Political ethics dispute continues to rage on (Printed Sept. 1)
By Zack Anchors
Staff writer
The Maine Ethics Commission has reviewed two separate complaints of election law violations involving competing candidates for the District 7 (South Portland, Cape Elizabeth, Scarborough) State Senate seat. While the Maine Democratic party was fined $5,000 for it’s failure to report incumbent candidate Lynn Bromley’s campaign expenditures on time, the ethics commission concluded that State Rep. Kevin Glynn (R – District 124) violated no election laws regarding two separate incidents that allegedly involved recruiting other candidates to run against himself and another local politician – Cape Elizabeth Town Councilor Mike Mowles.
At its Aug. 23 meeting, the commission – formally called the Maine Commission of Governmental Ethics and Election Practices – decided to fine the Mane Democratic party the maximum penalty they are allowed to administer despite objections by the party that the fine was disproportionate to the violation. The violation originated with the Democratic party’s mailing of campaign materials in mid-July that promoted Bromley as well as State Rep. Walter Ash. Candidates that receive public finding through the Maine Clean Election program are required throughout their campaign to submit their campaign expenditures to the ethics commission. After a July 25 deadline for reporting expenditures had passed, Roy Lenardson, a Republican consultant and prominent proponent of the taxpayer’s bill of rights (TABOR) campaign, wrote a letter to the ethics commission questioning the Democratic party’s finance report. The Democratic party eventually did report the costs of the mailings- – $22,539.48 – and admitted that they had failed to report the expenditures properly. The cost of the Bromley mailing alone was only $2,253.39, but the Bromley campaign itself was not involved in the mailing.
The item involving Glynn and Mowles was taken up by the ethics commission in response to a letter sent to the commission by Anne Jenness, a former Green Independent party candidate for the House of Representatives. Jenness claimed she was persuaded to run by Mowles, who was himself a Republican candidate for the same seat. She also wrote that Mowles had used the promise of financial help to keep her in the race after she told him she wanted to withdraw and that Glynn had been working with Mowles to keep her in the race. Both Glynn and Mowles deny Jenness’s claims. Mowles and Jenness are currently involved in a civil dispute that began when Jenness was a client of Mowles,, who is president of a mortgage company.
Jonathan Wayne, the executive director of the ethics commission, said the ethics commission considered Jenness’s complaint and determined that no campaign laws had been violated.
“The ethics commission’s jurisdiction only extends to how campaigns are financed,” Wayne said two days after the meeting. “Since Ms. Jenness didn’t really run a campaign, there was nothing for the commission to consider.”
Wayne said the commission told Jenness her claims that Mowles used the lure of financial help to keep her in the race could only be pursued by other state departments.
“They advised me to take it to the attorney general’s office,” said Jenness on Aug 25. “I have sent a copy of the letter to the assistant attorney general’s office.”
On Aug 28, Assistant Attorney General Phyllis Gardiner, who serves on the ethics commission, said she had not yet received the letter.
Wayne had previously investigated another complaint involving Mowles and Glynn allegedly persuading an individual to enter a race. Stephen Haskell, a South Portland Republican who ran for state senate, told Wayne that he was taken advantage of by Glynn when he was allegedly persuaded by Glynn to enter a race in which Glynn himself was a candidate. Haskell eventually dropped out of the race, but if he had run against Glynn in the primaries, Glynn would have received $5,819 in additional funding through clean election funding. Wayne said that many facts regarding Haskell’s complaint were in dispute and that the ethics commission had not taken any action on the matter.
Staff writer
The Maine Ethics Commission has reviewed two separate complaints of election law violations involving competing candidates for the District 7 (South Portland, Cape Elizabeth, Scarborough) State Senate seat. While the Maine Democratic party was fined $5,000 for it’s failure to report incumbent candidate Lynn Bromley’s campaign expenditures on time, the ethics commission concluded that State Rep. Kevin Glynn (R – District 124) violated no election laws regarding two separate incidents that allegedly involved recruiting other candidates to run against himself and another local politician – Cape Elizabeth Town Councilor Mike Mowles.
At its Aug. 23 meeting, the commission – formally called the Maine Commission of Governmental Ethics and Election Practices – decided to fine the Mane Democratic party the maximum penalty they are allowed to administer despite objections by the party that the fine was disproportionate to the violation. The violation originated with the Democratic party’s mailing of campaign materials in mid-July that promoted Bromley as well as State Rep. Walter Ash. Candidates that receive public finding through the Maine Clean Election program are required throughout their campaign to submit their campaign expenditures to the ethics commission. After a July 25 deadline for reporting expenditures had passed, Roy Lenardson, a Republican consultant and prominent proponent of the taxpayer’s bill of rights (TABOR) campaign, wrote a letter to the ethics commission questioning the Democratic party’s finance report. The Democratic party eventually did report the costs of the mailings- – $22,539.48 – and admitted that they had failed to report the expenditures properly. The cost of the Bromley mailing alone was only $2,253.39, but the Bromley campaign itself was not involved in the mailing.
The item involving Glynn and Mowles was taken up by the ethics commission in response to a letter sent to the commission by Anne Jenness, a former Green Independent party candidate for the House of Representatives. Jenness claimed she was persuaded to run by Mowles, who was himself a Republican candidate for the same seat. She also wrote that Mowles had used the promise of financial help to keep her in the race after she told him she wanted to withdraw and that Glynn had been working with Mowles to keep her in the race. Both Glynn and Mowles deny Jenness’s claims. Mowles and Jenness are currently involved in a civil dispute that began when Jenness was a client of Mowles,, who is president of a mortgage company.
Jonathan Wayne, the executive director of the ethics commission, said the ethics commission considered Jenness’s complaint and determined that no campaign laws had been violated.
“The ethics commission’s jurisdiction only extends to how campaigns are financed,” Wayne said two days after the meeting. “Since Ms. Jenness didn’t really run a campaign, there was nothing for the commission to consider.”
Wayne said the commission told Jenness her claims that Mowles used the lure of financial help to keep her in the race could only be pursued by other state departments.
“They advised me to take it to the attorney general’s office,” said Jenness on Aug 25. “I have sent a copy of the letter to the assistant attorney general’s office.”
On Aug 28, Assistant Attorney General Phyllis Gardiner, who serves on the ethics commission, said she had not yet received the letter.
Wayne had previously investigated another complaint involving Mowles and Glynn allegedly persuading an individual to enter a race. Stephen Haskell, a South Portland Republican who ran for state senate, told Wayne that he was taken advantage of by Glynn when he was allegedly persuaded by Glynn to enter a race in which Glynn himself was a candidate. Haskell eventually dropped out of the race, but if he had run against Glynn in the primaries, Glynn would have received $5,819 in additional funding through clean election funding. Wayne said that many facts regarding Haskell’s complaint were in dispute and that the ethics commission had not taken any action on the matter.
Comments