To: Commissioners From: Jonathan Wayne, Executive Director Date: June 26, 2018 Re: Agenda Item #1: Insufficient Allotment to Make Supplemental Payments ______

STATE OF MAINE COMMISSION ON GOVERNMENTAL ETHICS AND ELECTION PRACTICES 135 STATE HOUSE STATION AUGUSTA, MAINE 04333-0135

The State of Maine is on the verge of significant mismanagement of the 2018 candidate elections, because of the refusal by elected officials  to increase the Commission’s allotment (spending authority) in the fourth quarter of FY 2018 to allow our office to make Maine Clean Election Act (MCEA) payments to candidates who are owed them under the Election Law, and  to remedy a confusing 2017 budget law which advanced $3,000,000 in revenue seven months early to make the Maine Clean Election Act program functional this year, but unintentionally eliminated the Commission’s ability to release those funds to MCEA candidates after July 1, 2018. This memo explains the first issue. One gubernatorial candidate and roughly 200 legislative candidates in the general election voluntarily participated in the MCEA program this year. Of those, 120 candidates have qualified to receive supplemental payments (a higher level of campaign funding) by collecting additional $5 qualifying contributions this year. (Some have collected hundreds or thousands of these small contributions from their constituents.) Even though the Maine Clean Election Fund1 has sufficient cash in the account to make these payments, the Commission has insufficient “allotment” (spending authority) for the fourth quarter of this fiscal year to make the full payments owed to the candidates. Our office can pay only around 28% of the total owed.

1 The Maine Clean Election Fund is a special revenue account created in section 1124 of the Election Law, from which the Ethics Commission pays candidates in Maine’s public campaign financing program, the MCEA.

OFFICE LOCATED AT: 45 MEMORIAL CIRCLE, AUGUSTA, MAINE WEBSITE: WWW.MAINE.GOV/ETHICS PHONE: (207) 287-4179 FAX: (207) 287-6775 As explained below, our routine requests to the Governor to increase our fourth quarter allotment have been rebuffed.

The term “allotment” refers to the amount that a department of state government is permitted to spend in each quarter of a fiscal year. Separate allotments are established for the categories of Personal Services (salaries, wages and benefits), All Other (operational expenses), and Capital Expenditures.2 The allotment operates as a spending limit for that quarter. At the beginning of each fiscal year, the department assigns to each quarter a portion of the total annual “allocation” set by the Legislature for the entire fiscal year. The State Controller records these quarterly allotments in the State’s general ledger, and they serve as the basis on which the State Controller authorizes expenditures.

As the department makes expenditures during the quarter, those expenses are subtracted from the department’s available allotment for that quarter. Once the available allotment falls to zero, the department may not make any more expenditures from that category of expenses (e.g., Personal Services or All Other).

Currently Available Allotment for Fourth Quarter is $389,958 Last week, the Commission released the initial general election payments to roughly 200 legislative candidates and one candidate for Governor who is participating in the MCEA program (State Treasurer Terry Hayes). After these disbursements, the remaining All Other allotment in the Maine Clean Election Fund for the fourth quarter is $389,958. That means that – in the next four days – the Commission may spend a maximum of $389,958 from the account for non-personnel expenditures.

If you would like to discuss why the allotment for the fourth quarter is too low, the Commission staff can provide a longer, technical explanation at your June 27th meeting. In a nutshell, it results from an allocation for FY 2018 (set by the Legislature) that was

2 MCEA payments to candidates are All Other expenses.

too low compared to our actual expenditures, and the refusal by the Governor to sign two financial orders this spring (discussed below), once our full spending needs were known.

Supplemental Payments Owed by the State to MCEA Candidates Based on changes to the MCEA that were approved by Maine voters in 2015, candidates for Governor and the Legislature may qualify to receive up to eight supplemental payments of public campaign funding by collecting additional qualifying contributions (AQCs) of $5. Legislative candidates and Terry Hayes have been actively collecting AQCs and submitting them to the Commission to request supplemental payments. The Commission staff is still reviewing the large number of AQCs submitted last week. As of today, the Commission staff estimates that candidates have qualified to receive the following amounts in supplemental payments:

# of Amount Total Owed # of Office Supplemental of Each to Candidates Payments Payment Candidates Governor 1 2 $175,000 $350,000 Senate 37 138 $5,075 $700,350 Representative 82 257 $1,275 $327,675 Total $1,378,025

The staff expects that Terry Hayes will have qualified for two supplemental payments for a total of $350,000, although her submission of AQCs is still under review. We have attached a more detailed chart of the legislative candidates who have qualified for supplemental payments, and the number of qualifying contributions (QCs) and AQCs they have collected.3 (For every 15 AQCs submitted to the Commission, a House candidate may receive a supplemental payment of $1,275. For every 45 AQCs submitted, a Senate candidate may receive a supplemental payment of $5,075.)

