A variety of ridiculous “controversies” have been alleged by various sides on several of the referendum campaigns of late. This is a clear sign that we have entered the silly season on campaigns, and sadly this sort of nonsense happens every year, with every campaign. This year, though, some of the charges are especially ridiculous, and several are blatantly hypocritical. This sort of politics has no place in Maine.
A good example is the controversy over Maine Speaker of the House Hannah Pingree‘s involvement with the No On 1 campaign. Critics have alleged that she should have disclosed her fundraising work for the campaign sooner, and today the Blethen papers (Kennebec Journal, Morning Sentinel, and Portland Press Herald) ran an editorial agreeing with critics. Not only did the editorial get its facts wrong, misleading their readers, but Pingree did nothing wrong and does not deserve the criticism.
The question at hand is a payment from the No On 1/Protect Maine Equality campaign to Pingree. Pingree says it was for fundraising work, but Stand For Marriage Maine points out that a short time later she spoke in favor of the law at a campaign event and was identified as Speaker of the House. The Blethen papers stated in today’s editorial that:
Recently released campaign disclosure forms show that Pingree was paid more than $5,000 this summer for work as a fund-raising consultant for the “No on 1″ campaign.
The campaign disclosed this expenditure to the state ethics commission, but Pingree did not disclose it when she was vying for the House District 36 seat in the Legislature.
Here they are asking Pingree for the impossible, since the No On 1 campaign didn’t even exist when she was re-elected (without opposition) to the Maine House in November of 2008.
Yes, that’s right.
2008.
That would be last year.
Before she was elected Speaker. Before the marriage bill was even passed. Long before the referendum campaign began. Long before the campaign paid her for fundraising work this summer.
The Blethen papers owe Pingree an apology.
Laying aside their Marty McFly timeline, their point is wholly without merit. The No On 1 campaign properly disclosed the payment to Pingree when it was required to, and we have every expectation that Pingree will disclose the payment on her next financial disclosure forms. She has done nothing illegal, immoral, or inappropriate in any way, shape, or form. There is nothing wrong with a public official being paid for campaign work, especially when said work occurs with the Legislature adjourned.
Pingree also drew fire from TABOR Now, who recently accused both her and Senate President Libby Mitchell of misuse of their office. These accusations, like those by the Yes On One campaign, are entirely without merit. Attorney General Janet Mills was correct to immediately dismiss their request for an investigation. While some communications to the staff of legislative leadership may have been inappropriate, in that they were discussing asking for donations, there is no evidence that staff or leadership participated in fundraising on state time.
None, zip, zilch, zero.
Would staff have been wiser to respond in writing stating explicitly that assisting in fundraising, or asking for donations, would be inappropriate? Perhaps, and no doubt they now wish they had. Still, there is no reason to think staff or leadership engaged in improper activities – they are not responsible for the e-mails they receive, after all.
Another recent controversy has popped up over donations the National Organization for Marriage made to Stand for Marriage Maine. The Maine Ethics Commission narrowly voted to investigate the group and press for disclosure of their donors, since they supported a Maine ballot question campaign. NOM challenged the state’s right to investigate their donors in federal court, but so far their challenge has been rejected.
The issue at hand is whether NOM’s donor list should be subject to the same disclosure requirements as Maine ballot question committees, since they donated to a Maine referendum campaign group. This is an interesting question, though it is worth nothing that it seems not to have been raised in the past. This isn’t the first time that a national political fundraising group with a large list of donors has given to a Maine ballot question campaign group, and this issue hasn’t been raised in the past.
For example, in 2004 [PDF warning] MoveOn – the national liberal group supported by billionaire George Soros – gave $5,000 to Citizens United to Protect Our Public Safety Schools & Communities, which was formed to oppose the 2004 property tax cap referendum. MoveOn, like the National Organization for Marriage, never disclosed its donor list to the Maine Ethics Committee. Indeed, as far as we know, the group was never investigated.
So we wonder why the people who are today challenging NOM did not challenge MoveOn in 2004. After all, if NOM is subject to these rules, all national organizations which donate to Maine referendum campaigns should be as well.
