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.