The Campaign to Cover: Maine Candidate’s Controversial Ink Becomes an Unlikely Political Story

In the high-stakes arena of political campaigning, every detail, no matter how personal, can be scrutinized. For Maine Senate candidate Eric Brakey, that scrutiny has recently turned to a symbol etched on his skin: a 'III%' tattoo. This isn’t just any tattoo; it’s one that has, over time, become synonymous with far-right extremism and domestic militia movements, posing a unique challenge to his campaign’s carefully curated image.

Brakey, a Republican, has been open about the tattoo, explaining its origins during a period when, he claims, the 'III%' symbol primarily represented a belief in limited government and individual liberty.

It was, according to him, a nod to the historical idea that only a small percentage of American colonists actively fought for independence during the Revolutionary War. A decade ago, when he got the tattoo, its interpretation was indeed more fluid, often associated with libertarian ideals.

However, the narrative surrounding the 'III%' symbol has shifted dramatically.

In recent years, it has been widely adopted by the “Three Percenters” militia movement, a group flagged by federal agencies and watchdog organizations for its anti-government stance, white nationalist ties, and propensity for violence. This evolution has transformed what Brakey once saw as a symbol of freedom into a potentially damaging political liability, conjuring images of extremism rather than patriotism.

Understanding the weight of this perception, Brakey has taken an unusual step: he covers the tattoo with makeup during public appearances and campaign events.

It’s a pragmatic move designed to prevent his past ink from overshadowing his present political platform. “I got this tattoo over a decade ago,” Brakey states, acknowledging the symbol’s unfortunate co-option. “Since then, it’s been co-opted by far-right groups, white nationalists, and domestic terrorists.” His decision to conceal it is an attempt to ensure his message on policy and governance, not a symbol he now disavows in its current context, is what resonates with voters.

This situation highlights the complex interplay between personal history and public office.

In an era where a candidate’s past, beliefs, and even aesthetic choices are endlessly dissected, managing optics becomes paramount. Brakey’s transparent yet preventative approach—explaining the tattoo’s original meaning while actively obscuring its now-controversial appearance—is a delicate dance.

It’s an effort to control the narrative, prevent distractions, and focus the electorate’s attention on the issues he believes matter most. Whether voters will see it as a commendable act of adaptability or a strategic evasion remains a crucial question for his Senate aspirations.