Scarcelli: Why I Said No to Clean Elections Money
- Login to post comments
From: Dennis Bailey
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2010
Subject: Scarcelli: Why I Said NO to Clean Elections Money
SCARCELLI: WHY I SAID NO TO CLEAN ELECTIONS MONEY
JAN. 11, 2010 – Rosa Scarcelli, Democratic candidate for governor, said today that while she considered using taxpayer money from the state's Clean Elections Fund to finance her campaign, she said the current budget shortfall in Augusta convinced her to take the more difficult traditional route.
In posts on her Facebook fan page (Rosa for Maine) and the political blog Dirigo Blue, Scarcelli said the state’s budget problems are forcing lawmakers to make some tough decisions and set priorities.
“We are cutting everything from school programs to health care and human services in an effort to close this gap,” she wrote. “These are very difficult choices, and it’s forcing us to set priorities. Because of our tough economic times, our state simply doesn’t have the money to provide the level of services it has in past years. I could not in good conscience take tax dollars to run my campaign knowing that every dollar I received was a dollar that wasn’t going to support our schools or provide care for the elderly, or repairing roads and bridges.”
Scarcelli said she is not an opponent of the Clean Elections Fund and believes that money and influence should be removed from politics. “But in light of current economic circumstances, I decided to fund my campaign the old fashioned way,” she wrote. “If times were different, perhaps my decision would be too.”
Scarcelli took exception to comments by some of her opponents who said in interviews last week that the Legislature had a responsibility to fully fund the Clean Elections law because voters in a referendum passed it overwhelmingly. One candidate said voters “didn’t just enact it in good times.”
Scarcelli noted that the public seems to be “voting with their wallets,” because contributions to the Clean Elections tax check-off have dropped considerably, from 67,000 contributors in 2007 to just 22,000 in 2008. And she pointed to LD1, a statewide referendum that was also passed by voters requiring the state to pay 55% of K-12 education costs.
“So has the Legislature been as faithful in fulfilling the voter’s wishes when it comes to education funding and property tax relief,” she asked. “No. That 55% level of funding enacted by voters in 2005 has been ramped down to where we started, roughly 43%. Gov. Baldacci has proposed even further cuts, and an editorial last week in the Times Record said if the cuts are approved, the Legislature “risk[s] breaking faith with Mainers who embraced LD1.” I’m sure the voters didn’t just enact LD1 ‘for the good times.’
“I realize the Legislature faces many difficult budget decisions,” she concluded. “But if the decision is between funding K-12 education and property tax relief vs. financing gubernatorial campaigns by career politicians, that doesn’t seem too difficult to me.”
For more information, go to www.RosaForMaine.com
Contact: Dennis Bailey
dennis@savvy-inc.com
What was Dennis Bailey's position on the Maine Clean Election law when it was in referendum mode.
Steven Scharf
SCSMedia@aol.com
Anyone refusing welfare for politicians looks good in my book. Not that there is anything wrong with that...
Suddenly itsa bad thing to say no to Clean Elections Fund. Heck even the Sun Journal threww her under the bus this morning, proving her guilty before the trial. Why not at least let her run her campaign and then look at her finance reports to see who backed her and if it was big private money or just donations from friends and supporters of the smaller cash donation type.
Her stock went up 10 points in my book
She is running as a Republican in a Democrat Primary. This is not her first attempt to be anti establishment....I suspect she has no intentions of winning this race and is only trying to build her name ID to take on Olympia.
Her stock went up in my book, too. I won't vote for anyone, Democrat, Republican or other, who uses Coerced Election money.
But what I really want to know is, who's this/these mystery opponent(s):
Scarcelli took exception to comments by some of her opponents who said in interviews last week that the Legislature had a responsibility to fully fund the Clean Elections law because voters in a referendum passed it overwhelmingly. One candidate said voters “didn’t just enact it in good times.”
If I knew to whom Scarcelli is referring, I'd ask him and/or her what his and/or her position is on the Legislature's responsibility to ensure that the state pay for 55% of all public education costs. I seem to recall we decided that at referendum, too. By FY 12, the state share promises to be done to 44%.
Scarcelli's pulling a John Kerry flip-flop and you people are buying it?
I supported Clean Elections before I opposed it.
She says she supports the program.
She says it is OK for legislative candidates to take the money,
But she criticizes her opponents for taking the money.
This is classic cynical politics. There is no principle involved. There is nothing to cheer.
Are any of you people who say you are impressed with Scarcelli actually Democrats? Dan has it all correct on this one, it is a cynical, bogus position orchestrated by Dennis Bailey. Her position is not one that would normally be embraced by Dems, she is a West End elitist who is using her own money to create the facade of being a credible candidate. It will be fun to watch the fire she draws from Richardson, Mitchell and McGowan for suggesting they are bad for taking funds when that is actually the LAW. If the rationale of her position is based upon a deeply held belief, why would she take public funds to support her slum-lord operation? Why not simply operate a business that does not rely on the public dollar? America does not like hypocracy (see Tiger Woods) and that is what this woman is peddling with Bailey's help.
Al Diamon was on her like a ravening wolf on a bunny rabbit.
So this is what i have to look forward to if I decide to run and then do so as a privately funded candidate? Am i the only one who thinks this is a bit nutty?
Robert: Are you going to try to have it both ways by saying you support the program and then criticize those that take the money?