In recent days there have been other issues surrounding the marriage campaign. Nokomis Regional High School guidance counselor Don Mendell is facing a professional complaint based on his public opposition to gay marriage. While the complaint is, to their credit, not supported by the No On 1 campaign, it is still ridiculous and unnecessary. Becoming a public school guidance counselor doesn’t deprive anyone of their First Amendment rights – and Mendell did not break ethical guidelines merely by expressing his views. It would have been one thing if he’d discussed his views in the school while in his official capacity, but he did not. By filing the complaint against Mendell, we are moving towards a dangerous future where any political activism by any public employee could result in a professional complaint.
This sort of behavior encourages retaliation in kind, and could stifle citizen participation in democracy by people of all professions.
Last, but certainly not least, we have the every-election-cycle sign vandalism. In this case, “Yes On 1″ signs in several southern Maine communities have been spray painted with offensive symbols, leading Yes On 1 campaign chair Marc Mutty to say via e-mail that:
The swastikas on the signs were awful. I did see Channel 13 did some pretty good coverage but they misrepresented the JCA press release somewhat. The only issue I had with some of the coverage was that they said the vandalism was limited and on both sides. Limited is when a kid walking down the road kicks over a sign, or even when someone rips one up because they are so biased. When you have a swastika being equal to a cross and it happens in 5-8 different communities that aren’t right next to one another that’s called widespread and coordinated. I’m not suggesting that the NO on 1 campaign would actually stoop to that level, but there may be a fringe group on that side that definitely coordinated the sign desecration.
Mutty definitely hedges his bets a bit with this statement, being careful not to blame No On 1. He may be right that it was coordinated by a fringe group. He is certainly right that the offensive graffiti rises to a level above merely removing or destroying signs. People target signs all the time, but usually do no more than remove them or knock them down. Sometimes it’s as much about bored idiots as it is about political ideologies.
At any rate, it is worth pointing out – again – that sign vandalism, destruction or removal is illegal.
Fortunately, usually in Maine we’re able to treat one another with respect, even in the midst of heated campaigns. Let’s all remember that on Wednesday, after we (hopefully) know the results and the dust has settled, we all still have to be neighbors and co-workers, often in small communities or companies. As a state, we can’t afford to have lingering, permanent divisions because of a political campaign, regardless of the topic. Any responsible person should refrain from mudslinging and keep the focus on the issues, rather than the personal.
No On Negativity
by augusta insider on 01. Nov, 2009 in Commentary, Featured
A good example is the controversy over Maine Speaker of the House Hannah Pingree‘s involvement with the No On 1 campaign. Critics have alleged that she should have disclosed her fundraising work for the campaign sooner, and today the Blethen papers (Kennebec Journal, Morning Sentinel, and Portland Press Herald) ran an editorial agreeing with critics. Not only did the editorial get its facts wrong, misleading their readers, but Pingree did nothing wrong and does not deserve the criticism.
The question at hand is a payment from the No On 1/Protect Maine Equality campaign to Pingree. Pingree says it was for fundraising work, but Stand For Marriage Maine points out that a short time later she spoke in favor of the law at a campaign event and was identified as Speaker of the House. The Blethen papers stated in today’s editorial that:
Here they are asking Pingree for the impossible, since the No On 1 campaign didn’t even exist when she was re-elected (without opposition) to the Maine House in November of 2008.
Yes, that’s right.
2008.
That would be last year.
Before she was elected Speaker. Before the marriage bill was even passed. Long before the referendum campaign began. Long before the campaign paid her for fundraising work this summer.
The Blethen papers owe Pingree an apology.
Laying aside their Marty McFly timeline, their point is wholly without merit. The No On 1 campaign properly disclosed the payment to Pingree when it was required to, and we have every expectation that Pingree will disclose the payment on her next financial disclosure forms. She has done nothing illegal, immoral, or inappropriate in any way, shape, or form. There is nothing wrong with a public official being paid for campaign work, especially when said work occurs with the Legislature adjourned.
