New poll shows Coloradans want to repeal TABOR

by: Gerald Weinand

Wed Sep 30, 2009 at 12:20:33 PM EDT

Do you favor or oppose repealing the Taxpayer Bill of Rights, which requires all tax increases to be approved by the voters?

41% of those surveyed said that they strongly favored repeal, with an additional 14% somewhat in favor. Contrast this with only 32% strongly opposed plus 9% somewhat opposed, meaning that:

55% of Coloradans favor repeal of TABOR
41% oppose
4% are undecided.

Even more bizarre is the support that repealing TABOR enjoys in Colorado Springs, which is a very conservative area of the state, with 61% percent of respondents in favor.

The breakdown along party lines is 46% of Republicans in favor, while 66% of Democrats and  53% of independents also in favor of repealing TABOR.

Ethics Commission to decide on Maine Leads tomorrow

by: Gerald Weinand

Wed Sep 30, 2009 at 10:16:40 AM EDT

At its meeting on 8 September, the Commission reviewed arguments regarding the role Maine Leads played in the signature gathering efforts for three separate ballot questions; at that meeting, the attorney for Maine Leads, Dan Billings, presented the famous chicken or egg argument.

The agenda for Thursday's meeting can be found here (pdf warning). From it:

The Commission staff recommends that you make a factual finding that Maine Leads made expenditures, other than by contribution to a PAC, aggregating in excess of $1,500 for the purpose of initiating or promoting a ballot question. Maine Leads has stated that it "paid $160,500 to Pioneer Group, Inc., for collection of signatures on three initiative petitions."

The Commission staff recommends that you also make a finding of fact that Maine Leads solicited and received contributions for the purpose of initiating or promoting a a ballot question.

I'll remind you that the Pioneer Group is wholly owned by Trevor Bragdon, an employee of Maine Leads.

Now here is where things get weird, because despite the clear evidence af the two findings of fact:

At this time, the Commission staff does not recommend finding that the major purpose of Maine Leads is to initiate or promote ballot questions.

They do so in part based on Maine Leads mission statement - I shit you not - which reads:

The purpose of Maine Leads is to achieve future prosperity. We empower citizens to fight for lower taxes, government transparency, and economic freedom.

That Maine Leads has no other outreach programs, runs no training programs, does not publish any of its own research - in fact, it didn't even write the proposed ballot questions ( staff at Maine Heritage Policy Center did). It seems that the only prosperity achieved do to Maine Leads work was that of the Pioneer Group.

Whatever the Commission decides, this will have impact on future ballot questions in the State, as well as Question 1, the people's veto. What we are seeing here is an active attempt to hide the major sources of funding for groups that want to pay to put a question before the voters of Maine.

Regarding Stand for Marriage Maine (S4MM), without the huge contributions from the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) (a Mormon front group whose sole purpose is to make sure that same-sex marriage does not become law in every state), the Catholic Diocese of Portland, the Knights of Columbus (another Catholic group), and James Dobson's Focus on the Family, without the contributions from these groups, S4MM would never have been able to pay an outside firm $193,000 to collect signatures for Yes on 1.

The duplicitous arguments of Maine Leads

by: Gerald Weinand

Mon Sep 14, 2009 at 11:00:14 AM EDT

A reader writes to mention that Dan Billings, attorney for Maine Leads, is duplicitous in trying to demonstrate that the group is not a PAC.

Last week, Billings argued before the Ethics Commission that Maine Leads was not a PAC because even though it had paid $235,500 to Pioneer Group to gather signatures:

The law that was in place at the time in 2007 and 2008 talked about a PAC being an organization which had its major purpose advancing a ballot question. It's our position here that during the signature-gathering phase of the citizen-initiated referendum process, there is no ballot question -- no one knows whether or not anything is going to end up on the ballot. And even if something is going to be voted on, no one actually knows the ballot question to be until after the Legislature has dealt with the initiated bill.

The actual law in affect at the time in question reads:

Any organization, including any corporation or association, that has as its major purpose advocating the passage or defeat of a ballot question.

Since "no one knows whether or not anything is going to end up on the ballot," gathering signatures to actually place the question on the ballot is not "advancing a ballot question."

The brain hurts thinking about this logic, but fortunately, Billings is able to relieve such pain. In a letter submitted to the Commission in August, he wrote:

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.

Billings argued that Maine Leads does not qualify as a PAC because it was helping to collect signatures on more than one ballot question, but in so doing writes, "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."

