south review the three major changes that they're pushing for. 1. Increased fines for violators: Who cares? These groups are able to hide their donors legally without violating campaign finance laws. 2. Revealing the tiptop three donors for outside political ads: That changes aught. Donors who prefer to remain anonymous tin can essentially launder their money through 501(c)four'due south which are not required to reveal their donors. 3. Increase public financing: Information technology's articulate that public financing does not accomplish its goal of keeping money out of politics. Publicly financed candidates accept taxpayer coin, and and so operate PACs to rake in special involvement coin to heave their campaigns. The Mainers for Answerable Elections plebiscite will not make campaigns/elections any more than open up. All it will practise is allow liberals to campaign confronting big coin and special interests in politics, while still raking in the money through progressive forepart groups and bearding PACS.[four]

"

Rep. Robert Foley (R-7) said:^[20]

"

It's a faux negative to say you need to get money out of politics so it creates a level playing field. This is Maine. I haven't met anybody in Augusta from either party whose motives I question. And that coin tin can be better spent on programs that really bear upon Maine people.[four]

"

Al Diamon said in a Daily Bulldog editorial:^[21]

"

'Large-money groups' will however exist able to spend as much equally they like to influence elections. It's quite possible that, due to the increased funding this proposal provides to candidates, those deep-pockets contributors will counteract the extra public money by increasing their spending. Merely as the question indicates, there's more to this measure out than squandering another agglomeration of our tax dollars. It would also require political action committees that run ad to include the names of their elevation iii donors in the spots, then we'll know who's behind those nasty assault ads. But don't expect to discover that the folks bankroll the well-funded effort to defeat your favorite legislator are the Committee to Subvert Democracy, the Council of Uncaring Fat Cats or Americans United for ISIS and Al Qaeda. Political consultants for major campaigns will make sure the big checks are all written past organizations with suitably beneficial names, such as Mainers for Fairness and Other Good Stuff, Local Citizens Committed to Our Own Idea of Better Government or Folks Only Like You Who Want Zip More Your Happiness and Well-Being.[4]

"

Entrada contributions

Opponents of Question 1 had raised over $33,000 equally of Oct 29, 2015.^[xv]

Commission data:

Committee	Amount raised	Amount spent
Mainers Confronting Welfare for Politicians	$33,965.00	$29,077.95
Full	$33,965.00	'29,077.95

Donors who contributed $10,000 or more to the entrada include:

Top contributors:

Donor	Amount
Linda Bean	$10,000
Doug Mayo	$x,000

Media editorials

Support

The Bangor Daily News editorial board wrote:^[22]

"

Question 1'southward funding machinery — admittedly an imperfect i — would more than than cover the increased toll of make clean elections if lawmakers comply with information technology: They would have to comb through dozens of tax breaks deemed ineffective post-obit evaluation past the Legislature's nonpartisan investigative arm and eliminate at least $3 million annually. Some have suggested opposing Question i because it won't stem the flow of big, outside money into Maine politics. Others have said the initiative is more accordingly the domain of the Legislature. Virtually the entire question, in split up parts, has been supported by the Maine Legislature. Gov. Paul LePage thwarted a number of these needed changes. We agree that Question i won't excise money from politics, simply it builds on a system that has proven successful in limiting spending in many races, lowering candidates' financial barriers to entry and making more legislative races competitive. The disclosure elements of the question are critical, long-needed changes.[iv]

"

Oppose

John Balentine, managing editor of keepMEcurrent.com, argued:^[23]

"

Campaign financing, for sure, is a complex issue. We agree with the Yes on 1 campaigners who are seeking a solution to it. Simply one affair is certain – just because someone spends a ton of money doesn't hateful they're going to exist elected. Recent presidential primary contestants are perfect examples. Well-heeled Jeb Bush is struggling, Scott Walker dropped out, and on the Autonomous side, Bernie Sanders, who has masses of minor donors aiding his run, is doing well. We think this proves that voters tin can be trusted with seeing through all the money and picking a candidate based on substance. Nosotros trust the voter, in other words, and we experience campaigns such as Question 1 don't capeesh the fact that specially here in Maine, we judge based on substance. Accept the behave-baiting referendum last year. Supporters of the ban spent the majority of the money, though failed on Election Mean solar day. Coin tin can be influential, no doubt, but campaigns have to win based on ideas. Also, the argument Question 1 supporters use – that adept people don't run for function nowadays because they don't want to deal with collecting money and be appreciative to donors – is based on pessimistic and false assumptions. It'due south certainly not a given that a donation will make a candidate beholden to the donor. The answer isn't irresolute the whole arrangement; information technology's electing independent, incorruptible people to part. Those seeking a prepare to the very complicated issue of removing the outsized influence of moneyed donors should look to other solutions. Question ane isn't the answer.[4]

