South Dakota Republicans want a second bite at the apple when it comes to creating a secret, multi-million-dollar slush fund at the expense of schools, hospitals, and other state priorities – and they’re planning to trample the rights of voters to get their way.

South Dakota Democrats blew the whistle on the GOP scheme late last week:

“In blatant disregard for the will of the voters, Ruling Class Republicans are trying to thwart the right of voters to decide the fate of Referred Law 14,” says Ben Nesselhuf, Chairman of the South Dakota Democratic Party. “This is an unprecedented, arrogant, and potentially illegal affront to the Democratic process, and the legislature should be ashamed for even contemplating it.”

Passing the House Commerce and Energy Committee today, SB 170 repeals HB 1230, the underlying measure of Referred Law 14, which takes 22% of the contractor’s excise tax from schools and hospitals that depend on the general fund to create a new large projects development fund, and replaces it with a plan that takes 18% of the contractor’s excise tax for the new large projects development fund. Over 23,000 South Dakotans signed a petition to refer the original measure in June, 2011.

How much money is at stake here? The underlying bill could have added up a $300 million giveaway to special interests over 15 years, so some quick math reveals that the new legislation would “only” take about $245 million away from South Dakota taxpayers or the schools, hospitals, and other priorities that make the state attractive to employers in the first place.

What’s more, the decisions on who gets money the and how much they receive would largely be made in secret, depriving the public of an opportunity to hold the officials in charge of the fund accountable for money spent and jobs supposedly created. Needless to say, the original plan was deeply unpopular:

This bill is deeply unpopular with voters in South Dakota: Public Policy Polling found that 62% of South Dakotans oppose the corporate give-away, while only 19% liked the idea. 18% were undecided. The poll questioned 1,667 voters between Feb. 25-27, 2011, and has a margin of error of +/- 2.4%.

Local newspapers and even GOP Governor Dennis Daugaard – who originally proposed the slush fund – are publicly opposing GOP legislators’ end run around the voters. So if Republican legislators decide that their views are more important than the voters’, they will truly be alone in their island of corruption.

The Nevada Senate is shaping up to be one of the toughest state legislative battlegrounds of 2012, but lately the cards have fallen unkindly for Nevada Senate Republicans in their bid to end Senate Democrats’ 11-10 majority.

Two unexpected developments re-shuffled the deck in Democrats’ favor. First, Democratic Senator Sheila Leslie – who wasn’t even supposed to be on the ballot until 2014 – decided to switch from her strongly Democratic district and run instead in an adjacent, tossup district up for grabs this fall. But while the 15th District may technically be new to her, it’s an area where voters know Senator Leslie well:

Leslie said she was confident in her ability to win the split district, which includes much of her old Assembly district. Recent district voting in major races has leaned Democratic: In 2010, U.S. Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., won the district with 54 percent of the vote, and President Barack Obama won with 57 percent in 2008.

Still, the district includes affluent, Republican-leaning neighborhoods in Washoe County, as well as much of the conservative district once represented by former Assemblywoman Sharron Angle.

Less than a week after this news broke, one of the Senate GOP’s most vulnerable incumbents – in the 2014 Election – abruptly resigned in the 9th District, citing personal reasons.

Republicans had complained bitterly about the court-imposed redistricting plan that boosted Democratic performance in the 9th District; they were so pessimistic of their chances that they openly accused the redistricting special master of engineering the “judicial ouster” of the GOP Senator there by creating a “strongly Democratic and wholly non-competitive” district.

At the time, Republicans’ lone silver lining was that incumbent Elizabeth Halseth would still hold the seat until 2014. Now her Democratic-leaning district will be added to the ballot this fall:

The resignation could spell trouble for state Senate Republicans, who are outnumbered 11-10 by Democrats, and had expected to hold Halseth’s seat for another two years. After redistricting last year, Democrats have a voter registration advantage in the district, and many expect Halseth’s resignation to all but ensure their continued majority in the Senate.

Taken together, these two events have turned Nevada Senate Democrats from underdogs into favorites in less than a week, but there’s still a lot of work to do to preserve the narrow, 11-10 Democratic majority.

For starters, the math in the other districts up in 2012 still favors Republicans. Thanks to staggered terms, only three GOP-held districts were originally supposed to be up for election this year – the survivors of the 2008 wave. Democrats were defending seven seats, five of which were open due to term limits or retirements; two of those open seats are in vulnerable swing districts picked up in the 2008 wave.

