During last fall’s campaign on Question 1, which sought to ban bear baiting, hounding and trapping, the Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife campaigned actively for the ballot measure’s defeat. The department paid for videos featuring its staff and sent its uniformed employees to speak with groups about why a “no” vote was necessary.
State and federal law prohibits government employees from campaigning for candidates, but the ban does not extend to ballot questions. It should.
A bill sponsored by Rep. Ralph Chapman, D-Brooksville, would close this loophole. LD 990 would prohibit state agencies from spending public funds to influence the outcome of referendum, initiative and peoples’ veto elections. All executive branch employees would also be barred from campaigning for or against ballot measures. The agencies and their employees could still provide “an impartial factual summary regarding what is at issue.”
“There is a proper place for an agency to offer expert opinion based on factual information,” Chapman said in an interview. But agency advocacy for or against a referendum “invites corruption.”
Chapman said he worries that public employees may be coerced into campaign advocacy by their supervisors. “It is not clear if they are politicking as part of their jobs,” he said.
“For government to work,” he said, “we have to have confidence that government is doing the people’s work, not half the people’s work.”
The Maine Commission on Governmental Ethics and Election Practices reviewed DIF&W’s activities late last year and determined that, in the future, such advocacy and spending should be reported in campaign finance reports. The commissioners agreed to advocate for such a law change. The commission rejected a stronger recommendation from its executive director to require that, in a similar situation, DIF&W would have had to register as its own ballot committee and meet reporting requirements, which would have made its expenditures public information.
In response to a request for information under the state’s Freedom of Access Act, the department said it spent $31,000 on materials and staff time related to Question 1. This included 165.5 hours of staff time, according to DIF&W records, although it said much of the work was done during unpaid time.
Beyond taxpayer money and time, there are good reasons to keep public employees — especially those who wear uniforms — out of campaign activity. Government officials in uniform and official vehicles convey a sense of power and authority to voters. The prospect that this sense of authority could improperly persuade voters is part of the reason state law forbids sheriffs and deputies from campaigning in uniform or while on duty.
At the federal level, the Hatch Act, which was passed in 1939, forbids federal employees from engaging in political activity while in uniform, while on duty and while using a government vehicle.
Maine has a version of the Hatch Act, but it applies only to candidate elections, not ballot question campaigns.
Chapman’s bill takes the important step of expanding the law to cover all elections.