By Senate President Michael Thibodeau
When I first ran for office the notion of asking my friends and neighbors to donate their hard-earned dollars to my campaign just didn’t feel right. Like it can be for many political first-timers, simply going door-to-door or speaking before a gathered crowd was unnerving. Fundraising can be difficult for folks just jumping into politics, and I understand that. During my time in the State Legislature, I have run both as a clean elections candidate and a traditional candidate.
However, I am firmly opposed to expanding the Clean Elections program as Question One on Tuesday’s ballot seeks to do.
Proponents of this referendum claim that increasing the amount of money available to those who use clean elections will increase the number of “ordinary people” running for office. In this regard, they have a solution in search of a problem. Maine has a citizen legislature, and I’ve been lucky enough to serve with those who’ve made their livings as plumbers, teachers, carpenters, firefighters, paper workers, and bus drivers. The notion that the Maine State Legislature is comprised of deep-pocketed elitists is easily proven wrong by a quick look at the bios of those who are actually serving. You don’t need to take my word for it, even a Question One supporter pointed out in a recent email blast that the legislature is indeed comprised of “more everyday Mainers” than ever before. In fact, in 2014 – the most recent election cycle for the Maine State Legislature – more than half of candidates for the State House used the current clean elections system. The simple truth is no Mainer is being shut out from running for office because of a lack of funding.
What is most troubling is the funding mechanism used to nearly double, or in some cases, triple the amount of money for the Clean Elections Act if Question One were to pass. The initiative calls for lawmakers to find the $6 million to increase clean elections funding by ending certain tax refund programs. The two programs that are always immediately brought to the chopping block when there is a call for increased funding to government programs are the Business Equipment Tax Exemption Program (BETE) and the Business Equipment Tax Reimbursement Program (BETR). Should we end these programs, we will see truncated investments, rattling our fragile recovery and leading to fewer good-paying jobs.
An additional concern is that BETE reimbursements go directly to the towns where businesses using the program are located. Ending BETE could force local municipalities to choose either cuts in services or an increase to local property taxes.
We cannot risk ending these programs that invest in our economy to invest in politicians.
For many Mainers, too much money is spent on political campaigns. Increasing the funds available under the Clean Elections Act – meaning more taxpayer-provided money for political campaigns – to lessen the impact money has in elections escapes logic. And, although the transparency and disclosure portions of this initiative may warrant discussion, the specter of ending successful economic drivers in the state’s tax code so more mailers, bumper stickers, and TV advertisements can crowd out all thought every two years is not good public policy.
The current program of clean elections – one that is already widely used – is sufficient. There is no reason to increase the amount of money available to politicians at the expense of good jobs, vibrant business investment, and increased property taxes. That is why, on November 3rd, I am voting No on One.