June 3, 2016 Jonathan Wayne Maine Ethics Commission Dear Mr. Wayne, Please consider this a formal request for investigation into the activities of the Working Families PAC, which is controlled by State Representative Diane Russell of Portland. The specific questions I would like to see addressed as part of this investigation are bolded and highlighted throughout this document: - Does the Working Families PAC meet the definition of a PAC under the Maine Ethics Commission rules? - If the Working Families PAC does not meet the definition of a PAC for a lengthy period of time, shouldn’t its registration as a PAC be rescinded? According to the Ethics Commission website, the term “political action committee” includes:  Any separate or segregated fund established by any corporation, membership organization, cooperative or labor or other organization whose purpose is to initiate or influence a campaign;  Any organization, including any corporation or association, that has as its major purpose initiating or influencing a campaign and that receives contributions or makes expenditures aggregating more than $1,500 in a calendar year for that purpose; and  Any organization that does not have as its major purpose influencing candidate elections but that receives contributions or makes expenditures aggregating more than $5,000 in a calendar year for the purpose of influencing the nomination or election of any candidate to political office. During calendar year 2015, and the first three months of 2016, according to its own Ethics Commission financial filings, the Working Families PAC, while raising and spending significant amounts of money, did not participate in any of the above activities. I contend that the Working Families PAC has in fact served as an unregulated money mill for its principal officer, Diane Russell, during that time. - If the Working Families PAC engages in activities other than it stated purpose, and spends far more money on these activities, on a far more regular basis, than on its stated purpose, does this constitute a fraudulent filing with the Maine Ethics Commission? - What is the penalty for deliberately misstating the goals or purpose of a PAC, and will the Ethics Commission pursue this remedy in this case? - Will you require the Working Families PAC to amend its stated purpose to something more consistent with its actual activities? The stated purpose of the Working Families PAC, since its inception, has been as follows: “THE WORKING FAMILIES PAC WILL HELP SUPPORT DEMOCRATS IN WINNING SEATS IN THE MAINE HOUSE.” According to the PAC’s own filings, in its entire history, the Working Families PAC has contributed $1,550 to Democratic candidates and organizations in Maine, amounting to less than four percent of the total funds raised. At the same time, according to the PAC’s own filings, the Working Families PAC has paid Diane Russell $7,747 for “online organizing.” Also according to the PAC’s own filings, it has spent at least $5,754 in travel expenses to place such as Las Vegas, San Francisco, and the foreign nation of Morocco. Further, it has spent an additional $3,507 on food, and $1,650 at the Apple Store in the Maine Mall. In other words, any one of these expenses is a more accurate stated purpose than the one referenced above. Far from this being an accidental misfiling of the PAC’s purpose, Diane Russell is well aware that the PAC participates in other activities more often, and more substantially, than its stated purpose. She has said so herself, and on the public record. In March 2015, she was confronted by reporter Naomi Schalit of the Pine Tree Watchdog newspaper. During an exchange about the misleading stated purpose of the PAC (referred to as a “mission statement” in the article), Diane Russell is quoted as follows: “Oh, is that the mission statement of the PAC? I haven’t changed it?” You can find the above-reference article here: http://pinetreewatchdog.org/portland-legislator-paid-self-from-leadership-pac-founded-tosupport-other-candidates/ This confirms Diane Russell is aware that her PAC’s stated purpose is misleading, and that she was aware of it in March of this year. In the article, she hinted of her intention to change the “mission statement,” but to date has not done so. Considering that nearly three months have passed since the interview was conducted, Russell’s continuing use of the outdated purpose must be considered willful and deliberate. Finally: - A 2015 payment from the Beck Political Fund to the Working Families PAC does not meet the definition of a “contribution” under the stringent rules governing PACs in Maine. Will you investigate the purpose of this payment? - If a PAC has received funds that do not qualify as a contribution, what remedy will the Ethics Commission pursue in regard to this activity? In the Working Families Campaign Finance Report dated January 15, 2016 (for the period October 2015 through December 2015 inclusive), there is a payment for $7,441.00 from the Beck Political Fund, of Waterville Maine. Later, this source was amended to the Democrats.com website, which is a pass-through payment mechanism for ActBlue. Diane Russell herself has stated that this payment was for organizing and fundraising services she rendered to the Beck Political Fund, and was not intended as a contribution to the Working Families PAC. Her stated reasoning for asking the Beck Political Fund pay the Working Families PAC (instead of paying her directly) appears admirable on its surface. She has said, in public and on numerous occasions, in regard to the payment: “I naively wanted to be public with my income.” While Diane’s urge toward transparency is commendable, this payment in no way qualifies as a contribution for the purposes of initiating or influencing a campaign or candidate election, or nomination. I hope the Maine Ethics Commission can investigate these questions, and any other relevant questions that may arise from them, thoroughly. Thank you. Sincerely, Michael Hiltz 45 Pleasant Avenue Portland, ME 04103 (207) 615-7351