AUGUSTA, Maine – The Maine Commission on Governmental Ethics and Election Practices has voted to open an investigation into an anonymous website targeting Republican gubernatorial candidate Ben Midgley, escalating a dispute inside the already heated GOP primary for governor.

The commission voted Wednesday to investigate midgleyexposed.com, a website that attacked Midgley and included a disclaimer stating that it was not paid for or authorized by any candidate or candidate’s committee.

Midgley’s campaign filed the complaint, arguing that the website contained a false disclosure statement and was connected to the campaign of Republican gubernatorial rival Bobby Charles.

The website has since been taken down and is no longer accessible.

At issue is whether the site was financed by Charles, his campaign, or someone connected to his political operation, and whether the site was legally required to include a different campaign finance disclosure.

The Ethics Commission did not vote to investigate the Charles campaign directly. Instead, commissioners authorized staff to investigate the website itself to determine who paid for it and whether its disclaimer complied with Maine campaign finance law.

The complaint centers on a $50 campaign expenditure that Midgley’s team says links a Charles campaign consultant to the site. According to the Midgley campaign, the expenditure was connected to web services and suggests that someone working with Charles was behind the anonymous attack website.

The Charles campaign has denied involvement, arguing that the $50 expenditure cited in the complaint was reimbursement for a different domain and not evidence that the campaign financed or controlled midgeleyexposed.com.

Lauren LePage, campaign manager for Ben Midgley, told the Maine Wire, “The Maine Ethics Commission unanimously voted to investigate the purchaser of the website, with false attacks, after finding credible evidence that it may have been tied to the Charles campaign and that campaign finance laws may have been violated. Mainers deserve transparency in their elections. If candidates or their allies are funding false attacks on opponents, voters have a right to know who’s behind them. People are tired of anonymous smear campaigns and political games. They want leaders who stand behind their words and tell the truth.”

Bobby Charles responded to this article with, “Dirty lawfare, and smears from the desperate and flailing Midgley campaign. Sad this is the way they wanted to go out! As you mention Jon…”The Ethics Commission did not vote to investigate the Charles campaign directly.” The only one “allegedly” linking it to my campaign is the Midgley campaign stuck at 4% in the polls. It’s a complete lie, we worked with the ethics committee and answered all questions and they chose NOT to investigate us! It’s time to drain the swamp and end this sort of lawfare and politics. Shame on people using our systems to do this nonsense.”

The dispute lands less than two weeks before Maine’s June 9 primary, as Republican candidates battle for position in the open race to replace term-limited Democratic Gov. Janet Mills.

The GOP field has become increasingly competitive, with candidates looking to distinguish themselves on taxes, spending, welfare reform, energy costs, public safety, and the size of state government. But the Ethics Commission investigation shifts attention to campaign tactics, disclosure rules, and the growing use of political websites and digital attacks in statewide races.

Maine law requires political communications to properly disclose who paid for them, particularly when they are intended to influence voters. Anonymous or misleading political communications can trigger scrutiny from the Ethics Commission, which oversees campaign finance reporting, candidate committees, political action committees, independent expenditures, and other election-related disclosures.

For voters, the case raises a familiar election-year question: who is behind the political messages appearing online, and whether campaigns are being transparent about their role in producing them.

The Midgley campaign has portrayed the website as an undisclosed attack meant to damage him in the final stretch of the primary. The Charles campaign has framed the complaint as a political maneuver by a rival campaign trying to distract from the race.

The commission’s vote does not represent a finding that Charles or his campaign violated the law. It simply authorizes investigators to examine the financing and disclosure behind the website.

The timing, however, ensures the controversy will remain part of the Republican primary conversation as candidates make their closing arguments to voters.

With the site now offline, investigators will have to determine who created, paid for, or controlled the website, and whether the disclaimer that appeared on it accurately reflected its funding and authorization.

The Ethics Commission’s eventual findings could determine whether the matter ends as a campaign-season complaint or becomes a formal campaign finance violation.

Editors note: A quote from Bobby Charles was added to this article, after it first ran.