But now the GOP’s mathematical advantage has disappeared. Instead of Democrats having to nearly run the table to win a majority, it's the Republicans who must do so. Anything is possible, but we wouldn't bet good money on the GOP's chances.

If the Scouts gave out merit badges for outrageous right-wing conspiracy theories, Indiana state Rep. Bob Morris would be sewing one on his sash right about now. 

Faced with the prospect of signing a resolution celebrating the 100^th anniversary of the Girl Scouts of America, Rep. Morris opted to troll ultra-conservative websites in search of reasons to denounce the beloved organization. He stated as much in a letter he sent to his fellow GOP lawmakers on Saturday. 

This past week I was asked to sign a House Resolution recognizing the 100th Anniversary of Girl Scouts of America. After talking to some well-informed constituents, I did a small amount of web-based research, and what I found is disturbing. 

Rep. Morris claims that, despite evidence from both organizations that no such connection exists, the Girl Scouts of America have entered into some sort of unholy alliance with Planned Parenthood. 

The Girl Scouts of America and their worldwide partner, World Association of Girl Guides and Girl Scouts (WAGGGS), have entered into a close strategic affiliation with Planned Parenthood. You will not find evidence of this on the GSA/WAGGGS website—in fact, the websites of these two organizations explicitly deny funding Planned Parenthood. 

Nonetheless, abundant evidence proves that the agenda of Planned Parenthood includes sexualizing young girls through the Girl Scouts, which is quickly becoming a tactical arm of Planned Parenthood. 

The Republican legislator goes on to accuse the Girls Scouts of supporting transgender lifestyles and idolizing “feminists, lesbians, [and] Communists.” 

He also takes a provocative swipe at First Lady Michelle Obama. 

The fact that the Honorary President of Girl Scouts of America is Michelle Obama, and the Obama’s are radically pro-abortion and vigorously support the agenda of Planned Parenthood, should give each of us reason to pause before our individual or collective endorsement of the organization. 

Fun fact: Every First Lady since Edith Wilson in 1917 has followed the tradition of serving as honorary National President of the Girl Scouts. Did Morris find them so objectionable when Laura Bush was the organization’s honorary leader? 

He goes on to share that he’s pulling his two daughters out of their local Girl Scout troop. 

I have two daughters who have been active in the Girl Scouts of Limberlost Council in Northeastern Indiana. Now that I am aware of the influence of Planned Parenthood within GSA and other surprisingly radical policies of GSA, my two daughters will instead become active in American Heritage Girls Little Flowers organization. In this traditional group they will learn about values and principles that will not confuse their conservative Hoosier upbringing. 

American Heritage Girls’ tradition dates back only to 1995, when they were founded by a group of women “who were looking for a wholesome program that offered some more clearly defined Christian moral guidelines than they felt the international Girl Scouts organization provided.” 

Read the letter in its entirety here. 

When Rep. Morris wrote the letter, he was the only member of the Indiana House who refused to sign the centennial resolution. He now claims that some of his colleagues will remove their names, as well. 

Democratic House Leader and DLCC board member Pat Bauer blasted Rep. Morris in a press release questioning the Republican’s priorities. 

"Attacking the Girl Scouts won't create a single job,” said Rep. Bauer. “It won't address rising gas costs or energy bills this winter. These absurd attacks are simply another example of Republicans being out of touch with the challenges facing Hoosier families." 

DLCC Commemorates Anniversary of Historic Wisconsin Protest

Washington, DC - Today Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee Executive Director Michael Sargeant issued the following statement on the one-year anniversary of the historic legislative protest against Republicans’ vicious attacks on Wisconsin unions and working families. 

“One year ago today, Wisconsin Senate Democrats stood up to the tyranny of Gov. Scott Walker and his GOP statehouse cronies in a pivotal moment in the fight against right-wing extremism,” said Sargeant. “By taking a historic stand against the Republican assault on working families, the ‘Wisconsin 14’ became a symbol of the Democratic commitment to standing up for the middle class. 

“The Wisconsin Senate Democrats set a movement in motion,” Sargeant continued. “What began as one protest in one legislative chamber soon spread to Ohio, Indiana, and beyond, and now has led to a national conversation about the Republican war on middle-class values. 

“The fight is far from over. In Wisconsin, citizens are still fighting to free themselves from the GOP’s stranglehold on political power. Republicans in state capitols across the country continue their attacks on working families. 

