Yes on Question 1
Democracy shouldn’t be for sale. That’s why I support Question 1 on the Nov. 3 ballot. Our voices should be central, and we need to know who is buying political advertising.
Since the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the lid has come off corporate political donations and directed a rush of money onto TV screens, airwaves and into mailboxes. We have a barrage of slick, expensive and often deceptive messages, with sponsors hidden from public view.
This “dark money” pays for advertising, controls the message and curries favor with politicians. In 2014, $3.7 billion was spent representing corporate boards and less than 1 percent of Americans. Money talks.
Question 1 increases fines and penalties for those who break election rules, increases transparency by requiring special interest groups to list their top three funders on purchased ads and strengthens Maine’s landmark Clean Election Act so candidates can competitively run for office without taking money from special interests.
A good litmus test for the integrity of Question 1 is its strong, broad support. Sen. Angus King and former Sen. George Mitchell, Maine Small Business Coalition and independents and Greens have endorsed Question 1. It’s refreshing to see a good idea receive wide support.
If you haven’t yet made up your mind, visit accountableelections.org. Please vote and encourage friends, family and neighbors to do the same. Let’s lead the nation with a robust voter turnout.
Caroline Pryor
Mount Desert
No on Question 1
In 1996, voters approved Maine Clean Elections. It seemed like a good idea at the time.
Voting no on this year’s Question 1 will not change Maine’s Clean Elections. Candidates can still run “clean.” The big difference is that the amount of money available to candidates running for the Maine House or Senate will be tripled, if they qualify for supplemental funds.
I was confused by the wording of Question 1 “to improve the disclosure of who pays for political ads.” After finding and reading the referendum in its entirety, I found that the top three donors have to be listed in the ad; however, if one of the top donors is a Political Action Committee, the title of the PAC has to be listed but not the donors to the PAC. How does this “improve the disclosure of who pays for political ads”?
Question 1 provides more money for “clean” candidates and PAC money still will not disclosed. That is why I’m voting no on Question 1.
Wanda Lincoln
Old Town
Protect your neighborhood
The Rockland City Council is crafting an ordinance to regulate short-term lodging. My hope is the zoning protections for residential neighborhoods in Rockland will not be gutted to appease investors who have purchased houses, turning them into mini hotels.
Rockland has 83 short-term rentals on Airbnb. Only 13 are for lodging in an owner-occupied residence, the most desirable and currently legal rentals, allowing residents to remain in their homes, send their kids to college or provide more income for necessities. Forty-three of the 70 nonowner occupied rentals are owned by investors who do not live in Rockland. More than half the short-term rental owners are from as far away as Santa Monica, California, where, by the way, short-term rentals have been banned.
Yes, we need and want tourism. But the effects of these mini hotels on our community are equally important. No guest in one of these mini hotels volunteers at the library or food pantry or coaches softball. They aren’t eating or shopping on Main Street in the dead of winter or checking on elderly neighbors or paying the kid next door to shovel. They contribute nothing to the fabric of our community, only briefly occupying properties that could be much needed long-term housing for residents.
Without restrictions on these mini hotels, any residential neighborhood could become the next business district. We must speak out. Come to the workshop at City Hall at 5:30 p.m. Wednesday, Oct. 28. Protect your neighborhood.
Carole Black
Rockland
Election notice
The BDN will stop accepting letters and OpEds related to the Nov. 3 election on Wednesday, Oct. 28.