Cleaner elections needed

The Clean Elections fund is drying up, thank goodness.

The Maine Ethics Commission, overseers of the fund, reported earlier this week that the fund would need an infusion of $9 million next year to keep the fund solvent through the 2010 elections.

Rather than dumping more money into a broken system, the Legislature should cut this program, which has done nothing but pad the campaign war chests of candidates who don’t really need it.

Take the case of Tom Bossie, of Casco, who ran for District 101 last year against Rich Cebra. He received about $14,000 as a Clean Election candidate. But, did Bossie really need the money? He lives in Casco on Sebago Lake. Anyone who can live on Sebago Lake doesn’t need taxpayers’ money to pay for a campaign.

People who run for state office should be able to come up with money to fund their campaign. If they don’t have it in their bank accounts, they should be able to raise it locally from friends, family members and those who believe in their stances on issues.

Clean Elections was an attempt to get big business out of politics. While it seems successful at doing that, it doesn’t seem the best model for campaign finance reform. The era of Clean Elections, in which campaigns are funded by taxpayers, should give way to the era of truly clean elections funded solely by private donors who are limited in what they can give.

In what would be the new era of individual donor-funded candidates, big business interests would be out of the picture. Political Action Committees, which have a way of getting around campaign financing rules by stumping for individuals candidates rather than issues, have flourished under Maine’s Clean Elections approach. They should cease to exist as well. With those two entities out of the picture, the only donors still standing would be individuals, none of whom could carry much sway with a candidate.

How much could an individual donate? How about $500 for local races, $1,000 for state races, and $3,000 for federal races? Maine voters could decide in a referendum. It’s time for a new era, not another error, which is exactly what dumping another $9 million of taxpayer money into Clean Election candidates would be.

Why no names?

The Maine Warden Service was wrong last week not to release the names of those who died in Aug. 11’s boat collision on Long Lake. The collision between a large motorboat and a smaller boat claimed the lives of the smaller boat’s occupants, both of whom were well known in Naples.

Once they had notified the families, the warden service should have immediately informed the media. Instead, the service waited five days to release the names. In those five days, the media hounded everyone they could find, as is their job, to get the information.

When something tragic like this occurs again, the warden service should spare the friends and families of the victims by sharing as much information about the incident as possible. That way, the public’s need to know could be met and those close to the victims could be spared the media onslaught.

-John Balentine, editor

Cleaner elections needed

The Clean Elections fund is drying up, thank goodness.

The Maine Ethics Commission, overseers of the fund, reported earlier this week that the fund would need an infusion of $9 million next year to keep the fund solvent through the 2010 elections.

Rather than dumping more money into a broken system, the Legislature should cut this program, which has done nothing but pad the campaign war chests of candidates who don’t really need it.

Take the case of Tom Bossie, of Casco, who ran for District 101 last year against Rich Cebra. He received about $14,000 as a Clean Election candidate. But, did Bossie really need the money? He lives in Casco on Sebago Lake. Anyone who can live on Sebago Lake doesn’t need taxpayers’ money to pay for a campaign.

People who run for state office should be able to come up with money to fund their campaign. If they don’t have it in their bank accounts, they should be able to raise it locally from friends, family members and those who believe in their stances on issues.

Clean Elections was an attempt to get big business out of politics. While it seems successful at doing that, it doesn’t seem the best model for campaign finance reform. The era of Clean Elections, in which campaigns are funded by taxpayers, should give way to the era of truly clean elections funded solely by private donors who are limited in what they can give.

In what would be the new era of individual donor-funded candidates, big business interests would be out of the picture. Political Action Committees, which have a way of getting around campaign financing rules by stumping for individuals candidates rather than issues, have flourished under Maine’s Clean Elections approach. They should cease to exist as well. With those two entities out of the picture, the only donors still standing would be individuals, none of whom could carry much sway with a candidate.

How much could an individual donate? How about $500 for local races, $1,000 for state races, and $3,000 for federal races? Maine voters could decide in a referendum. It’s time for a new era, not another error, which is exactly what dumping another $9 million of taxpayer money into Clean Election candidates would be.

Why no names?

The Maine Warden Service was wrong last week not to release the names of those who died in Aug. 11’s boat collision on Long Lake. The collision between a large motorboat and a smaller boat claimed the lives of the smaller boat’s occupants, both of whom were well known in Naples.

Once they had notified the families, the warden service should have immediately informed the media. Instead, the service waited five days to release the names. In those five days, the media hounded everyone they could find, as is their job, to get the information.

When something tragic like this occurs again, the warden service should spare the friends and families of the victims by sharing as much information about the incident as possible. That way, the public’s need to know could be met and those close to the victims could be spared the media onslaught.

-John Balentine, editor