3 Under the terminology of the MCEA, candidates collect QCs to receive a basic level of public campaign funding. If they want to receive supplemental payments, they go on to collect additional qualifying contributions (AQCs).

The Commission staff has advised candidates that because of a spending limit for the fourth quarter, we will need to significantly reduce supplemental payments made this month. Candidates are understandably frustrated that they entered into an agreement with the State of Maine that if they collected sufficient numbers of QCs and AQCs, they would receive certain levels of MCEA funding. As you can see from the attached charts, most of the Senate candidates collected hundreds of AQCs and Terry Hayes has collected more than 2,000 AQCs (in addition to the 3,200 QCs required to receive any MCEA funding).

The Governor has Declined (Twice) to Increase the Fourth Quarter Allotment When a department of State government needs to adjust an allotment in its budget, it may request a financial order from the Governor. (5 M.R.S.A. § 1585) Large departments regularly request financial orders for various reasons. One routine reason for requesting a financial order is that the department has not used all of the cash in a special revenue account during a fiscal year. Under 5 M.R.S.A. § 1667-B, the department may request a financial order from the Governor to carry forward the unused allocation (spending authorization) to the next fiscal year, so that the department may use the unspent cash for allowable purposes in the subsequent fiscal year.4

Because revenue flows to the Maine Clean Election Fund every year but its largest expenditures occur every two years (payments to legislative candidates) and four years (gubernatorial candidates), the Fund frequently has a cash balance of more than $1,000,000 or $2,000,000 at the end of each fiscal year. Consequently, the Commission has regularly requested financial orders from Governors John Baldacci and Paul LePage to carry forward unused allocation from one fiscal year to the next. These financial orders have been routinely granted to operate the MCEA program. Based on past practice, the Commission staff has presumed that if the legislatively determined

4 This type of financial order (carrying forward an unencumbered allocation balance from one fiscal year to the next) occurs so regularly that it is listed as the fourth type of financial order on the Financial Order Transactions guidance page of the Bureau of the Budget (attached, and available at https://www.maine.gov/budget/financialorders/fotransactions.htm).

allocation for the Maine Clean Election Fund for FY 2018 or 2019 were insufficient to make required payments to 2018 candidates, the Commission would turn to Governor LePage for a financial order to increase our allotment, which would be granted.

Unfortunately, this spring Governor LePage declined to sign two financial orders to increase the fourth quarter allotment in the Maine Clean Election Fund. By March 2018, the Commission recognized that the allocation for FY 2018 would be insufficient to make payments owed to candidates this fiscal year. In April, the Commission staff requested a financial order to increase the fourth quarter allotment by carrying forward $1,935,444 of unused allocation from FY 2017. In other words, the Commission staff proposed an increase in the department’s authorized expenditures for FY 2018 to reflect the large amount of money in the Fund that the Commission had remaining after the 2016 elections. On April 19, 2018, the Governor declined to sign this financial order, for reasons that remain unclear to us.

After conferring with the DAFS financial analyst who assists the Commission on financial matters, we submitted a financial order in May to increase the fourth quarter All Other allotment in the Maine Clean Election Fund by $986,014, in order to bring the allotment in line with revenue already included in the Commission’s budget for FY 2018. The analyst advised us that this was also a routine rationale for requesting a financial order. The Governor declined to sign this financial order on May 31st, 2018.

I have discussed the impact of the Governor’s decisions on the proposed financial orders with his Chief of Staff and the State Budget Officer. Both are aware that the Commission is merely seeking an increase in our allotment to make payments to MCEA candidates. While we appreciate the constructive conversations with these officials, we have made no headway in convincing the Governor to sign these financial orders.

On May 24th, I sent a letter to the Governor (attached) asking if two Commissioners and I could meet with him in support of the latest proposed financial order. No meeting was scheduled and I was told by his staff that he continues to oppose the financial orders. A

meeting with the Governor probably is still possible, although the FY 2018 allotment problem will become final in just a few days.

Allocating $389,958 among 120 Candidates owed $1,378,025 At your June 27th meeting, the Commission staff wishes to receive guidance from the Commission on how to divide the $389,958 allotment among the 120 candidates who are owed a total of $1,378,025 in supplemental payments by the State of Maine. Because this is a consequential decision by the Commission, we invited written comments from Legislative leaders and independent candidates (attached).

