Question 1, the “clean election reform” initiative, is a progressive assault on freedom hiding behind Orwellian language and hypocrisy. Advocates have trumpeted transparency and the dangers of money in politics, while so far raising at least $300,000 from out-of-state donors and pretending that they really do believe in free speech, just not for people and corporations on the right such as the Koch brothers.
“Clean Elections?” “Transparency?” Please. “Whitewashed Elections” would be the correct term.
“Clean Elections” pretends to reduce money’s influence and hides what these “reforms” will really do: give more taxpayer money to politicians and turn the state into a speech nanny. Question 1 should be worded, “Do you want to give EBT cards to politicians and empower the state to regulate speech?” That’s probably a little too transparent for some of the “yes” groups such as the Maine Center for Economic Policy and the League of Women Voters.
The Scholars Strategy Network, coordinated in Maine by partisan blogger Amy Fried, last month unsurprisingly found an out-of-state political scientist (affiliated with another sponsor group, Common Cause) to shill for a “yes” vote on Question 1. It goes well with the out-of-state money the interlocking coalition of progressive groups expect to spend to support their assault on the First Amendment and freedom.
Every round of campaign finance reform in Maine and the nation has challenged the plain language of the First Amendment: “Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or of speech, or of abridging the freedom the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”
For 40 years, there have been legislative “reforms” trying to close “loopholes” (i.e. abridge speech). Fortunately, the Supreme Court has protected our freedoms since 1976 by repeatedly affirming that money is speech. All the progressive caterwauling and misdirection can’t change that. It doesn’t matter who wants to speak: everyone’s speech is protected, even corporations’ and unions’, such as two of the groups backing Question 1, the Sierra Club and the Maine Education Association.
The campaign finance laws have been abused by the left to prosecute and harass those with whom they disagree. The IRS delayed or prevented certification of tea party groups for tax-exempt status, thereby curtailing both freedom of speech and association. In Wisconsin, progressives used campaign finance laws to hold Star Chamber investigations and prosecutions of citizens who supported Gov. Scott Walker.
Question 1 proposes to increase the campaign subsidies Maine is giving politicians by 50 percent, to be paid for by unspecified tax increases on job creators. Calls to further regulate political speech, to make sure the money is not being “misspent,” will soon follow. Should the proponents prevail, the state will be getting into the speech nanny business, but we’re pretty sure the Maine People’s Alliance and Maine Women’s Lobby aren’t worried.
Money in politics is not the cause of the crony capitalism and corruption that plague our country. Money in politics is a consequence of the progressive agenda for more and ever-expanding government. A powerful government that can enrich and/or impoverish attracts private interests seeking to profit or defend themselves. The solution is not an even more powerful government, as the progressives would have it, but rather a limited government, as the Constitution envisions.
Money in politics has the potential to counterbalance the political classes, promote ideological diversity and challenge the status quo. Money, speech and freedom intersect and reinforce one another. A “yes” vote will protect entrenched interests from critical speech and electoral rebuke and empower the government to decide what kind of political speech is allowed. No wonder the left thinks it’s a great idea.
Vote for freedom in Maine and tell the progressives and speech nannies: “What part of no don’t you understand?” Vote no on Question 1.
Jon Reisman is an associate professor of economics and public policy at the University of Maine at Machias. He can be contacted at jreisman@maine.edu. Matt Benner is an assistant professor of business and entrepreneurship at the University of Maine at Machias. He can be contacted at matthew.benner@maine.edu.