Paul LePage has said that he is running traditionally funded campaign because he does not support public financing of campaigns. Though I think his decision was a poor strategic choice, I would not criticize him for standing on principle.
But that is not what this candidate is doing. She says public financing is good. And fine this year for legislative candidates but just not for candidates for Governor. That kind of hair splitting is ridiculous.
Robert, my question is whether you, or the others noting their approval of Scarcelli's stance, are Dems who vote in the primary? My point is that I do not believe this is a particularly good strategic decision when one is running as a Dem in the primary because many of the party regulars who vote in primaries are the same people who support clean elections. I suspect a parade of AMG posters does not fit that demographic, maybe I am wrong. The fact that Scarcelli's position is neither consistent nor principled (i.e. not ok to take public money THIS year, for GOV candidates ONLY) should be highlighted as expedient and bogus by the press and her opponents. However, since both the mainstream press and her publicly funded opponents are dim-witted and lazy, it is left to others to point out these facts. Dennis Bailey is at least smart (cynical?) enough to realize they will not be called on their scam.
First I am unenrolled, was registered as a Republican but left over a couple local issues...their losss IMHO....and no i have NEVER supported the Clean Elections program - I think there are better uses for our tax dollars, the first being to keep them in my wallet. Given the amount of fraud cases in the past surrounding some of the people who put their name on the ballot simply to get the money to then spend, there is no Way I would ever want to be a Clean Elections candidate, the money and program are dirty and slimy in my eyes and they have bastardized the concept of keeping it fair so big money was not deciding the election. I was not aware of this candidates past stance on this issue and maybe thats where it gets confusing.
And then I have Dan saying that its a bad strategic move not to tke the money - does that put Dan in bed with all the democrats making a money grab? Would the Republican party really stand for this concept? I think the entire party should start by saying no to Clean Elections, and when the Dems say its big money coming in counter it with we don;t want to use tax dollars to get elected.
Go ahead and run as a privately funded indepedent candidate in Lewiston. Unless you can self-fund your campaign, you will get out spent 3 or 4 to 1 and lose by a similar margin.
The Clean Election system has been designed to disadvantage traditionally funded candidates. It does that in many ways. Unless one has great wealth, or an existing political machine like Baldacci, it makes strategic sense to run as a Clean Elections candidate.
The point of running is to win. Clean Elections are part of the rules of the game in Maine.
If you were managing an American League team, would you have your pitcher hit because you don't like the DH? Of course not, you play by the rules as they stand.
I love how someone who has left the party suggests the GOP would be better off if we let the Democrats start with hundreds of thousands of dollars in Clean Elections funds that we were would have to raise privately just to be even. Now that is a great strategy.
Dan, it sure beats the strategy of spending public dollars at a time when you're screaming foul over the state spending like there's no tomorrow....
If you get out spent by large amounts by your opponents, nobody will notice your screaming,
Substitute Nobody for A majority and I'll agree with you, however that doesn'r replace the fact that this is one more issue on which its difficult to identify which party a candidate belongs to, thus so many people thinking they are all Republicrats.
On another note, what efforts would you personally undertake to help a candidate who ran privately? Would you assist in finding donations, helping build a campaign team? What are you willingt o do to help a candidate get elected?
I have done all of the above. I made a substantial contribution to a privately funded candidate this week. I have pledged a contribution to another and will be writing the check shortly. I also expect I will contribute to the DA in my area if he ends up with opposition. (County candidates can't get CE funds.)
But generally, it is a dumb decision for a legislative candidate to leave the Clean Elections money on the table. I am unlikely to help someone who started off their campaign with a deumb decision.
This reminds me of when I was a young boy, if my brother got disciplined for doing something wrong, his answer always seemed to be "but Bobby started it..." Regardless of whether your opponent takes the money, why would you want to use state taxpayer money when we are in such dire economic conditions - lemme guess "if we don't use it someone else will?".
And you've said all the R candidates for Gov are privately funded, does that make all of them dumb as well?
It is not wrong to play by the rules. See my DH example. The rules have been rigged against traditionally funded candidates.
The dynamics of a race for Governor and the money needed are different from a legislative campaign. If a candidate has the ability to self-fund or a network to raise large amounts of money, running for Governor as a privatley funded candidate may make sense.
There are some candidates that I believe made a mistake not running Clean and they will be swamped under for a lack of money.
www.sunjournal.com
Scarcelli camp spins decision on clean money
By Editorial Board
Jan 12, 2010 12:02 am
...Scarcelli...cleverly renamed the low road the high road.., announcing she will not take Clean Election Fund money, ostensibly to spare Maine voters the expense of her campaign.
[We] suspect her motives are slightly less altruistic.
Scarcelli noted...she "...believes...money/influence should be removed from politics."
Perhaps she can prove that by pledging to adhere to...spending limits/other provisions of Maine's Clean Election law while not taking the money. Her release was silent on that.
http://www.sunjournal.com/index.php?q=content/ediovscarcelli011210
- Login to post comments
Too cute by half. She wants to score points against her opponents on the issue, but does not want to make the far left of her party angry.
Her position is ridiculous and makes her look like the most jaded professional politician. Not a good start for someone running as an outsider.
By the way, Rosa has said she does not oppose legislative candidates using the system but the legislative campaigns cost the State more money over a four year period than the gubernatorial campaigns.