| The Maine Ethics Commission will hold an investigation of Maine Leads, with testimony of Roy Lenardson Tuesday, 8 September, as part of the regular scheduled meeting. The Commission convenes at 1:00 pm., but the investigation into Maine Leads is third on the agenda. It will be held at the Burton M. Cross Office Building, Room 208, 111 Sewall Street, in Augusta.
The purpose of the meeting is to determine whether Maine Leads is a PAC, and so operate under the regulations of such, and comes at the request of Deborah Hutton (represented by Ben Grant). As you may know, Maine Leads is the "grass roots" organization of the Maine Heritage Policy Center (MHPC), and has worked to place three citizen initiatives on the ballot this November, with the efforts of two being successful (TABOR II and the partial repeal of the vehicle excise tax.
You can read the summary of events here (pdf warning), which includes all correspondence and background material.
The facts of the case are not in dispute: Maine Leads donated money to three separate PACs soon after each was formed:
* $25,000 to Citizens for a Prosperous Maine PAC (TABOR II);
* $25,000 to The Road to a Cleaner Maine PAC (excise tax)
* $25,000 to Affordable Health Care Choices for Maine PAC (failed)
It should be noted that Trevor Bragdon (brother of MHPC Executive Director Tarren Bragdon) is an employee of Maine Leads, and is listed as an officer of More Green Now, the successor PAC to Road to Cleaner Maine.
Each of these three PACs then hired the Pioneer Group, Inc., to collect the signatures required to place place the initiative that each PAC was championing. Furthermore, Maine Leads paid directly to the Pioneer Group an additional $160,500 for the same purpose.
Pioneer Group is wholly owned by Trevor Bragdon.
As unseemly as these payments seem, I understand that there is nothing illegal about hiring an employee's firm to collect signatures. What is at question here is whether, by making such payments, Maine Leads should be considered a PAC.
As most of these payments occurred before 30 June 2008, the previous legal definition applies. As cited in the agenda, it was Chapter 21-A, ยง 1052(5)(A)(4), and reads:
The organization has as its major purpose advocating the passage or defeat of a ballot question, and solicits funds from members or nonmembers to initiate or promote an initiated petition, including the collection of signatures, and spends more than $1,500 to initiate or promote an initiated petition, including the collection of signatures.
Dan Billings i the counsel for Maine Leads and it's executive director, Roy Lenardson. One has to read Billings argument to really appreciate how fine a hair he is trying to split. Regarding the law applicable at the time, cited above, Billings writes:
The statute cited by Mr. Grant defines a political action committee as "Any organization...that has its major purpose advocating the passage or defeat of a ballot question, and that solicits funds from members or nonmembers and spends more than $1,500 in a calender year to initiate, advance, promote, defeat or influence in any way...a referendum or initiated petition, including the collection of signatures for a direct initiative, in this State." (Emphasis added.) This definition sets up a three part test that must be passed for an organization to be defined as a political action committee. The organization must (1) have as its major purpose advocating the passage or defeat of a ballot question; (2) it must solicit funds for that purpose; and (3) it must spend more than $1,500 in a calender year for that purpose. If any one of these three requirements is not present, then the organization is not a PAC.
It is not in dispute that Maine Leads made contributions to three individual political action committees that were collecting signatures for three separate initiatives. Even if one is to assume, for the purpose of this argument, that in 2007, the major purpose of Maine Leads was supporting the signature gathering process of the three initiatives, the statute defines as a political action committee an organization that has as its major purpose the passage or defeat of a single ballot question. The statue speaks of a single ballot question and does not include in the definition organizations that have the major purpose of the passage or defeat of multiple ballot questions.
One can only imagine the sounds of high fives at the offices of Marden, Dubord, as this incredibly specious argument gained traction amongst the partners.
Apparently, the Commission will have none of it, as noted in the agenda:
Argument by Counsel for Maine Leads
On August 25, 2009, counsel for Maine Leads also provided a letter arguing that Maine Leads was not a PAC and was not required to file campaign finance reports as a ballot question committee. [pages 127-33] As quoted above, Mr. Billings denies that the major purpose of Maine Leads was advocating the passage of a ballot question. He urges the Commission not to focus on the percentage of an organization's resources that are used for referendum-related purposes during any one period of time.
Mr. Billings also denies that the PAC definitions applied to Maine Leads in 2007 or 2008, because the Secretary of State did not finalize the ballot questions concerning the initiatives until August 6, 2009. He argues that the purpose of a petition drive for a citizen initiative is to put an initiated bill before the Legislature, and that a ballot question only comes about if the Legislature does not pass the initiated bill. Accordingly, he argues that "there was [no] ballot question for Maine Leads to advocate the passage or defeat of during 2007 and 2008." (Billings August 25, 2009 Letter, at 3) [page 129]. Similarly, Mr. Billings argues that Maine Leads was not required to file campaign finance reports as a ballot question committee in 2007 and 2008, because the ballot questions had not been finalized.
The Commission staff disagrees with Mr. Billings' legal argument. We believe recent amendments to the PAC law make it clear that the intent of the Legislature has been to require campaign finance reporting for financial activity by proponents of a citizen initiative during the signature-gathering phase. The Commission should not interpret the PAC definition in a way that is contrary to the intention of the Legislature and that would reduce public disclosure. After conferring more with the Commission's Counsel, we will provide a rebuttal of Mr. Billings' argument in the staff memo we will provide for your October 1, 2009 meeting.
I will not be able to attend the hearing, but one will hope that news outlets in Maine will send reporters to it. Since both TABOR and the excise tax repeal will have instant and huge impacts on both state and municipal budgets, it is not a small matter as to how these two questions made it onto November's ballot. |
DIRIGO BLUE is available as an