The option preliminarily favored by the Commission staff would be to pro-rate the payments uniformly across all candidates, but we are open to considering comments from the leaders and candidates. If payments were evenly pro-rated, each candidate would receive roughly 28% of the supplemental payments for which they have qualified. The Commission may wish consider other options, such as a larger supplemental payment to Terry Hayes. The initial payment for the general election that she received ($600,000) would be insufficient to run a conventional campaign for Governor. If she cannot receive any supplemental payment after July 1st, she will be significantly harmed by the failure of the Legislature to address the 2017 budget law (agenda item #2)

Thank you for your consideration of this item.

6 36 SENATE CANDIDATES ELIGIBLE FOR SUPPLEMENTAL FUNDING Amount Owed to Senate Candidates - $700,350 (as of 6/26/18) # of Supp. Total Supp. Name Office District Party QCs AQCs Payments Payments Bellows, Shenna S 14 D 535 360 8 $40,600 Black, Russell S 17 R 271 96 2 $10,150 Canney, Crystal S 27 U 269 94 2 $20,300 Breen, Cathy S 25 D 383 208 4 $20,300 Carson, Brownie S 24 D 484 309 6 $30,450 Chenette, Justin S 31 D 445 270 6 $30,450 Chipman, Ben S 27 D 545 370 8 $40,600 Claxton, Ned S 20 D 573 398 8 $40,600 Collins, Jan S 17 D 316 141 3 $15,225 Davis, Paul Sr. S 4 R 365 190 4 $20,300 Dendinger, Maia S 5 U 226 51 1 $5,075 Deschambault, Susan S 32 D 272 97 2 $10,150 Dill, James S 5 D 452 277 6 $30,450 Estes, Michael S 35 R 261 86 1 $5,075 Fortman, Laura S 13 D 535 360 8 $40,600 Giles, Jayne Crosby S 11 R 268 93 2 $10,150 Gratwick, Geoffrey S 9 D 375 200 4 $20,300 Hamper, James S 19 R 232 57 1 $5,075 Herbig, Erin S 11 D 549 374 8 $40,600 Jackson, Troy S 1 D 547 372 8 $40,600 Johnson, Jeff S 3 D 273 98 2 $10,150 Julia, Kellie S 15 D 195 20 TBD (est.) $5,075 Keim, Lisa S 18 R 228 53 1 $5,075 Kusiak, Karen S 16 D 195 20 TBD (est.) $5,075 Lawrence, Mark S 35 D 383 208 4 $20,300 Lippincott, William S 10 D 325 150 3 $15,225 Luchini, Louis S 7 D 325 150 3 $15,225 Mackey Andrews, Susan S 4 D 311 136 3 $15,225 Millett, Rebecca S 29 D 224 49 1 $5,075 Miramant, David S 12 D 401 226 5 $25,375 Rosen, Kim S 8 R 224 49 1 $5,075 Sanborn, Linda S 30 D 536 361 8 $40,600 Uhlenhake, Beverly S 8 D 260 85 1 $5,075 Vitelli, Eloise S 23 D 491 316 7 $35,525 Wilfong, James S 18 D 271 96 2 $10,150 Wright, Thomas S 34 D 242 67 1 $5,075 $700,350 Note: AQCs are still being submitted and reviewed. The numbers in the chart will change over time. Page 1 of 1 84 HOUSE CANDIDATES ELIGIBLE FOR SUPPLEMENTAL FUNDING Amount Owed to House Candidates ‐ $326,400 (as of 6/26/18)

