PACs Unlimited: How Legislator PACs Distort Maine Politics 1 The Money and Politics Project is a program of Maine Citizens for Clean Elections, a nonpartisan organization that has been working in the public interest to advocate for, increase public support for, defend and improve the Maine Clean Election Act and related campaign finance law since 1995. MCCE is a 501(c)(3) organization. www.MaineCleanElections.org The Money and Politics Project team includes Andrew Bossie, Ann Luther, Alison Smith, and John Brautigam. MCCE appreciates the efforts of many others whose contributions enhanced this report. MCCE welcomes your comments, questions, and suggestions. Please contact us at: Maine Citizens for Clean Elections P.O. Box 18187 Portland, ME 04112 207-831-MCCE [email protected] Money in Politics Project #1 Report Using publicly available Executive Summary data, this report finds that vast sums of big money flow In the era of the Maine Clean through PACs controlled by MONEY IN Election Act, a majority of leg- legislators. These PACs exist islators and legislative lead- for the purpose of advancing ers rely on public financing to personal interests and party conduct their own campaigns. agendas, and big donors con- POLITICS Even those candidates who tribute to these PACs for the run privately financed cam- purpose of shaping the leg- paigns do so with strict islative agenda and assuring contribution limits. This has access to legislative leader- ship. The legislative process PROJECT greatly reduced the direct role whereby policy initiatives of money in determining who succeed or fail cannot be fully REPORT #1 wins and loses individual explained without under- races and has helped ensure standing the continuing role that our lawmakers are not of money in Maine legislative P ACs Unlimited: beholden to wealthy special elections. interest contributors. How Legislator Over the ten years of this But there is a shadowy sys- study (2002 – 2012), more PACs Distort tem of campaign finance ac- than $12 million flowed Maine Politics tivity operating in parallel to through PACs controlled the funding system for candi- by candidates and legisla- date campaigns, and legisla- tors. That’s a lot of money in tive “leadership” and “caucus” Maine politics. During that period, legislators raised over PACs are at the heart of this $5 million from a handful system. While fundraising for of major players with com- candidate campaigns oper- mercial, vested interests, ates under strict limits that each of whom gave over keep big money from buying $60,000. Tobacco giant Altria influence or access to rank- (Philip Morris) was the larg- and-file members, fundrais- est corporate contributor at ing by legislative leaders $122,576. Contributions from through political action com- these major donors far exceed mittees is subject to virtually contributions of any size from no restrictions. There is no individuals, and they dwarf limit on the amount of money contributions from Maine people of ordinary means. one contributor may give to a Only 13% of all funds given to PAC, and corporate and union these PACs came in amounts contributions are permitted. of $350 or less. The specter of legislative leaders disavowing private Small Contributions Contributions of $50 or less money for their own cam- Constitute a Tiny Fraction of paigns while raising tens of Contributions between $50 and $350 thousands of dollars through The Fundraising By Caucus PAC fundraising has led to and Leadership PACs Contributions of more than $350 2 charges of hypocrisy. But this • Legislators rise to leader- is not just a problem for Clean ship after raising substantial Elections. Privately financed amounts of private funds Key Data candidates who abide by low, from those with an interest in $ 350 contribution limits in legislation. from Report #1 their own campaigns are al- lowed to raise funds without • Leadership and caucus PAC 32 political action committees controlled by limit for their leadership and contributions from industry legislators raised over $12 million between 2002 caucus PACs. Contributors groups far exceed contribu- and 2012. who reach the $350 contribu- tions from typical Maine tion limit to candidate cam- individuals. The lack of contribution limits for PACs allowed paigns are only too happy to seek further influence by one contributor, the Republican State Leadership • Industry groups make sys- making separate, unlimited Committee, to give a single contribution of tematic and targeted contri- contributions to PACs con- $100,000. trolled by those same private- butions to ensure access and ly funded candidates. Propos- influence in the legislative The largest overall contributor was the als to close these loopholes process. Republican State Leadership Committee, have been put forward in whose contributions totaled $796,386. each of the last three legisla- • Legal PAC activity under- tures, but none has ever come mines the limits applicable The largest individual contributor was financier close to passing. to candidate