In the few weeks between Billings August letter and the hearing held on 8 September, Billings revised his interpretation of how the state defines a PAC, not that it should matter - Maine Leads certainly qualifies under either.

Maine Leads: The chicken or the egg?

by: Gerald Weinand

Tue Sep 08, 2009 at 18:28:25 PM EDT

It was anticipated that Dan Billings, counsel for Maine Leads and its Executive Director Roy Lenardson, would argue that the group was not a PAC because it had supported more than one ballot question. Instead, as Higgins notes, Billings argued:

"The law that was in place at the time in 2007 and 2008 talked about a PAC being an organization which had its major purpose advancing a ballot question. It's our position here that during the signature-gathering phase of the citizen-initiated referendum process, there is no ballot question -- no one knows whether or not anything is going to end up on the ballot. And even if something is going to be voted on, no one actually knows the ballot question to be until after the Legislature has dealt with the initiated bill."

Or, which came first, the chicken or the egg?

Such bullshit really boggles the mind, and I can only imagine how this will be viewed by the members of the commission. For example, will candidates no longer have to form exploratory committees when contemplating seeking elected office? Will health insurers will be able to continue to cancel policies based on heretofore unknown pre-existing conditions?

The unfortunate part about all this is that it is unlikely that the Commission will rule before the November election. And so, unless Maine Leads voluntarily divulges its sources of funding, we will not know who is actually behind these two "citizens" initiatives.

Ethics Commission to investigate Maine Leads Tuesday, 1 p.m.

by: Gerald Weinand

Mon Sep 07, 2009 at 23:00:59 PM EDT

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, § 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.

Maine Leads - is it a PAC?

by: Gerald Weinand

Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 23:50:57 PM EDT

Tony Ronzio, Editorial Page Editor of the Lewiston Sun Journal, has this viditorial to that regard:

UPDATED: There's money to be made in these citizens initiatives

by: Gerald Weinand

Wed Sep 02, 2009 at 23:41:55 PM EDT

Agenda Item #3 lays out what the Commission will be discussing at their next meeting on 8 September.

While the nuances of law are intriguing, and Ms. Hutton does raise an important point about whether the two questions should even be on the ballot, what has intrigued me is this:

Maine Leads describes itself as (pg. 10):

...a bold new organization actively promoting responsible fiscal policies, government accountability, and effective citizen activism. The goal of Maine Leads is simple; empower citizens and pressuregovernment to finally create tax relief and future prosperity for Maine.

Trevor Bragdon is listed as the group's Grassroots Director (pg. 9);

Maine Leads contributed $25,000 to three separate PACs, which in turn paid an equal amount to Pioneer Group for services, a total of $75,000 received by Pioneer Group (pg. 12);

In addition, Maine Leads paid an additional $160,500 to Pioneer Group for services rendered, in this case signature gathering. It subsequently came to light, as a result of Ms. Hutton's request, that this amount went unreported by Maine Leads (pg. 13);

Roy Lenardson disclosed in his July 29 Affidavit that Maine Leads paid Pioneer Group $160,500 directly for the collection of signatures on the three initiative petitions. These payments were in addition to the $75,000 that Maine Leads contributed to the PACs. Thus, the total funding that Pioneer Group received from Maine Leads (both directly and indirectly through the PACs) was $235,500.

And that Pioneer Group is a "consulting firm solely owned by Trevor Bragdon," (pg. 13).

To recap, Maine Leads, which lists Trevor Bragdon as one of four employees, has paid a consulting firm solely owned by him $160,500 directly, and an additional $75,000 through three separate PACs. That's $235,500 altogether.

None of this is illegal, as I understand it, but if I was a contributor to Maine Leads, I'd be asking some questions.

Update: Ben Grant, attorney for Deborah Hutton, had this to say via email:

The heart of this investigation is not the payment-for-signatures practice that has taken the place of true citizen initiated legislation - though that issue ought to be debated more intensely as it becomes more widely deployed (which Maine Leads has made clear is their intention). The heart of the investigation is transparency. Regardless of what you may think about the commandeering of the citizen initiative process by interest groups, at minimum we all ought to be able to agree that the process needs to be as open and visible to the public as possible. What Maine Leads has attempted to do is construct a method of funding these initiatives, while at the same time concealing the origins of that financial support. There is no dispute that the Maine Leads initiatives have far-reaching consequences on how Maine's state and local governments perform their traditional services - in fact, that is entirely their point. Our point is simply that Maine voters deserve to have all the information about the proposal - and who is making it - before casting such an important vote.