# of Supp. Total Supp. Name Office District Party QCs AQCs Payments Payments Ackley, Kent H 82 U 81 21 1 $1,275 Adkins, Tyler H 119 D 89 29 1 $1,275 Arruda, Nathalie H 131 D 95 35 2 $2,550 Austin, Betty H 107 D 81 21 1 $1,275 Babine, Shawn H 29 D 65 5 TBD (est.) $1,275 Ball, Stephen H 80 D 78 18 1 $1,275 Barter, Janice H 68 D 109 49 3 $3,825 Berry, Seth H 55 D 184 124 8 $10,200 Blume, Lydia H 3 D 95 35 2 $2,550 Brown, Paul H 113 R 121 61 4 $5,100 Bryant, Mark H 24 D 105 45 3 $3,825 Bunker, Douglas H 137 D 95 35 2 $2,550 Butler, Jennie H 25 D 106 46 3 $3,825 Caiazzo, Chris H 28 D 63 3 TBD (est.) $1,275 Casas, Owen H 94 U 61 1 TBD (est.) $1,275 Casavant, Terri Jane H 121 D 76 16 1 $1,275 Cloutier, Kristen H 60 D 92 32 2 $2,550 Colburn, Doretta H 71 D 127 67 4 $5,100 Cooper, Janice H 47 D 119 59 3 $3,825 Corey, Patrick H 25 R 121 61 4 $5,100 Craven, Margaret H 59 D 88 28 1 $1,275 DeChant, Jennifer H 52 D 85 25 1 $1,275 Denk, Diane H 9 D 129 69 4 $5,100 Denno, Dale H 45 D 150 90 6 $7,650 Devin, Michael H 90 D 126 66 4 $5,100 Dodge, Janice H 97 D 91 31 2 $2,550 Doudera, Victoria H 94 D 165 105 7 $8,925 Drinkwater, Gary H 121 R 75 15 1 $1,275 Durrell, David H 16 D 91 31 2 $2,550 Evangelos, Jeffrey H 91 U 135 75 5 $6,375 Evans, Richard H 120 D 135 75 5 $6,375 Farnsworth, Laura H 145 D 84 24 1 $1,275 Faunce, Robert H 73 D 76 16 1 $1,275 Fay, Jessica H 66 D 122 62 4 $5,100 Fitzgerald, Richard H 22 D 174 114 7 $8,925

Note: AQCs are still being submitted and reviewed. The numbers in this chart will change over time. Page 1 of 3 # of Supp. Total Supp. Name Office District Party QCs AQCs Payments Payments Foster, Steven H 104 R 76 16 1 $1,275 Gass, Anne H 67 U 165 105 7 $8,925 Goodwin, Tim H 23 D 67 7 TBD (est.) $1,275 Gramlich, Lori H 13 D 82 22 1 $1,275 Greenwood, Randall H 82 R 75 15 1 $1,275 Griffin, Abigail H 102 R 83 23 1 $1,275 Handy, James H 58 D 65 5 TBD (est.) $1,275 Harnett, Thom H 83 D 142 82 5 $6,375 Harrison, Cherieann H 114 D 77 17 1 $1,275 Hepler, Allison H 53 D 191 131 8 $10,200 Higgins, Norman H 120 U 175 115 7 $8,925 Hubbell, Brian H 135 D 87 27 1 $1,275 Ingwersen, Henry H 10 D 73 13 TBD (est.) $1,275 Landry, H Scott H 113 D 167 107 7 $8,925 Lauzon, Dan H 20 D 96 36 2 $2,550 Madigan, John H 115 D 77 17 1 $1,275 Martin, John H 151 D 92 32 2 $2,550 Mason, Richard H 56 R 181 121 8 $10,200 Matlack, Ann H 92 D 90 30 2 $2,550 Maxmin, Chloe H 88 D 177 117 7 $8,925 McCrea, David H 148 D 122 62 4 $5,100 McCreight, Jay H 51 D 188 128 8 $10,200 McNamara, Kelcy H 21 D 105 45 3 $3,825 Meyer, Michele H 2 D 121 61 4 $5,100 Morales, Victoria H 33 D 155 95 6 $7,650 Pebworth, Sarah H 133 D 188 128 8 $10,200 Pierce, Teresa J 44 D 90 30 2 $2,550 Pluecker, William H 95 U 149 89 5 $6,375 Poliquin, Martha H 56 D 93 33 2 $2,550 Putnam, Jason H 87 D 129 69 4 $5,100 Reynolds, Michael H 130 D 91 31 2 $2,550 Riley, Tina H 74 D 97 37 2 $2,550 Riseman, Walter H 69 U 126 66 4 $5,100 Samp, Frederick H 14 U 90 30 2 $2,550 Saucier, Robert H 147 D 127 67 4 $5,100 Sharpe, Braden H 46 D 79 19 1 $1,275 Sheats, Betty Ann H 64 D 74 14 TBD (est.) $1,275

Note: AQCs are still being submitted and reviewed. The numbers in this chart will change over time. Page 2 of 3 # of Supp. Total Supp. Name Office District Party QCs AQCs Payments Payments Skolfield, Thomas H 112 R 75 15 1 $1,275 Soma‐Hernandez, Cynthia H 112 D 75 15 1 $1,275 Stearns, Paul H 119 R 120 60 4 $5,100 Stover, Holly H 89 D 121 61 4 $5,100 Tepler, Denise H 54 D 104 44 2 $2,550 Tucker, Ralph H 50 D 151 91 6 $7,650 Tuell, Will H 139 R 90 30 2 $2,550 Twitchell, Benjamin H 78 R 86 26 1 $1,275 Tyler, Tom H 24 R 75 15 1 $1,275 Verow, Arthur H 128 D 106 46 3 $3,825 White, Bruce H 109 D 92 32 2 $2,550 Zeigler, Stanley H 96 D 105 45 3 $3,825 $326,400

