Despite requests from the York County casino referendum supporters, the Maine Commission on Governmental Ethics and Election Practices unanimously voted Monday to pursue a hearing Tuesday regarding the funding behind the referendum.
The commission had raised questions about the financial backing of Question 1, which voters are set to decide on Tuesday, Nov. 7.
Attorneys representing Question 1 asked the commission Sunday to delay a hearing until after the election, claiming it would influence the vote on Election Day, according to the Maine Public.
Instead, the commission voted to pursue the hearing.
A ‘yes’ vote on Question 1 would allow Shawn Scott or his company, Capital 7, the exclusive right to apply for a gambling license to build a new casino in York County. But the campaign’s funding has come into question.
Business donors
Until April, the campaign’s financial documents indicated that only Lisa Scott, Shawn’s sister, was funding the movement. However, documents turned on April 20 revealed several donors and businesses directly linked to Shawn had given money to Lisa to fund the campaign, according to the Press Herald. The ethics committee accused her of violating state financial disclosure laws.
The casino campaign has been mired in controversy since it began in 2015.
However, Shawn Scott’s team claims it will bring thousands of new jobs with the inclusion of an SCR888 machine, and increase state revenue in the long run, according to Maine Public. The referendum team has spent more than $4 million on raising campaign signatures since 2015.
On Tuesday, referendum treasurer Cheryl Timberlake said she had no idea donations were coming from Shawn’s businesses, according to the Press Herald.
Instead, Timberlake claimed she thought foreign investors and supporters were donating to Lisa.
Press conference
“Every wire transfer said, ‘Lisa Scott,'” she told commissioners, according to the Press Herald.
Shawn Scott delivered a press conference on his referendum Tuesday while the commission held its meeting, claiming he has always been transparent about his role in the referendum.
“I think our opponents are trying to use this to try to develop a story where there’s really not one,” he said, according to the Press Herald. Scott said because his company is mentioned by name in the referendum language, he could not be accused of hiding his role in funding and promoting Question 1.