“But Democrats continue to fight back every step of the way, and voters are rebuking GOP candidates and policies all over the country. The string of Democratic victories in state legislative elections over the past year reveals that voters are repeatedly and thoroughly rejecting statehouse Republicans’ out-of-touch, anti-middle class agenda.” 

Democrats Sweep Valentine's Day Special Elections

DLCC Celebrates Upset Wins in Oklahoma, Maine

Washington, DC - Democrats have added to a growing tally of special election wins yet again. Last night Curtis McDaniel and Al McAffrey won landslide victories in Oklahoma legislative elections, and in Maine Chris Johnson scored a big win in a state Senate contest. The Oklahoma House seat and the Maine Senate seat previously were held by Republicans. Michael Sargeant, Executive Director of the Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee, issued the following statement regarding these victories. 

“These Democrats’ wins are huge triumphs not only for the residents of these districts, but also for Democrats across the country,” said Sargeant. “Adding two new seats to the Democratic column in two different regions of the country represents a concrete victory in the nationwide fight for working families, kids, and middle-class values.

“Voters are rebuking GOP candidates and policies all over the country,” Sargeant continued. “Republicans exploited their opportunities to legislate by forcing extreme policies through their statehouses, and as we’ve seen in states like Ohio and Wisconsin, voters aren’t standing for it. These Democratic victories are part of a broad and continuing rebuke of statehouse Republicans’ out-of-touch, anti-middle class agenda.” 

These wins are only the latest in a series of state legislative special elections in which Democrats have won or overperformed. As this trend persists, Republican state legislators across the country should consider themselves on notice: voters are repeatedly and thoroughly rejecting the brand of right-wing extremism the GOP is pushing in statehouses.

Republicans in at least five states are super excited about Convention…. But not the one in Tampa this August. 

GOP state legislators in Arizona, Arkansas, Georgia, Ohio, and Virginia have all introduced legislation calling for an “amendments convention” at which amendments to the U.S. Constitution concerning the federal debt limit, balanced budgets, and other fiscal measures will be proposed. 

Arizona, Arkansas, Georgia, and Virginia all want “an amendment to the Constitution of the United States providing that an increase in the federal debt requires approval from a majority of the legislatures of the separate states.” 

Virginia and Ohio go so far as to call for a balanced budget amendment. Virginia’s House Joint Resolution No. 100 is the most extensive proposal of all of these: 

RESOLVED by the House of Delegates, the Senate concurring, That the Commonwealth of Virginia hereby applies to the Congress of the United States to call an amendment convention pursuant to Article V of the United States Constitution for the purpose of amending the constitution to require a balanced federal budget and prohibit unfunded mandates by Congress to the states. The Virginia Delegation to such convention, when called, shall propose the following amendment:

“Section 1. The public debt of the United States shall not be increased, unless agreed by two-thirds of the whole number of each House, and for periods not to exceed one year, with the names of the persons voting for and against recorded.

"Section 2. Congress shall make no law compelling the appropriation of money by any state, unless such state is compensated by Congress by at least an equal appropriation of money and not less than annually. Any conditions applied by Congress related to the expenditure of such money by any state shall be specific to its use.

"Section 3. The provisions of Section 2 shall become effective five years after ratification, and shall apply to laws made prior to and after ratification.” 

Meanwhile, GOP legislators in other states are attempting to make a different sort of, but no less dramatic, change to the way government operates. 

Some Republican lawmakers in Tennessee , New Hampshire, and Oklahoma are sick and tired of their state Supreme Courts overturning their unconstitutional laws. So they’re proposing bills that would strip the judicial branch of its authority to rule on the constitutionality of legislation. 

“The executive, legislative and judicial branches were created separate but equal, but the judiciary has overstepped their bounds,” says Republican state Senator Mae Beavers, the lead sponsor of the Tennessee bill. Beavers wants to amend the state code to take away the state Supreme Court’s jurisdiction to rule on the question of whether a law is or is not constitutional. “They’re not just interpreting the law, but making policy.” 

New Hampshire’s battle over the authority of the state Supreme Court has its roots in President Obama’s health care law. Last fall, the Court issued an advisory opinion denying the state legislature the authority to force the Attorney General to join a multi-state lawsuit against the new law. Some outraged Republicans are taking steps this year to prevent the judicial branch from issuing unfavorable rulings in the future. 