Note: AQCs are still being submitted and reviewed. The numbers in this chart will change over time. Page 3 of 3 ÿ ÿÿÿ !ÿ"ÿ# $ %ÿ& '

567896ÿABÿCD8ÿ56EF8C

GAH8ÿIÿPQR9RSQ9TÿU7E87VÿÿIÿPQR9RSQ9TÿU7E87ÿW79RV9SCQARV PQR9RSQ9TÿU7E87ÿW79RV9SCQARV

XTQSYÿD878ÿCAÿ`Q8aÿC9bT8ÿQRÿcdS8TÿBA7H9C

effghipqgÿstigÿufÿvpwtwhptxÿyg vs ÿ ÿ RC87R9T vpwtwhptxÿygÿtw thipuw cRC877QV8 87`QS8 P6REV P6REV d ewhgt gÿtxxuifgwiÿghÿiuÿxgip xtipqg tgijupktipuw lÿS6778RCÿm897ÿaA7Yÿ7AF79Hnononono lÿ6R6V8Eÿb9T9RS8ÿABÿ97Ap9TTASÿ96CDA7Qq8EÿCA no no no no S977mÿBA7a97E

ewhgt gÿtxxuifgwiÿtruqgÿxgip xtipqg tgijupktipuw lÿR8aÿF79RCpHAR8mÿddddddnoÿdddddd lÿ6R8RS6Hb878Eÿb9T9RS8ÿBA7a97Enonoÿdddddd

sxxuifgwiÿtgqp puw lÿQRS789V8ÿS6778RCÿu697C87ÿbmÿ78E6SQRFÿB6C678 no no no no u697C87ÿ

ewitghtifgwitxÿitw fg lÿC79RVB87Vÿb8Ca88Rÿ9SSA6RCVÿaQCDQRÿ9Rÿ9F8RSmÿppppppppppppppppppppdddddd

vpwgÿhtigiuwÿitw fg lÿC79RVB87Vÿb8Ca88RÿTQR8ÿS9C8FA7Q8VÿaQCDQRÿ9R 9SSA6RCÿ

xgwy s nARÿo7A`9TÿABÿCD8ÿzA`87RA7 cBB8SCQ`8ÿÿE9mVÿ9BC87ÿ97A`8EÿSAmÿQVÿE8TQ`878EÿCAÿUP}~ÿRÿ8dC79A7EQR97m {| VQC69CQARVÿ9ÿa9Q`87ÿABÿCD8ÿlE9mÿa9QCÿH9mÿb8ÿ78u68VC8E DA6TEÿCD8ÿVQC69CQARÿ97QV8ÿT89V8ÿSARV6TCÿaQCDÿmA67ÿb6EF8Cÿ9R9TmVCÿBA7ÿF6QE9RS8 W79RV9SCQARÿRACÿ87HQCC8EÿbmÿBQR9RSQ9TÿA7E87 8u68VCÿSARVQE878EÿARTmÿQBÿB9QT678ÿCAÿ9TTACÿaA6TEÿD9`8ÿ9ÿE8C7QH8RC9TÿQH9SCÿARÿCD8 S6778RCÿ7AF79H R8aÿF79RCpHAR8m

(')00012 1!34 ! $ % ' ' $ '12 ÿ ÿÿÿ !ÿ"ÿ# $ %ÿ& ' 567689@ÿBÿC9Dÿ9@@EFÿGHÿIPD9DCP9@ÿE8768ÿIE8ÿQRÿFEÿED6ÿH698Sÿ9IF68ÿFT9FÿUQVFÿ86C6PW6 @6XPV@9FPW6ÿ9QFTE8PY9FPED `FT68ÿaR6CP9@ÿb6W6DQ6ÿ5QD7VÿBÿPIÿFT686ÿPVÿCQ886DF@HÿDEÿ9@@EC9FPEDÿPDÿ9RR@PC9G@6 R8EX89USÿUQVFÿ86C6PW6ÿ@6XPV@9FPW6ÿ9QFTE8PY9FPEDÿIP8VF dIÿFT686ÿPVÿ9Dÿ9RR6989DC6ÿEIÿ9ÿF86D7ÿeF89DVI68Vÿ86VQ@FPDXÿI8EUÿF86D7VÿFT9FÿfP@@ÿC9QV6 ccc IPD9DCP9@ÿCEUUPFU6DFVÿFEÿ6gC667ÿCQ886DFÿ9RR8ER8P9FPEDVÿE8ÿ9@@EC9FPEDVhSÿ9ÿipB79H f9PFÿfEQ@7ÿ9RR@Hq cccc b6rQP86Vÿ6gR@9D9FPEDÿfTHÿIQD7Vÿ986ÿDEÿ@EDX68ÿD66767ÿIE8ÿPDF6D767ÿRQ8REV6 stuvuÿxyuvÿÿyuvvÿ tuxvuÿyt xuÿÿvyu