"

Path to the ballot

See also: Laws governing the initiative process in Maine

Supporters of the measure were required to submit 61,123 valid signatures by January 22, 2015, in order to get the measure certified for the 2015 election. On January 21, 2015, Maine Citizens for Clean Elections turned in more than 85,000 signatures to the Maine Secretary of Country's office.^[24] Of those signatures, about 80,000 were deemed valid. Since Maine initiatives are indirect initiatives, the legislature had the take chances to corroborate the measure. Since the legislature did not, the mensurate went before voters November 2015.^[25] The Maine 2015 legislative session adjourned on June 30, 2015.

Country profile

Demographic data for Maine
	Maine	U.S.
Full population:	i,329,453	316,515,021
Land area (sq mi):	30,843	3,531,905
Race and ethnicity**
White:	95%	73.vi%
Black/African American:	ane.1%	12.half dozen%
Asian:	ane.ane%	five.1%
Native American:	0.6%	0.8%
Pacific Islander:	0%	0.2%
Ii or more:	ii%	3%
Hispanic/Latino:	1.5%	17.1%
Instruction
Loftier school graduation rate:	91.six%	86.vii%
College graduation rate:	29%	29.8%
Income
Median household income:	$49,331	$53,889
Persons below poverty level:	16.vi%	11.3%
Source: U.Due south. Census Bureau, "American Community Survey" (5-year estimates 2010-2015) Click here for more information on the 2020 census and hither for more on its impact on the redistricting process in Maine. **Note: Percentages for race and ethnicity may add upward to more than than 100 per centum considering respondents may report more than one race and the Hispanic/Latino ethnicity may exist selected in conjunction with any race. Read more virtually race and ethnicity in the census hither.

Presidential voting pattern

See also: Presidential voting trends in Maine

Maine voted for the Democratic candidate in all six presidential elections between 2000 and 2020.

Pin Counties (2016)

Ballotpedia identified 206 counties that voted for Donald Trump (R) in 2016 after voting for Barack Obama (D) in 2008 and 2012. Collectively, Trump won these Pivot Counties past more than than 580,000 votes. Of these 206 counties, eight are located in Maine, accounting for 3.88 percent of the total pivot counties.^[26]

Pivot Counties (2020)

In 2020, Ballotpedia re-examined the 206 Pin Counties to view their voting patterns following that year's presidential election. Ballotpedia defined those won past Trump won as Retained Pivot Counties and those won by Joe Biden (D) every bit Boomerang Pivot Counties. Nationwide, there were 181 Retained Pin Counties and 25 Boomerang Pin Counties. Maine had seven Retained Pivot Counties and i Boomerang Pivot Canton, bookkeeping for iv.42 and 4.00 percent of all Retained and Boomerang Pivot Counties, respectively.

More than Maine coverage on Ballotpedia

• Elections in Maine
• Usa congressional delegations from Maine
• Public policy in Maine
• Influencers in Maine
• Maine fact checks
• More than...

Similar measures

• Maine Public Campaign Financing, Question iii (1996) a

See also

• Maine 2015 ballot measures
• 2015 election measures
• Laws governing the initiative process in Maine

External links

Bones data

• "Make clean Elections" Initiative
• Maine 2015 Citizen's Guide to the Plebiscite Ballot

Support

• Mainers for Accountable Elections
• Mainers for Accountable Elections Facebook
• Mainers for Accountable Elections Twitter

