Distrust of the government seems to be running rampant these days, with the common perception that politicians are more concerned with their own interests and their own pocketbooks than they are with the well-being of their constituents.
A recent investigative piece by the Maine Center for Public Interest Reporting unfortunately proved that to be true once again, but this time it’s not a full-blown scandal, just a legal oversight that allowed officials to use their power for personal gain.
The nonprofit news service Maine Center for Public Interest Reporting reported last week that between 2003-10, nearly $235 million in state contracts and funding ended up in the pockets of organizations to which legislators were directly linked ”“ but the funds were not legally required to be included in ethics reports.
Most of the contracts were blatant conflicts of interest, such as that of Sen. Joseph Brannigan, who was chairman of the appropriations and health and human services committees when they appropriated $98 million to Shalom House, where he was executive director. The list of such conflicts is lengthy, which explains the $235 million worth of state funds that didn’t get mentioned on the ethics reports. It seems it is common practice for legislators and commissioners to direct contracts and funding to nonprofits or businesses in which they or their spouse have a significant interest.
A loophole in reporting requirements is what has allowed this behavior for so long. The state currently requires high-level state employees and legislators to file ethics reports only for goods and services purchased directly from them or from immediate family members. Organizations and businesses with which the person is affiliated are not included in the reporting requirement.
Gov. Paul LePage announced late last week that he plans to propose legislation that would close this ethics reporting loophole. We’re glad to see that he’s planning to take action to correct this problem and make public records more accurate.
In a national political climate of distrust, with the Occupy Wall Street movement and a GOP presidential nominee campaign that’s hinged partially on whether candidates are “Washington insiders,” we need to have accountability in our state. We do not want a political system in which people only run for office so they can gain the power to direct money toward their own causes.
Required ethics reporting or no, our representatives should know that even the appearance of impropriety represents a conflict and should have avoided railroading funds into the hands of businesses and nonprofits in which they had an interest. It’s disheartening to see that they misused their power. It’s clear that taxpayers must have access to public documents that show the money trail and expose any conflicts of interest.
This entire turn of events shows the importance of investigative journalism and the role it can play in society as an advocate for the everyman. Unfortunately, as media outlets pander to the lowest common denominator and others cut back staff, investigative reporting is often the first to go. MCPIR is an important nonprofit news service that also had a coup with its recent expose of the dam inspection process in the state, and we’re pleased to be able to share the talents of their contributors with our readers. The center will undoubtedly be uncovering more important stories that affect Maine residents and will continue to keep the LePage administration and our representatives in Augusta on their toes.
Ӣ Ӣ Ӣ
Today’s editorial was written by Managing Editor Kristen Schulze Muszynski on behalf of the Journal Tribune Editorial Board. Questions? Comments? Contact Kristen by calling 282-1535, Ext. 322, or via email at kristenm@journaltribune.com.
Comments are not available on this story. Read more about why we allow commenting on some stories and not on others.
We believe it's important to offer commenting on certain stories as a benefit to our readers. At its best, our comments sections can be a productive platform for readers to engage with our journalism, offer thoughts on coverage and issues, and drive conversation in a respectful, solutions-based way. It's a form of open discourse that can be useful to our community, public officials, journalists and others.
We do not enable comments on everything — exceptions include most crime stories, and coverage involving personal tragedy or sensitive issues that invite personal attacks instead of thoughtful discussion.
You can read more here about our commenting policy and terms of use. More information is also found on our FAQs.
Show less