Pingree also drew fire from TABOR Now, who recently accused both her and Senate President Libby Mitchell of misuse of their office. These accusations, like those by the Yes On One campaign, are entirely without merit. Attorney General Janet Mills was correct to immediately dismiss their request for an investigation. While some communications to the staff of legislative leadership may have been inappropriate, in that they were discussing asking for donations, there is no evidence that staff or leadership participated in fundraising on state time.
None, zip, zilch, zero.
Would staff have been wiser to respond in writing stating explicitly that assisting in fundraising, or asking for donations, would be inappropriate? Perhaps, and no doubt they now wish they had. Still, there is no reason to think staff or leadership engaged in improper activities – they are not responsible for the e-mails they receive, after all.
Another recent controversy has popped up over donations the National Organization for Marriage made to Stand for Marriage Maine. The Maine Ethics Commission narrowly voted to investigate the group and press for disclosure of their donors, since they supported a Maine ballot question campaign. NOM challenged the state’s right to investigate their donors in federal court, but so far their challenge has been rejected.
The issue at hand is whether NOM’s donor list should be subject to the same disclosure requirements as Maine ballot question committees, since they donated to a Maine referendum campaign group. This is an interesting question, though it is worth nothing that it seems not to have been raised in the past. This isn’t the first time that a national political fundraising group with a large list of donors has given to a Maine ballot question campaign group, and this issue hasn’t been raised in the past.
For example, in 2004 [PDF warning] MoveOn – the national liberal group supported by billionaire George Soros – gave $5,000 to Citizens United to Protect Our Public Safety Schools & Communities, which was formed to oppose the 2004 property tax cap referendum. MoveOn, like the National Organization for Marriage, never disclosed its donor list to the Maine Ethics Committee. Indeed, as far as we know, the group was never investigated.
So we wonder why the people who are today challenging NOM did not challenge MoveOn in 2004. After all, if NOM is subject to these rules, all national organizations which donate to Maine referendum campaigns should be as well.
In recent days there have been other issues surrounding the marriage campaign. Nokomis Regional High School guidance counselor Don Mendell is facing a professional complaint based on his public opposition to gay marriage. While the complaint is, to their credit, not supported by the No On 1 campaign, it is still ridiculous and unnecessary. Becoming a public school guidance counselor doesn’t deprive anyone of their First Amendment rights – and Mendell did not break ethical guidelines merely by expressing his views. It would have been one thing if he’d discussed his views in the school while in his official capacity, but he did not. By filing the complaint against Mendell, we are moving towards a dangerous future where any political activism by any public employee could result in a professional complaint.
This sort of behavior encourages retaliation in kind, and could stifle citizen participation in democracy by people of all professions.
Last, but certainly not least, we have the every-election-cycle sign vandalism. In this case, “Yes On 1″ signs in several southern Maine communities have been spray painted with offensive symbols, leading Yes On 1 campaign chair Marc Mutty to say via e-mail that:
Mutty definitely hedges his bets a bit with this statement, being careful not to blame No On 1. He may be right that it was coordinated by a fringe group. He is certainly right that the offensive graffiti rises to a level above merely removing or destroying signs. People target signs all the time, but usually do no more than remove them or knock them down. Sometimes it’s as much about bored idiots as it is about political ideologies.
At any rate, it is worth pointing out – again – that sign vandalism, destruction or removal is illegal.
Fortunately, usually in Maine we’re able to treat one another with respect, even in the midst of heated campaigns. Let’s all remember that on Wednesday, after we (hopefully) know the results and the dust has settled, we all still have to be neighbors and co-workers, often in small communities or companies. As a state, we can’t afford to have lingering, permanent divisions because of a political campaign, regardless of the topic. Any responsible person should refrain from mudslinging and keep the focus on the issues, rather than the personal.
Tags: Hannah Pingree, Janet Mills, Libby Mitchell, Maine Ethics Commission, Marriage, More Green Now, MoveOn, National Organization for Marriage, No On 1, Stand for Marriage Maine, Taxes