campaigns and Donald Sussman, whose contributions totaled distorts the legislative pro- $379,000. Conclusions cess in favor of corporate and other special interests. Tobacco giant Altria (Philip Morris) was the PAC reporting rules provide largest corporate contributor at $122,576. a degree of transparency to • PAC reform is necessary to legitimate political activity, reduce the impact of special The made 596 interest money on the Maine pharmaceutical industry but the information contained contributions totaling $442,980 as the legislature in this report raises serious legislature. concerns about the ability of considered new regulations to protect moneyed special interests to As Maine people work toward pharmaceutical consumers and reduce costs. have an outsize influence in a campaign system that re- Maine elections and govern- duces special interest influ- Wealthy contributors had far more impact than ment. ence and puts people first, small donors, with eighty-seven percent of all reform of the state’s PAC laws funds given in amounts larger than $350. • Leadership and caucus PACs is essential. The wide-open are viewed as crucial for each nature of these laws is out of Legislators raised $5,356,553 from just 152 major party’s ability to keep or seize sync with the rest of Maine’s campaign finance system. players in the commercial/labor sector. These the majority in their legisla- Until the problem of unlim- contributors – “the Heavy Hitters” – gave on tive chamber. ited money flowing through average $60,000 each between 2002 and 2012. legislator-controlled PACs • An elite group of leadership is addressed, Maine people The players in health insurance, tax, and and caucus PACs raise mil- will be rightly concerned that regulatory reform efforts gave hundreds of lions of dollars in large con- legislative leaders might be thousands of dollars to legislator PACs prior to tributions from people and beholden to large donors.. businesses that often have a legislative battles on these issues. vested interest in legislative outcomes. 3 Money in Politics Project #1 Report P ACs Unlimited: ABOUT THIS SERIES The Money in Politics Project is a series of How Legislator PACs twelve reports about the role and effect of money on Maine politics. The reports combine Distort Maine Politics a review of publicly available campaign finance data with on-the-ground analysis of how money influences Maine’s elections, government, and public policy. Maine Citizens for Clean Elections launched this project because money in politics is an issue of vital concern to the people of Maine, one that goes to the heart of our democratic system. paigns. This has greatly reduced the direct role Background of money in determining who wins and loses individual races and has helped ensure that our In recent years control of the Maine Legislature lawmakers are not beholden to wealthy special has been hotly contested. After many election interest contributors. cycles in which the Democratic Party could count on a majority in the Senate or House (or But there is a shadowy system of campaign fi- both), the 2010 election brought Republican nance activity operating in parallel to the public control of both chambers. As the 2012 election funding system. Political action committees season begins, Democrats appear determined to – some with vague names like “ABC PAC” and regain their majorities, hoping to place Demo- “Maine PAC” – raise and spend millions to influ- crats in the state’s constitutional offices and ence the outcome of elections and secure politi- counteract Governor LePage’s agenda for the cal power for those who operate the PACs. Unlike 126th Legislature, which convenes in January individual candidate campaigns, these PACs 2013. Republicans seem equally determined may accept donations of any amount. These en- to hold on to their majorities. With legislative tities are poorly understood outside a relatively redistricting on tap for 2013, there is much at small circle of Augusta insiders including career stake for both parties. lobbyists, veteran legislators, and people who have played both roles. This intense battle for legislative control cre- ates powerful incentives for legislative leaders This report will shine a light on the legisla- of both parties to pull out all the stops to identify tive “leadership” and “caucus” PACs that are and support their candidates in order to maxi- at the heart of this system. The ongoing power mize their chances for success on Election Day. struggle over control of the legislature cannot be Political action committees (“PACs”) are among fully understood without analyzing the pivotal their most powerful tools for marshaling the role these entities play in our elections. And the resources required for campaign battles. legislative process whereby policy initiatives succeed or fail cannot be fully explained with- In the era of the Maine Clean Election Act, a ma- out examining the continuing role of money in jority of legislators and legislative leaders rely Maine legislative elections.