ERH8PXTFÿdÿepfgÿ h@@ÿ8PXTFVÿ86V68W67q

(')00012 1!34 ! $ % ' ' $ '12 State of Maine Executive Department FINANCIAL ORDER

ORDERED, That the State Controller increase allotment in account 014-94E-0414-02, Clean Elections Act Chapter 1 Initiated Bill by $1,935,444 in the All Other line category for the purpose of making payments to candidates; and,

Be it further ordered, that the State Controller authorize the expenditure in accordance with the attached "Revision of the Work Program for Fiscal Year ending June 30, 2018", for which this shall be our sufficient warrant.

Statement of Fact This financial order allots a portion of the unencumbered balance forward in account 014-94E-0414-02, Clean Elections Act Chapter 1 Initiated Bill, in the All Other line category. The increase is necessary to make required payments to Maine Clean Election Act candidates through June 30, 2018. Without these funds, the Ethics Commission would not be able to meet its obligations in the 2018 elections.

Signature of Department Head JONATHAN WAYNE, DIRECTOR Name and Title FOR BUREAU OF THE BUDGET USE ONLY

Signature of State Budget Officer Policy Area: 00 - Governmental Support and Operations Umbrella: ETH00 - COMMISSION ON GOVERNMENTAL ETHICS AND ELECTION PRACTICES Agency Contact: RON LOOMAN Agency Phone: (207) 624-7438 ETH00-0002 State of Maine Executive Department FINANCIAL ORDER

ORDERED, That the State Controller increase allotment in account 014-94E-0414-02, Clean Elections Act Chapter 1 Initiated Bill by $986,014 in the All Other line category for the purpose of providing allotment to match budgeted revenue; and,

Statement of Fact This financial order increase allotment in the Clean Elections Act Chapter 1 Initiated Bill account to provide allotment that matches budgeted revenue in the All Other line category. Budgeted revenues currently exceed budgeted expenses and the additional allotment will balance the state fiscal year 2018 budget for this account. Failure to approve this financial order will have a detrimental impact in that the Ethics Commission would not be able to meet its obligations in the 2018 elections.

Signature of Department Head JONATHAN WAYNE, DIRECTOR Name and Title FOR BUREAU OF THE BUDGET USE ONLY

June 26, 2018

To: Maine Commission on Governmental Ethics and Elections Practices From: Maine House Democratic Campaign Committee

RE: Clean Elections Disbursement Crisis and Division of Supplemental Payments

Dear Commissioners:

In response to your request for comment on the impending Clean Elections funding crisis for legislative and gubernatorial candidates and the division of supplemental payments prior to July 1, please accept these remarks on behalf of the Maine House Democratic Campaign Committee and the 145 Democrats running for State Representative.

The unavailability of Maine Clean Election Act (MCEA) funding for candidates after July 1 and the reduced funding of supplemental payments prior to July 1 breaks the promise made by the Legislature in 2017 to candidates. It further breaches the contract that candidates made with the State to forgo traditionally financed private donations in lieu of earning public financing from the State for agreed-upon funding amounts from January 1 through October 16.

For many candidates, the decisions to run for office and how to finance their campaigns were made well over a year ago. Deciding to run traditionally or through the Clean Elections system is the most significant decision a candidate will make and impacts their decisions on strategy, how they spend their time, how and when they communicate with voters, how much they spend on campaign expenditures, and many other critical determinations. Changing the rules and amounts of supplemental payments so late in the campaign cycle is a breach of trust and contract, and fundamentally unfair to candidates who have been running for office for many months and, oftentimes, well over a year. It sows doubt in the Clean Election program and impacts the viability of the program for future cycles.

We call on the Legislature to immediately fix the technical drafting error that was made in 2017, which will provide the Commission with the authority to spend the already agreed-upon and appropriated money promised to Clean Elections legislative and gubernatorial candidates. We call on legislators to honor their word to these Clean Elections candidates and the thousands of Mainers who have donated to Clean Elections campaigns.

