This November, Mainers will be asked to decide the fate of five issues on the ballot: two referendums and three bond issues. While Maine Policy wrote a post earlier this year summarizing each one, we have yet to discuss the policy implications of each question in greater detail. That analysis can be found below.
Question 1: An Act to Limit Contributions to Political Action Committees That Make Independent Expenditures
“Do you want to set a $5,000 limit for giving to political action committees that spend money independently to support or defeat candidates for office?”
Maine Policy has addressed this issue on several occasions. While restricting campaign contributions clearly has the admirable goal of stopping bribes and corruption, it has concerning impacts on free speech rights. The group behind this initiative, EqualCitizens.us, has admitted that the sole aim of this initiative is to bring the legal question to the U.S. Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has already effectively ruled on this issue by refusing to hear the appeal of the case SpeechNow.org v. FEC, but political giving limitations like those contained in Question 1 are meant to force the high court to reconsider.
In SpeechNow, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that contributions to a political organization like a PAC do not count as contributions to a candidate as long as that organization does not coordinate directly with the candidate and their campaign. This decision applied the same principle from the Supreme Court’s ruling in Citizens United, where the court ruled that independent expenditures count as political speech deserving First Amendment protections when done independently of a candidate running for office.
Even if this initiative somehow resulted in a reversal of Supreme Court precedent, the problem of political corruption would not be solved by Question 1. Setting aside free speech concerns, money in politics is an inevitability. There is no reason why those who run super PACs could not just make more PACs to bypass the $5,000 restriction proposed in Question 1. Even if successful, neutering super PACs would simply lead to an increase in issue-based advocacy. Essentially, this would result in even less transparency because the government would not be able to regulate issue-based advocacy (and nor should it) with the same level of scrutiny as direct candidate advocacy.
While political corruption is a valid concern for Americans, this ballot initiative is not the answer. There are better and more legally sound ways to combat corruption than this ballot question, such as reforming Maine’s public records law, known as the Freedom of Access Act, or campaign reporting laws, to increase government transparency.
Question 2: An Act to Authorize a General Fund Bond Issue for Research and Development and Commercialization
“Do you favor a bond issue of $25,000,000 to provide funds, to be awarded through a competitive process and to leverage matching private and federal funds on at least a one-to-one basis, for research and development and commercialization for Maine-based public and private institutions in support of technological innovation in the targeted sectors of life sciences and biomedical technology, environmental and renewable energy technology, information technology, advanced technologies for forestry and agriculture, aquaculture and marine technology, composites and advanced materials and precision manufacturing?”
This measure comes from a bill to spend $25 million to fund development and research on Maine-based innovation in life science, technology, environmental science, forestry, agriculture, and related sectors. Many of those who testified in support of this bill, Republican and Democrat alike, emphasized the role that this measure would have in stimulating these industries and encouraging younger generations to move to and stay in Maine.
Regardless of the Legislature’s support, increasing spending to subsidize markets can have negative consequences. If Maine wants to encourage industry growth, it should instead reduce regulatory and tax burdens. Further, this proposal is both broad and vague. There is legitimate concern whether this will create productive industry growth or prop up failing ventures.
It would be far more efficient to simply reduce Maine’s corporate income tax. This would ensure that no winners or losers are being hand-selected by the government, and would also help foster a more business friendly environment in the long term. For those making less than $350,000 in profit, the corporate tax rate is 3.5%. Reducing this rate would effectively target relief to businesses in a stable and consistent manner. This would do far more to help innovation than a one-time government grant.
Assuming such a program is necessary, there is simply no need to borrow money to fund it. Maine ended the fourth quarter of this fiscal year with a $93.5 million surplus. Making taxpayers pay interest on bonds when a surplus exists makes little financial sense.
Question 3: An Act to Authorize a General Fund Bond Issue to Restore Historic Community Buildings
“Do you favor a $10,000,000 bond issue to restore historic buildings owned by governmental and nonprofit organizations, with funds being issued contingent on a 25% local match requirement from either private or nonprofit sources?”
This $10 million bond issue would restore historic buildings throughout the State, requiring a partial match in local funding. As some noted during testimony, many historic sites in Maine saw a massive drop in traffic and attention during the COVID-19 pandemic. This reduced income and caused some to fall into disrepair. But we shouldn’t forget that it was largely government lockdown policy – in addition to the pandemic itself – that caused this economic harm.
Given the state’s role in creating the problem, it is reasonable and desirable for the state to help fix it. However, this ballot initiative is not the solution. For one, why this question asks for $10 million is unclear, and does not appear to stem from an explicit or quantifiable financial need among qualifying properties. These historical buildings and organizations could very well need more or less money to stay afloat–we truly don’t know. Furthermore, given the State’s surplus, there is no reason to have taxpayers take on future interest payments on this debt when it could simply appropriate money directly.
Question 4: An Act to Authorize a General Fund Bond Issue to Promote the Design, Development and Maintenance of Trails for Outdoor Recreation and Active Transportation
“Do you favor a $30,000,000 bond issue to invest in the design, development and maintenance for nonmotorized, motorized and multi-use trails statewide, to be matched by at least $3,000,000 in private and public contributions?”
This $30,000,000 bond issue would go towards designing, developing, and maintaining nonmotorized, motorized, and multi-use trails across the State conditioned upon a 10% match from public and private sources.
On its actual merits, this initiative is complex. While the construction of trails may seem like a purely environmental endeavor, it is not. There is a clear economic component as well. Trails help foster commuting, tourism, raise property values (and thus contribute to greater revenue from property taxes), and even improve health outcomes. All of these are positive externalities that come from outdoor recreation.
The problem is that there has been no concrete study on the exact impact these externalities have relative to the $30,000,000 outlined in this initiative. Such a study would be comprehensive and is unlikely to come about before November. In the absence of such a study, one could argue this initiative could pay for itself over time, but it would be difficult to prove the exact timeframe of this return on investment.
There is also a quality of life component, but this too is difficult to quantify. Essentially, whether or not this initiative is desirable comes down to one’s views on the quality of life improvement and perceived economic value stemming from outdoor recreation.
Beyond the actual initiative itself, the State does have a mandate to be involved in trail maintenance. After all, trails are a public good. However, financing trail maintenance and expansion via bonds is far from ideal given Maine’s current surplus. Ultimately, Question 4 is a multi-faceted policy question, the conclusion of which is entirely dependent on the value priorities of individual voters.
Question 5: An Act to Restore the Former State of Maine Flag
“Do you favor making the former state flag, replaced as the official flag of the State in 1909 and commonly known as the Pine Tree Flag, the official flag of the State?”
This question asks whether voters want to return to Maine’s state flag from 1909, which was reimagined in a recent flag drawing contest commissioned by the Department of the Secretary of State. Unlike our current flag, which is a blue field with the state seal, the flag would become a buff field with a blue star in the top left corner and a pine tree in the center.
1909 Flag
Current Maine State Flag
Replacing the flag might have some minor costs, and the proposal was passed largely along party lines in the Legislature. Ultimately, there is likely to be no overall impact from this ballot question on Mainers’ quality of life, besides the aesthetics of the state. Mainers should vote for whichever flag they like best.
Connor Feeney, of South Portland, currently serves as a policy intern at Maine Policy. Connor is a fourth-year undergraduate student at the University of Southern Maine studying political science and economics, and is expected to graduate in December 2024.