Disputes about who supports who in races for public office was the focus Friday as the state’s ethics commission saw the definition of an “endorsement” challenged from multiple angles.
Friday’s Maine Commission on Governmental Ethics and Election Practices agenda of such cases is customary for this time of year, when the commission typically receives several complaints in the run-up to Election Day. Michael P. Friedman, a Bangor-based attorney who chairs the commission, said if the past is any indication, the commission will preside over more complaints in the next couple of weeks.
Sometimes, as was evident Friday, the hearings uncover disputes about Maine’s election laws. That’s when the commission shifts to one of its forward-looking roles: making suggestions to the legislature for changes.
“We’re the experts on the how the system works,” Friedman said after the hearing. “We determine which policies work and which ones don’t work … and we make suggestions to the legislature.”
One such issue, which surfaced Friday in multiple cases, surrounded what constitutes an endorsement and what doesn’t. In a claim by Dory Waxman against Ed Suslovic, who is part of a three-person race for the Portland City Council, Waxman alleged that Suslovic improperly claimed endorsements by certain individuals on his website and on palm cards.
According to Maine’s endorsement laws, which are contained in Title 21-A of Maine Revised Statutes Annotated, an endorser must “expressly authorize” the use of his or her name and endorsement material must “conspicuously state” that authorization.
Suslovic argued that quotations he used by Rep. Glenn Cummings (D-Portland) and a Portland Press Herald article, were not meant to constitute endorsements, as Waxman argued, but rather positive statements made about Suslovic in a public forum.
Suslovic testified that he changed his website Oct. 2 after complaints by Waxman and a conversation with Cummings. The commission voted unanimously to dismiss Waxman’s complaint.
“Frankly, the candidate corrected this right off the bat,” said Commissioner Walter F. McKee of Hallowell.
But sometimes, an expression of support for a candidate, even if it’s not technically an endorsement, carries significant ramifications particularly for candidates who finance themselves through the Maine Clean Election Act.
In another case addressed Friday, the Maine Republican Party complained that Alex Cornell du Houx, a Democratic candidate for House District 66 (part of Brunswick), received unfair exposure and free air time when he appeared statewide in a television advertisement created and sponsored by the organization VoteVets.org. The advertisement attacked U.S. Sen. Susan Collins for her stance in the Iraq War.
In its complaint, the Maine GOP claimed that the advertisement, because Cornell du Houx is running for office, constituted “express advocacy” under the Maine Clean Election Act, meaning his Green Independent challenger David Frans, would be entitled to receive matching funds under the statute. A third candidate in the District 66 race, Republican Jonathan M. Crimmins, is privately financed.
Mark Ellis, chairman of the Maine Republican Party, argued to the commission that Cornell du Houx received an “unfair advantage” because of his exposure in the ad.
However, the statute in question requires that for matching funds to be triggered, an advertisement must be “for the purpose of” influencing an election. Because the advertisement did not state that Cornell du Houx is running for office, the ethics commission couldn’t, under the law, consider it “express advocacy.”
Ellis and Philip Roy Jr., treasurer of the Maine Republican Party, conceded that point but urged the commission to clarify this part of the law after the election.
“We declare this as an unfair advantage,” Roy said. “You really need to look at this or you’ll see a rash of these types of things happening.”
Ellis agreed. “This activity is absolutely in the gray area and I believe it should be tightened up,” he said.
Friedman said he thought the issue deserves more attention.
“I will ask the other members (of the commission) at some point in the future to review this,” he said. “It is a legitimate concern.”
Jonathan Wayne, executive director of the Maine Ethics Commission, said Monday that the commission has made recommendations to the legislature for statute changes for four years running, but any issues that will be addressed after this election have not been solidified yet.
In other cases decided Friday:
The commission made no finding in a case lodged by Sue Bernard of South Portland, a journalist whose photograph shaking the hand of Republican Tyler Clark, who is vying for the District 6 seat, was included in a widespread campaign mailing. Bernard argued that the photograph constituted an endorsement that as a journalist, she is not in a position to make, but the commission disagreed.
The commission found an error was to blame, not the intent of House District 12 candidate Jeffrey F. Miller, for an erroneous Sept. 25 report in the Lincoln News that Miller had been endorsed by the Sportsmen’s Alliance of Maine. Rep. Joshua A. Tardy (R-Newport), who filed the complaint, argued that Miller had intentionally confused the newspaper, which published a correction Oct. 2.
The commission took no additional action against the Maine Democratic Party for filing an independent expenditure report in support of Sen. Peter Bowman, D-District 1, seven days late. The party paid a routine penalty of $328.30.
The commission voted 4-1, with Friedman disagreeing, that mailings from the Maine Democratic and Republican parties in late September did not constitute express advocacy for specific candidates, and therefore should not trigger matching funds for opposing candidates.
-The commission took no action in an anonymous complaint against Paul R. Dumas, Jr., who is running for Judge of Probate in Oxford County, regarding whether a pamphlet from Dumas included a proper identification of who paid for it.
(Statehouse News Service)