In terms of addressing the division of funds that the Commission is authorized to spend on supplemental payments before July 1, the House Democratic Campaign Committee strongly urges the Commission, if necessary, to reduce the percentage of payments equally among all House, Senate and gubernatorial candidates. To do otherwise would be fundamentally unfair and would pit branches of government and legislative bodies against one another. It would do irrevocable harm between candidates and the Commission and would most likely mean the precipitous drop-off in the number of future candidates who use the Clean Elections system and the number of legislators who support the program.

To be clear, the reduction of supplemental payments prior to July 1, the potential cessation of all payments after July 1, and the overall uncertainty regarding candidate funding, is incredibly harmful to all House, Senate and gubernatorial campaigns.

For example, in the campaigns for State Representative, over 80 of the 151 races feature a Clean Elections candidate versus a traditionally financed candidate. If partial supplemental payments are paid out before July 1 and further payments are not authorized, Clean Elections candidates will have received only a fraction of what they were promised when they signed up for the program, be unable to raise or qualify for further funds, and face the final four months of the campaign running against candidates who can raise money with limited constraints. In many of these races, Clean Elections candidates are already outmatched, with their traditionally financed opponents outraising them by a ratio of over two to one. This funding gap will only increase as Clean Elections candidates are prohibited from raising further funds. The impact of the current situation and the unfairness being exhibited to these Clean Elections candidates cannot be overstated. We are happy to share specific examples of fundraising and races at the public hearing on July 27.

The House Democratic Campaign Committee could claim that a higher percentage of the limited supplemental funds be given to House candidates because of the impact on the high volume of races across the state, but we believe that the harm being done to all candidates – House, Senate and gubernatorial – is significant and equal. While we strongly advocate that the Legislature immediately fix the technical drafting error that was made in 2017 and dispense the money owed to House candidates, we stand with all Clean Elections candidates and urge the Commission to act fairly and in good faith in dispensing the authorized funds for supplemental payments prior to July 1.

To: Commission on Governmental Ethics and Election Practices From: Senate Democratic Leader Troy Jackson Date: June 26, 2018 Re: Supplemental Payments of MCEA Funds

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the current status of the Maine Clean Election Act. Our first-in-the- nation law gives folks from all walks of life an opportunity to run for the Maine legislature. The program enjoys a deep tradition of a pact made between candidates and voters; for a citizen’s $5 contribution, candidates agree to not take a single dime from special interests and wealthy individuals. It’s an agreement that has been treated as ironclad. Until today.

Much like many of you, we are very disappointed by the current situation. When candidates around the state signed up to run for the legislature, they made the same deal that has always been made. They would refuse special interest money and generate local support in return for the funds needed to run a competitive campaign. Today, it looks like Maine might go back on that deal. This decision leaves our candidates in a situation where they cannot access additional funds, despite doing the work and generating the support to qualify for those funds. Meanwhile, their privately financed opponents can continue to raise funds from their moneyed friends. This is unjust, flies in the face of the will of the voters that passed this law and that make qualifying contributions, and undermines an agreement that candidates made with the commission two short months ago.

Our candidates come from all walks of life. They are working class people, running for our citizen legislature, building citizen-funded campaigns. Our candidates are carpenters, veterans, teachers, and retirees, they people that are only able to seek office because of the Maine Clean Election Act. Many are running for office for the first time, with the 2018 election being their introduction to the landmark law. I fear that this decision to undermine their campaigns by changing the rules in the middle of the game will be the end of this successful law. Changing the rules in such an unfair way will leave an entire class of future lawmakers with a sour taste in their mouth about a program that has so much success and tradition. I am afraid that the decision to tell candidates one thing and then deliver an entirely different thing will deliver an entire legislature that only knows a Clean Election Act that has failed them. Let me be perfectly clear, by underfunding all legislative Clean Election candidates, you are doing irrespirable harm to nearly 200 campaigns for the legislature.

A few short weeks ago, the Commission advised that candidates would be able to collect every full distribution that they qualified for before July 1st. This guidance was given to the hundreds of legislative candidates running for the legislature. Based on this guidance, many candidates spent large amounts of their seed money and initial distribution funds on soliciting additional qualifying contributions. Candidates made campaign decisions and spending decisions under the idea that they would receive full funding. Knowing this, I also worry that by the staff going back on this guidance in hundreds of instances, candidates will have a more difficult time seeking guidance from the commission on financing matters. I have always found the commission staff to be top-notch and to always give the best guidance, but I fear that a large group of candidates may see the commission differently after getting this one piece of inaccurate guidance from the commission.