[This bill] attempts to amend the state Constitution so that “the supreme court shall determine the constitutionality of judicial acts and the legislature shall determine the constitutionality of legislative acts.”

The amendment’s lead sponsor, Republican state Representative Gregory Sorg, says he’s introduced this amendment for the last four legislative sessions, and each time the interest has grown. “(Judicial review) makes judges more powerful and helps legislators avoid making tough calls,” Sorg says. 

In Oklahoma, freshman Republican Sen. Ralph “Fetus Food” Shortey wants to not only remove the state Supreme Court’s ability to determine the constitutionality of legislation, but also seeks to abolish the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals. 

Shortey proposes to put two state questions before voters. One would ask them to abolish the state Court of Criminal Appeals and the second, to eliminate the Oklahoma Supreme Court's power to review the constitutionality of laws.

It's unclear what replaces the Court of Criminal Appeals that handles hundreds of criminal appeals and writs affecting life and liberty. Shortey does, however, specify what gets subbed in for the Supreme Court on judicial review - a snarky-sounding body called the "Ad Hoc Court of Constitutional Review" - players TBA later. My guess is the Legislature gets to pack that "court." 

So Republicans disappointed in their inability to use their state Supreme Courts as their very own partisan Star Chambers are trying to vitiate those Courts’ authority. Maybe these same folks spent their childhoods changing the rules of games they couldn’t win. 

Judicial review was actually practiced in the states before it became established on the federal level by Marbury v. Madison. From 1776 until the Constitutional Convention in 1787, courts in at least seven of the thirteen states had engaged in judicial review and had used it to invalidate state statutes. 

Now Republican state legislators who swore to uphold their state and federal constitutions are trying to manipulate these documents to meddle in federal fiscal affairs and to produce state policy outcomes more to their liking. 

Meanwhile, their constituents back home are waiting on these GOP lawmakers to take action to create jobs, improve schools, fix roads, and otherwise tend to their states’ actual needs. 

Republicans need to stop wasting legislative time and resources on partisan overreach and doing real work for real people. 

But will they? The jury’s still out.

About a year ago, we took a look at Republicans in a handful of state legislatures who had declared their lack of faith in the U.S. economy by proposing bills to permit their states to accept gold and silver as legal tender and/or to mint their own gold or silver money. 

(Fun fact: Such a bill actually passed Utah’s GOP-controlled legislature and was signed into law by the state’s Republican governor.) 

Well, the right-wing ideologues and conspiracy theorists with no faith in our nation’s economy are at it again. 

Worried that the Federal Reserve and the U.S. dollar are on the brink of collapse, lawmakers from 13 states, including Minnesota, Tennessee, Iowa, South Carolina and Georgia, are seeking approval from their state governments to either issue their own alternative currency or explore it as an option. 

While Article I, Section 10 of the U.S. Constitution prohibits states from issuing their own currency, it does permit states to make “gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts.” 

Citing concerns with nonexistent “hyperinflation” and baseless fears that the Federal Reserve could collapse at any moment, an increasing number of extreme right-wing Republicans in states are attempting to use this clause as a way to push the country back towards the gold standard (which often is blamed for prolonging the Great Depression and was abandoned in 1933). But returning to a gold (or silver) standard would leave our nation completely powerless to control our own monetary policy, often tying inflation rates to completely arbitrary factors such as the rate that gold is mined on other continents, rather than to the interests of a national economy. It also leaves us without one of our most important tools to push back against economic downturns. 

But that’s not stopping GOP presidential candidates from pushing for it on the national level. 

Ron Paul is sponsoring the "Free Competition in Currency Act," which would allow states to introduce their own currencies, and rival Newt Gingrich is calling for a commission to look at how the country can get back to the gold standard. 

Basically, state-issued currencies are a “terrible” idea, according to at least one economic scholar. 

"Having 50 Feds" could debase the U.S. dollar and even potentially lead the country into default, he said. "The single currency in the United States is working just fine," said [Vanderbilt University economics and finance professor David] Parsley. "I have no idea why anyone would want to destroy something so successful -- unless they actually wanted to destroy the country." 