Footnotes

1. ↑ Maine Citizens for Clean Elections, "Initiative," accessed January 19, 2015
2. ↑ Portland Printing Herald, "Clean Election referendum includes call to end $half dozen million in Maine corporate taxation breaks," July 27, 2015
3. ↑ Maine Secretary of State, "Upcoming Elections," accessed September 28, 2015
4. ↑ ^{4.00 4.01 4.02 4.03 4.04 4.05 4.06 4.07 4.08 iv.09 4.10 4.11 four.12 4.xiii four.14 iv.15} Notation: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
5. ↑ Maine Legislature, "An Human action To Strengthen the Maine Clean Election Deed, Meliorate Disclosure and Make Other Changes to the Campaign Finance Laws," accessed Oct 21, 2015
6. ↑ ^{6.0 half dozen.i} Maine Commission on Governmental Ethics and Election Practices, "The Maine Make clean Ballot Act," accessed January nineteen, 2015
7. ↑ Mainers for Accountable Elections, "Homepage," accessed July 14, 2015
8. ↑ ^{8.0 eight.1} League of Women Voters of Maine, "Clean Elections Initiative," accessed February 23, 2015
9. ↑ Boothbay Register, "Democrats learn virtually 2015 'Clean Elections' election initiative," March 24, 2014
10. ↑ Centralmaine.com, "Katz: Campaign finance reforms volition continue Maine'southward commonwealth top-tier," August iv, 2015
11. ↑ Mainers for Answerable Elections, "MECEP Endorses Entrada Finance Referendum," July 2, 2015
12. ↑ Mainers for Accountable Elections, "Sierra Society Maine Endorses Election Reform Referendum," accessed July 13, 2015
13. ↑ Portland Printing Herald, "Commentary: Voters need to back up land Clean Elections Initiative on November. 3, Sen. King says," Oct 9, 2015
14. ↑ Maine Governmental Ethics & Ballot Practices, "Mainers for Accountable Elections Committee," accessed October 29, 2015
15. ↑ ^{15.0 15.ane} Maine Campaign Finance, "Ballot Questions," accessed October 29, 2015
16. ↑ ^{16.0 16.i} WVOM, "Joel Stetkis Clean Ballot A," accessed September 24, 2015
17. ↑ Portland Press Herald, "Question ane arguments: Cleaner elections or 'welfare' for politicians?" Oct 19, 2015
18. ↑ MBPN News, "Opponents of Question ane Say Make clean Elections Amounts to 'Welfare for Politicians'," Oct 14, 2015
19. ↑ The Maine Wire, "Strout: The Liberals' Hypocritical Dark Money Machine," August 12, 2015
20. ↑ fosters.com, "Maine clean election measure sparks debate," October 25, 2015
21. ↑ Daily Bulldog, "Politics & Other Mistakes: Money laundering," Baronial 24, 2015
22. ↑ Bangor Daily News, "Question 1 is Maine's risk to keep politics the domain of everyday people," October 21, 2015
23. ↑ keepMEcurrent.com, "Editorial: No on Question ane," October 21, 2015
24. ↑ WABI, "Maine Group Earns 85,000 Signatures For Clean Elections Initiative," January 21, 2015
25. ↑ Portland Press Herald, "Maine secretary of state OKs clean election signatures," February xviii, 2015
26. ↑ The raw data for this study was provided past Dave Leip of Atlas of U.Due south. Presidential Elections.

v•east 2015 election measures
I&R States	Colorado • Maine • Michigan • Mississippi • Ohio • Washington
Not I&R States	Louisiana • Texas • Wisconsin
Political topics	Athletics • Banking • Bonds • Business regulation • Directly democracy • Education • Elections and campaigns • Gambling • Housing • Hunting and fishing • Marijuana • Property • Redistricting • State and local government budgets, spending and finance • State executive officials • State judiciary • State legislatures • Taxes • Transportation • Treatment of animals • Veterans
Other	Scorecard • Petition drive deadlines • Polls • Lawsuits • Potential measures • Tuesday Count • Changes in 2015 to laws governing election measures • Not on the ballot

	v•eastward State of Maine Augusta (capital letter)
Elections	What's on my ballot? | Elections in 2022 | How to vote | How to run for office | Ballot measures
Authorities	Who represents me? | U.S. President | U.S. Congress | Federal courts | State executives | State legislature | Country and local courts | Counties | Cities | Schoolhouse districts | Public policy

Source: https://ballotpedia.org/Maine_%22Clean_Elections%22_Initiative,_Question_1_%282015%29

Posted by: vallejoinginge.blogspot.com

Share this post