Certainly, there’s cause for concern when a sitting legislator operates a PAC and much of the money the committee raises ends up in the legislator’s pocket. It’s happened repeatedly through the years, and it raises serious questions about why legislator-run leadership PACs exist. Is it to pay for political campaign activity or to supplement lawmakers’ income directly from special interest campaign contributions?
In 2012, for example, the Current newspapers in southern Maine reported that the PAC run by former state Sen. Cynthia Dill, D-Cape Elizabeth, paid Dill $4,000 to maintain a blog.
In 2014, the Maine Center for Public Interest Reporting reported that more than half the money spent since 2008 by the PAC run by then-state Sen. John Tuttle, a Sanford Democrat, went to Tuttle, to family members, and to cover some of their everyday expenses.
Earlier this year, the Maine Center for Public Interest Reporting reported on another Democratic legislator, Rep. Diane Russell of Portland, who paid herself from funds raised by her PAC and spent a small portion of the PAC’s money on its stated mission.
It’s disturbing, but there’s nothing illegal about a lawmaker raising money for a PAC, then directing the money to his or her own bank account.
In 2015, state lawmakers — at the urging of the Maine Commission on Governmental Ethics and Election Practices — tried to make this illegal for a political action committee run by a legislator to compensate that legislator and his or her family members. The billeasily passed the Legislature, but Gov. Paul LePage vetoed it, and the Senate, lacking enough Republican votes, failed to override the veto.
It wasn’t the outcome most lawmakers wanted, but lawmakers tried to pass a change in campaign finance law through the normal process and fell short. Ethics commission members agreed recently to try again with a new legislature after the election.
This history is one reason why it was so distressing to see Democratic Sen. John Patrick of Rumford and Senate Minority Leader Justin Alfond of Portland last month accuse two of their Senate colleagues, Republican Sens. Ron Collins of Wells and Andre Cushing of Newport, of carrying out “shady financial transactions” so they “could enrich themselves and swindle the taxpayer.”
That’s how Senate Democrats put it in an over-the-top news release issued barely two weeks before the election about transactions that are perfectly legal. Patrick, as part of the whole charade, requested a special meeting — the first ever — of the Senate’s five-member Ethics Committee to sort out the matter.
Collins, Senate Democrats noted, received reimbursement from his political action committee for lodging in Augusta during the legislative session while also receiving his customary, legislative per-diem allowance.
The Democrats lodged a similar allegation of double reimbursement against Cushing, but Cushing’s case was already primed for a more comprehensive investigation by the Maine Commission on Governmental Ethics and Election Practices. A matter related to Cushing’s PAC is also the subject of a lawsuit.
In Collins’ case, the Senate Ethics Committee cleared him of wrongdoing because there’s no prohibition on receiving a per-diem legislative allowance and collecting reimbursement from a political action committee to cover the same expense. There was no reason to convene the Senate Ethics Committee to examine expenditures that are perfectly legal.
Patrick’s request for a special meeting of the committee sets a worrisome precedent. The committee shouldn’t exist as yet another political tool for politicians to use to embarrass opponents during election season. Plus, Patrick and Alfond should have known full well that they were flagging allowable financial activity.
Yes, it’s concerning to see lawmakers receive reimbursements from their PACs for activity that isn’t campaign-related. But the Senate Ethics Committee isn’t the place to resolve those concerns, especially two weeks before an election.
When a new legislature convenes after next week’s election, members should get to work on a reform package aimed at limiting how political action committee proceeds can be spent.