Thirteen state legislatures reportedly are using taxpayer resources to consider bills to either issue their alternative gold- or silver-based currency, accept other gold or silver coinage as legal tender, or to study such proposals. These states include (click to see the actual bills): 

• Alabama
• Colorado
• Idaho
• Iowa
• Minnesota
• North Carolina
• Pennsylvania
• South Carolina
• Virginia
• Washington

So instead of dealing with real issues facing their states – unemployment, education funding, job creation, infrastructure maintenance and development, to name just a few – these Republicans waste time and resources airing their economy-undermining, right-wing conspiracy theories. 

This local legal tender push is just one terrible idea among many popping up across statehouses this year, but it may take the gold as the proposal with the least basis in rational thought.

Last night, The Daily Show skewered Florida state Rep. Scott Plakon (R-Hypocrisyville) for pushing a policy requiring welfare applicants to be tested for drugs while failing to subject other Floridians who receive taxpayer dollars – like state legislators – to the same level of scrutiny.

Although this drug testing program has cost Florida taxpayers $200,000 and has been halted by a federal judge, many other states are scrambling implement similar rules. Last year, bills requiring drug screenings for welfare recipients were filed in 36 states, but passed in only Florida, Arizona, and Missouri. This year, states already hearing legislation on the matter include Virginia, Indiana, Kentucky, Tennessee, Pennsylvania, and Georgia, to name only a few. 

Some of the Republicans in state legislatures considering welfare drug testing bills may find themselves on the other end of the plastic cup, so to speak. Some Democrats are objecting to the singling-out of only one of the many groups who receive taxpayer money by broadening the application of this principle. 

In Tennessee: 

G.A. Hardaway, D-Memphis, said lawmakers should have to take the same drug test that a new law would require for welfare recipients.

Hardaway said he has heard from his constituents and some have asked how the public can be sure that lawmakers are not on drugs.

He said the voter had a valid point, and he plans to file his General Assembly drug test bill if the welfare drug test issue surfaces before lawmakers. 

In Georgia (where a sponsor of that state’s welfare drug testing bill has been charged with a DUI, interestingly):

[Democratic state Rep. Scott] Holcomb’s bill, HB 677, would require anyone elected to serve in the General Assembly to undergo mandatory drug testing within three months of taking office or beginning any subsequent term. Failing would mean removal from office. “[W]e should lead by example,” Holcomb said, and “shouldn’t expect others to live by standards that we don’t uphold ourselves.” 

In Indiana, a bill that would require drug testing of both welfare recipients and state legislators is actually moving forward. 

[GOP state Rep. Jud] McMillin initially proposed a pilot program for drug testing only welfare applicants, but last week state Rep. Ryan Dvorak (D-South Bend) amended the bill to include drug and alcohol testing for lawmakers. … Indiana is the first state where lawmaker drug testing has actually advanced, though the measure's fate in the state senate is uncertain. 

Even some Republicans in the Missouri legislature have gotten on board with the drug-testing-of-state-legislators thing, judging by a bill filed last month. 

Bills targeting the needy for expensive, unnecessary, and invasive testing betray an ugly stereotype too many GOP legislators seem to hold. Assuming that citizens with extremely low -- or no -- income have substance abuse problems or are somehow “criminal” and “undeserving” of public assistance is a brand of bigotry that has no place in any state of our great nation. 

The enemies of working families have taken their loathsome cause to Arizona. 

Just this week, Gov. Jan Brewer and her GOP cronies in the state legislature unleashed the latest in an ever-lengthening series of extremist attacks on organized labor and working families. 

At issue is a sweeping series of restrictions that would, among other things, ban unions that represent workers in state, county or city governments from engaging in any type of negotiations that affect the terms of their employment. That includes teachers, prison workers and the state’s powerful police and firefighters unions. The move would take away much of the power those unions have and turn them into something more akin to trade groups. 

The bills have one more Senate committee to clear before the full chamber can vote on the measures. Thanks in part to gerrymandering, Democrats are badly outnumbered in the Arizona state Senate, so the bills will almost certainly pass and be taken up by the GOP-controlled House by the end of next week. 

Arizona Democrats are outraged not only by the attacks themselves, but also by the scurrilous smears against public employees conservatives are using as justification for these ugly bills. 

``The Republican majority has established themselves to be very much anti-employee,'' said Sen. David Lujan, D-Phoenix. ``It's just another strike at those who choose to be public service employees. Their voice is not valued.'' 

Representatives of teachers, firefighters, and police in the state are -- understandably --extremely worried about the effects of these bills, should they become law. 

[Head of the Arizona Police Association Brian] Livingston said he thought the senators had been fed “misinformation” by the Goldwater Institute, a conservative think tank in Phoenix that helped write the bills.

