Twice in the past three decades — in 1996 and 2015 — Maine voters have strongly endorsed a voluntary public financing option for state elections.

Although it’s worked well in legislative races, nearly every candidate for governor in 2026 is shunning the system.

That ought to spur improvement in a program so important for the future of democracy.

Activist Betsy Sweet, one of the people who established the system in Maine, said she was sad to see it falling short of its promise: to empower ordinary people by sharply reducing the need for candidates to raise money from the wealthy.

In theory, at least, the Clean Elections system allows candidates who raise enough small-dollar donations to access the cash necessary to run a full campaign.

The “one thing that changes everything” is removing the power of rich donors, said Sweet, who lost in Democratic primaries for governor in 2018 and U.S. Senate in 2020.

Of the 16 active candidates for the state’s top job next year, only two are opting to participate in the Clean Elections program.

One of them, Republican state Sen. James Libby of Standish, said that while it was a “very difficult” decision for him, it was “the right choice.”

Running as a Clean Elections candidate in Maine “empowers a candidate to promote transparency and accountability in politics,” Libby told me. “It ensures campaign financing that does not include lobbyist dollars.”

Libby said that bypassing big money contributions means that if he moves into the Blaine House after the 2026 election, Mainers will have a governor who answers only to them.

At this point, though, only Libby and Republican Kenneth Capron, a retired finance director in Portland, have applied to participate.

The reason is straightforward: the Maine Clean Election Act program requires too much busywork, delivers too little money to candidates and hands the dollars over too late in the campaign.

“The Legislature has weakened it and weakened it and weakened it,” Sweet noted. She said lawmakers have failed to recognize its expense — $4.5 million for each of the past couple years — is paltry compared to the value of cutting the cord that ties political leaders to rich donors.

The process of raising small donations from thousands of people forces candidates to talk to everyday Mainers, Sweet said, while traditional financing leads to candidates spending most of their time in pursuit of big donors.

Libby, who opposes funding legislative races through the program, sees the value of it in gubernatorial contests.

“I feel in this case that taxpayers will receive value from taxpayer dollars allocated toward executive branch races, especially if a Clean Elections candidate wins,” Libby said.

Unfortunately for Libby, the odds are that one of the better-known contenders will wind up as Maine’s next governor.

That group includes independent Sen. Richard Bennett, former state Sen. President Troy Jackson, ex-House Speaker Hannah Pingree, Secretary of State Shenna Bellows, lawyer Robert Charles or Angus King III, son of Maine’s oldest senator.

All of them skipped public financing of their race. This isn’t unusual.

Back in 2022, former Gov. Paul LePage sought to unseat his successor, Democrat Janet Mills. Neither of them, nor independent Sam Hunkler, relied on Clean Elections cash.

Four years earlier, when LePage stepped down, three major contenders participated in the program: Sweet, Republican Garrett Mason and independent Terry Hayes. Mason and Sweet fell short in primaries while Hayes lost to Mills in a three-way general election.

Only twice in Maine has a major party nominee for governor chosen public financing: Republican Chandler Woodcock in 2006 and Democrat Libby Mitchell in 2010. Both lost badly. Woodcock, who did the best, snagged just 30% of the total in his race.

It’s clear that Maine’s politicians need to fix the Clean Elections system so that moneyed interests have less influence.

“It’s the way we should go,” Sweet said.