I would recommend that the commissioners consider an approach that does the least amount of harm to the least number of people. When deciding how to prioritize the distribution of money, I would ask the commission to consider three things – first, the number of legislative candidates that depend on this program based on an agreement that was made when they decided to run as Clean Election candidates; Second, that these candidates collected supplemental qualifying contributions with the understanding, based on what commission staff told them, that they would receive the full funding for whatever the collected prior to July 1; Finally, that by underfunding so many first-time legislative candidates, the commission may be doing irreparable harm to the success of a voter-initiated and approved Maine Clean Election Act.

Thank you for your consideration,

Senate Democratic Leader Troy Jackson Frederick S. Samp L8 Park Street Unit 101 Saco, Maine 04072

June 25, 2018

Jonathan Wayne, Executive Director State of Maine Commission on Governmental Ethics and Election Practices 135 State House Station Augusta, ME 04333-0135

Re: Comment on Proposed Supplemental Payment of MCEA Funds

Dear Mr. Wayne:

I am writing in response to your Memorandum of June 22,2018 inviting comments from Legislative Leaders and other interested persons on the problem facing the Ethics Commission with respect to the distribution of supplemental payments under the MCEA. I am an unenrolled candidate for the Maine House of Representatives in District 14 (part of Saco) and have qualified to be on the ballot for the November 6 General Election. I registered as a candidate with the Ethics Commission on Februny 28,2018 and at the same time filed a declaration of intent to seek certification as a Maine Clean Election Act Candidate. At all times before and since that date I have acted in accordance with the requirements for MCEA candidates. In late April, I requested and received MCEA certification.

Having read your June 22 Memorandum, I appreciate the predicament the Ethics Commission finds itself in. I agree with your observation that the Maine Legislature's failure to address what appears to be a drafting error places MCEA candidates in an unfair position. But I am submitting this comment to emphasize that I believe the problem is far worse than that. In my opinion, withholding expected supplemental payments from MCEA candidates while, at the same time, continuing to hold those candidates to the fundraising and expenditure restrictions of the MCEA severely compromises their fundamental First Amendment rights.

Like other MCEA candidates, I registered as a Clean Election candidate because I believed strongly in the underlying purposes of the MCEA and because the procedures outlined in the Act and the Commission's Rules provided me with some degree of certainty about the timing and amounts of funding that would be available to me in running a political campaign. I understood that my participation in the program required me voluntarily to give rrp ro-i cGarly defined constitutional rights to raise and expend funds privately in support of my campaign. I understood the MCEA as setting out rights to payment from the Clean Election Fund after meeting specified benchmarks for the solicitation of Qualifring Contributions subject only to the sufficiency of amounts deposited in the fund.r In the event funds are insufficient to meet required distributions, the Act authorizes the Commission to permit candidates to accept and spend contributions in amounts that make up the shortfall.2

Conversely, if as the Commission is now contemplating, payments to candidates are reduced for reasons other than the adequacy of amounts deposited in the Clean Election Fund, the Act grants no authority to the Commission to permit candidates to accept and spend additional funds privately. Furthermore, once having been certified as a Maine Clean Election Candidate, a candidate has no available mechanism under the Act for opting out and electing to raise and spend funds as a traditional candidate. All MCEA candidates remain subject to the civil fines, forfeitures and criminal liabilities set out in 2l-A M.R.S.A. $ 1127.

In summary, although the Commission may have no choice but to reduce supplemental payments absent some action by the Legislature, the continuing restrictions on candidates' ability to raise and expend funds for their campaigns beyond the scope of their agreement under the terms of the Act seriously impair their First Amendment rights.

Verytruly yours, f i {:' !i,/*i-,---/r' )+Z"-7 Frederick S. Samp

'2l-A rvr.R.s.A. $ n25(13-A). ' Id. One reading of the Commission's Rule promulgated under this authority would, require the Commission to permit such private contributions and spending if paynents to candidates are reduced because of insufficient funds. 94-270 C.M.R. Chapter 3, Section 4(4XA). Wayne, Jonathan

From: Jeff Evangelos Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2018 6:09 AM To: Wayne, Jonathan Subject: public comment on clean funding

Dear Jon,

While I am in hopes that the Legislature resolves the language issue which will release our clean election supplemental money, in the event they do not, here is my public input. Given that Garrett Mason and Betsy Sweet both lost while draining available funds, the majority of any future cuts should come from the gubernatorial side, which means Terry Hayes should face a significant reduction. Otherwise, House candidates are stuck with about $5,000, which is no way near adequate. A single mailer to a House District costs nearly $1500, which means if we send 3 mailers, we're almost out of money. Your agency must protect the majority and not allow one candidate to use most of your funds.

Sincerely,

Jeffrey Evangelos Candidate, House District 91