But Livingston said the lawmakers needed to be reminded of the facts on the ground, like the dangers of police work and the reality that unions in Arizona aren’t as powerful as many of their critics make them out to be.

Still, Livingston didn’t know what exactly his organization would do if the bills become law.

“It would cause utter chaos,” he said. “You will see a devastating effect to employee moral[e]. You will see, I believe, a hampering of the good services that our services provide to the public as we know it.” 

While it’s tempting to compare the Arizona GOP’s new assault on collective bargaining and working families to the brutal attack by Gov. Scott Walker and Wisconsin Republicans last year, it’s worth noting that the Arizona proposals are even worse. Wisconsin’s law rendered public sector unions effectively irrelevant by limiting the issues over which a government and an employee group could bargain. Arizona’s bills seek to do away with collective bargaining entirely. The Arizona bills also include public safety unions (police, firefighters), which are exempted by the Wisconsin law. 

After last year’s epic battles over workers’ rights in Wisconsin, Ohio, and Indiana, we’d hoped these fights were behind us, and that even GOP-controlled state legislatures would get down to the business of creating jobs and opportunity for their citizens. 

Instead, Indiana just became the 23^rd so-called “right to work” state in the country. New Hampshire Republicans are broadening their assault on collective bargaining to include special attacks on public workers. Minnesota Republicans are trying to avoid the Democratic governor’s inevitable veto by placing a so-called “right to work” law on the ballot in November. 

Voters in Wisconsin and Ohio have already firmly rebuked these extreme attacks on workers’ rights. GOP overreach nationwide has helped fuel a positive trend in special elections around the country. As this trend continues, Republican state legislators across the country should consider themselves on notice: voters are repeatedly and thoroughly rejecting the brand of right-wing extremism the GOP is pushing in statehouses. 

Republicans clearly have no interest in setting their extremism aside to promote policies that actually help those hit hardest by high unemployment and state budget cuts. Working families in Arizona, Indiana, Minnesota, and all across the country deserve better.

A campaign embezzlement scandal has now cost a Maine state Representative not one, but two jobs on the public payroll.

Two weeks ago, GOP state Rep. David Burns resigned his position on the town of Alfred’s Board of Selectmen, after the Maine Ethics Commission found Burns guilty of, quote, “mind-boggling” ethics violations and referred the matter for criminal prosecution:

Ethics commission chairman Walter McKee, during the November hearing, called Burns’ actions “mind-boggling.”

“I certainly have never seen anything at this level in terms of severity,” said McKee at the hearing.

As well as finding Burns guilty of violating campaign finance laws, the ethics commission referred the matter to the attorney general’s office for possible prosecution.

This week, the second shoe fell for Rep. Burns, who elected to resign his seat in the Maine House once it became apparent that criminal prosecution was unavoidable. House Minority Leader Emily Cain stressed the seriousness of the charges and the real damage they could do to Maine’s unique system of clean elections:

“The Clean Elections system is not an ATM for lawmakers and it shouldn’t be treated that way,” Cain said. “The system has been effective in keeping special interests out of elections and any abuse of it must be addressed swiftly.”

She added, “If Burns was a member of my caucus, I would have asked him to resign immediately once the ethics commission found him in violation of ethics law and the matter was referred to the attorney general for a criminal investigation.”

Rep. Burns’ alleged misdeeds might have gone unnoticed had his campaign finance reports not been randomly selected for post-election auditing. Once they were, certain discrepancies immediately caught ethics watchdogs’ attention.

His reports listed mileage reimbursements (paid to himself) for driving 4,289 miles – which is the rough equivalent of driving from Burns’ Alfred, Maine home to Moscow. That distance also “significantly exceeds the claim of any other House candidate,” according to the Ethics Commission, including candidates with districts far larger than Burns’ 20-mile-across 138th District.

Ethics Commission investigators dug deeper, and they quickly “determined that Rep. Burns spent at least $2,500 of public funds for personal purposes and that expenditures totaling at least $1,295 were falsely reported in his campaign finance reports.” As a Clean Elections candidate, those funds originally came from the taxpayers, as part of the Maine Clean Elections Act, which makes Burns’ alleged actions even more egregious.

Burns’ 138th district – which he won by fewer than 200 votes in 2010 – will likely be filled by a special election.

[h/t Dirigo Blue]