What the Commission on Governmental Ethics and Election Practices took up at its meetings since 2019: late-filing penalties and requests to waive them, complaints and requests to investigate, audits, and what it decided, as its meeting pages record them. A complaint is an allegation; the decision is the Commission's. Items naming someone on this site are also on their page.
In October 2024, the Aroostook Democratic County Committee paid $1,999 to a local radio station to broadcast paid messages featuring six Democratic legislative nominees. The committee believed the payment was allowed under Maine Election Law because it promoted a slate of legislative candidates. Staff recommendation: Commission staff recommends finding that the candidates accepted an in-kind contribution of paid broadcast time in violation of the Maine Clean Election Act because each message featured one candidate, and did not list three or more candidates. Made by: Commissioner Schneider Seconded by: Commissioner Marble Made by: Commissioner Schneider Seconded by: Commissioner Hastings
Decided: To find the six 2024 legislative candidates violated 21-A M.R.S. § 1125(6) by accepting in-kind contributions of advertising time on Channel Z and to impose no penalty. (vote 2-1 (Commissioner LeClaire abstained))
Tom Saviello filed a complaint about a lawn sign opposing his election as County Commissioner in Franklin County that did not include a statement identifying who had paid for the sign. He also photographed a similar sign opposing Stephan Bunker for the Maine House of Representatives that lacked the required disclosure. After being contacted by Commission staff, Jake Ducharme took responsibility for the signs and inserted the required disclosures. It appears that a total of five signs were initially posted without the required disclosure and were later fixed by Mr. Ducharme.
Decided: To find the Tom Saviello signs violated the disclosure requirements and assess no penalty (vote 5-0)
The November 5, 2024 Cape Elizabeth town ballot includes a referendum on whether to borrow money for school construction. The Commission received a complaint asserting that two ads in the local newspaper failed to state the names and addresses of the people who funded the advertising. Staff recommendation: the Commission staff recommends finding that the ads violated 21-A M.R.S. § 1055-A(1) but assess no monetary penalty. Additional Material
Decided: To find the first advertisement did not have the proper disclosure and to assess no penalty (vote 5-0)
Ms. Mary Small filed a complaint stating that mailings by the American Leadership Committee-Maine PAC did not include the required disclosure of the PAC’s top three funders. Rather than naming any funders, the literature contained the phrase “No top donors.” Regarding the disclosure issue: Motion: That the PAC violated 21-A M.R.S. § 1014 (2-B) and regulations Chapter 1, Section 7 (12)(D). Made by: Chairman Schneider Seconded by: Commissioner Hastings Vote: 5-0 Regarding the timing of the report issue: Motion: That the PAC violated 21-A M.R.S. § 1019 (B)(4) requiring a report of an independent expenditure. Made by: Chairman Schneider Seconded by: Commissioner Marble Vote: 5-0
Decided: That the Commission not impose a penalty because the evidence shows this was an incorrect interpretation of statute and regulation and the PAC has indicated that it will be corrected in future mailers.