The Maine Ethics Commission voted Wednesday to continue investigating whether the state Democratic party failed to file campaign finance reports as part of its efforts to defeat a voter ID referendum last fall.
But the commission disagreed with a complaint that the state party should have created a separate ballot question committee because of its heavy involvement in the campaign.
The Maine Democratic State Committee — the governing body of the Maine Democratic Party — received $250,000 in donations specifically to oppose Question 1, which would have required voters to show a photo ID at the polls and sought to make multiple changes to Maine’s absentee balloting process. The party spent $176,500 primarily on temporary staffers and printed materials or media on the campaign.
Voters overwhelmingly rejected Question 1. But roughly two weeks after the election, the manager for the Question 1 campaign, Alex Titcomb, filed a formal complaint accusing the Democratic committee of failing to clearly disclose its spending in its campaign finance reports with the Maine Ethics Commission.
Ethics Commission Executive Director Jonathan Wayne said Wednesday that he believes the committee failed to file at least four reports in the weeks before and after the election. While the party filed its October and January quarterly reports, as required, Wayne said it should have filed a report 11 days before the election, two reports immediately before the election and 42 days after the election.
“I’m not reading any indication that the party had bad intent or that they were trying to conceal anything,” Wayne told commission members. “But I do know, from all sorts of late-filing situations, that there are candidates or committees that should have done more. They had good intentions but they should have gone farther.”
The party could be required to pay financial penalties if the commission agrees with the staff, likely during its March meeting.
Kate Knox, an attorney for the party, told the commission that all contributions and spending were disclosed in the party’s quarterly reports. But in an earlier memo to commissioners, Wayne noted that the Maine Democratic Party did not clearly disclose that the purpose of that spending was to defeat Question 1.
“We agree with Mr. Titcomb’s overall point that a member of the public could read the MDP’s October and January quarterly reports and not discern how much it spent to oppose Question 1,” Wayne wrote.
Knox said Wednesday that while those reports could have contained more details, the party is happy to respond to questions about the other reports that commission staff say should have been filed. She also noted that the party clearly disclosed paying for campaign materials.
“In terms of the investigation, we have tried to be very forthcoming with the staff and provided answers to everything that they asked us,” Knox said. “We have been transparent … about what money was spent, how it was spent.”
Titcomb told commissioners that he actually opposes many of the finance reporting requirements — on the grounds that disclosure can chill free speech — and pointed to his involvement in several lawsuits challenging Maine’s campaign finance laws. But he said as long as the requirements are on the books, they need to be applied equally across the board.
Titcomb had also alleged that the state party was required to create a ballot question committee — thereby triggering more detailed disclosure requirements — after it raised or spent more than $5,000 to oppose Question 1. But the commission disagreed and opted not to move forward with that complaint.
This story appears through a media partnership with Maine Public.
