Democrats have come up with another brilliant idea this session: LD 818, “An Act to Allow Expenditure of Maine Clean Election Act Funding for the Care of Candidates’ Dependents.” To put it simply, this bill would allow candidates for office to use Clean Election money to help pay for babysitters, if they so choose. If you think that itself is fine, wait until you hear more about how this particular piece of legislation was written.

The author of the bill, Rep. Kristen Cloutier of Lewiston, was probably thinking of caregiving in a more broad sense, but it would certainly cover babysitting — I’m calling it the “babysitter bill.”

I’ve been on the record for decades opposing Clean Elections, but this isn’t about my philosophical opposition. Years ago, when Gov. Paul LePage proposed eliminating Clean Election funding for gubernatorial candidates, I supported that — but only if it was approved by the voters, since it was first passed by the voters. If Republicans want to repeal it or scale it back, they ought to do so via citizen initiative; in fact, they ought to use that tool far more often.

My issue here isn’t just with Clean Elections, but with the babysitter bill: it’s far too vague. As it stands, candidates only have to make a claim that their caregiving need would not have existed but for the fact that they were campaigning. That’s a pretty broad definition. It means that candidates are allowed to redirect their caregiving time, without any proof that the new time it frees up is actually campaign-related. So, candidates don’t have to document that they’re hiring a babysitter to go to a debate; they only have to claim they need it.

That’s it, and that’s ridiculous — especially because the bill could have been much more specific. Having worked in the Legislature, I’m familiar with how legislation is written. The only amendment offered in committee was to bar candidates or their spouses/partners from being paid. Importantly, this doesn’t bar other members of the candidate’s immediate family. So, under this legislation a candidate could pay their teenage son to babysit their youngest child while they’re off at a town hall, or a candidate forum. That doesn’t seem like a particularly stringent requirement, nor does it seem like a wise use of taxpayer money.

This bill could have been more specific and, therefore, more justifiable to its supporters. They could’ve banned all direct family members from being compensated. They also could have simply added one sentence to the bill: “Such expenses shall be directly related to documented campaign activity.” That would have done it. Then it would have at least had appeared vaguely reasonable.

As it stands now, it’s a wide catch-all that will be difficult for anyone to track or enforce. They’re probably counting on the Maine Ethics Commission to write rules for it, but this version doesn’t give them much guidance. My version would have.

With my language, the Maine Ethics Commission would have had clear regulatory authority to promulgate rules requiring receipts and time logs, making sure that any caregiving paid for with Clean Election funds actually occurred during campaign events. There still would have been problems with this system — a candidate could claim they were out knocking on doors, for instance — but it would have been something. They would have had to submit documentation and keep receipts, making sure they were trying to keep track of taxpayer money.

The problem with this piece of legislation (and, indeed, Clean Elections as a whole) is that it doesn’t help to pay for anything after a candidate actually gets elected. After winning, state legislators are expected to sacrifice many hours for many months for a low-paying job with relatively little benefits. That’s a big part of the reason that Clean Elections, in and of itself, hasn’t done much to expand the diversity of the Legislature: it’s still mainly younger or retired people serving.

So, then, if we’re going to expand the use of Clean Election money to cover child care, why not add that as a benefit for legislators? This bill encourages twin slippery slopes: letting candidates expand their expenses with little oversight, and opening the door to expanding benefits for legislators.

If we’re going to make changes to the Clean Elections program, they ought to be specific, focused and face the rigors of voter approval. The bill is still pending before the Senate, which is good. As written, it’s not ready for prime time.