(C) Common Dreams
This story was originally published by Common Dreams and is unaltered.
. . . . . . . . . .



Our View: Vote ‘yes’ on Maine’s 5 referendum questions [1]

['The Editorial Board']

Date: 2024-10-14

Compared with more prickly referendum questions of prior years, the five on this year’s Maine ballot struck us as straightforward.

The first question is largely spiritual-philosophical (if that can be said of spending on political campaigns in 2024), the fifth question is arguably a question of personal taste (on which, sending it up the flagpole, the members of this editorial board mercifully found themselves aligned). And the three in the middle pertain to government borrowing and spending under three uncontroversial headings: innovation in business, historic preservation and the great outdoors. This editorial board has been an outspoken supporter of timely and significant public investment in our local economy – and in the places that are used and cherished in common throughout Maine. We were glad to have an opportunity to extend that thinking to this ballot.

Vote ‘yes’ on Question 1 to send an important message

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?

The first question on Maine’s ballot this year is the product of a citizen initiative; more than 75,000 people lent their signatures to a petition, turned in this past January, to bring the question to a vote. As it stands, Maine state law limits contributions to candidates, not political action committees that spend to elect or defeat candidates.

It is time to impose a limit.

Advertisement

The proposed $5,000 spending limit would apply only to political action committees’ (PACs, more commonly, by now a household-name feature of our politics) spending on races involving candidates. It would place no cap on what individuals or groups could donate to ballot question committees or to political party committees.

This leaves more than enough leeway, in our view, for political contributions of other kinds. Question 1, if passed, will be challenged in the courts, which is by design; its supporters have their sights set on a new Supreme Court ruling. Mainers have, time and again, made clear their dissatisfaction with the unbridled influence of money in politics, be it in the form of the PAC or the Super PAC, as a 2023 survey revealed, or in the form of foreign spending on referendum campaigns – a ban on which was supported by more than 86% of voters last November.

Ours would be the first state in the nation since the Supreme Court’s Citizens United ruling in 2010 to move to limit contributions to PACs that can make independent expenditures. We believe that political spending has spiraled out of control, in many cases, and that the absence of any limit on PACs is inappropriate and leaves America’s system of campaigning and voting vulnerable to the whims of bad actors. If Maine can play a leading role in bringing some order and fairness to political spending nationally, we should seize the chance.

Vote ‘yes’ on Question 2 if you care about business

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?

“Our state is at an inflection point,” Sen. Teresa Pierce, D-Falmouth, the sponsor of the legislative bill that became Question 2, said in testimony last April. “If we are to remain competitive in a rapidly growing economy, the time to invest in and expand our industries is now.”

Advertisement

Our editorial board stands in firm agreement with Pierce on this point. Question 2 is the first of three questions pertaining to bond issuances on the November ballot. If approved, Question 2 would make $25 million in grant funding available to deserving research and development, or R&D, and commercialization projects in seven named sectors (listed in the wording above), each of them more relevant and meritorious by the day.

We’re able to take stock of valuable precedent here, too: In 2017, Maine voters approved (61% voted “yes”) a bond of twice this size for grants to be awarded by the Maine Technology Institute. According to that body, $45 million was invested in 18 projects (183 proposals for funding were submitted, with every county in the state accounted for). Per an independent economic analysis, the investment will generate more than 5,000 jobs and $1.4 billion in overall economic impact for the state.

Too often we hear about how hard it is to do business in Maine. A well-timed grant can change everything for an entrepreneur with the will to succeed. With the potential for such cold, hard return on investment, and for the good of Maine’s reputation as a place for small and medium enterprise, Question 2 should be a open-and-shut case for voters.

Vote ‘yes’ on Question 3 for the good of historic buildings around Maine

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 is a modest amount of borrowing for a responsible end. If the state does not issue these competitive grants, there’s a very real risk of scores of interesting and meaningful buildings, buildings that are intrinsic to the “fabric” of Maine, falling into unconquerable dereliction and disrepair. We’re talking about the restoration of historic local buildings “such as public libraries, town halls, theaters, art galleries and community gathering places.”

Advertisement

Some might argue that this is a “nice to have” question, something that the state could simply do without funding.

But the risk we outlined above is, in our view, too significant an opportunity cost. We prefer to believe that badly needed restoration of spaces that should be maximized for the common good is something that will pay off; our communities benefit from having access to venues that are safe and welcoming, even inviting. We lose sight of and lose out on the value of our shared history without taking care to protect it. And we all benefit from taking steps to preserve historical structures in our towns and cities which, by and large, were much harder-won and far more thoughtfully constructed than their modern counterparts.

While a tranche of $10 million represents nothing like a panacea for this category of building statewide, if the alternative to this bond is to let government agencies and nonprofits across the state scrabble around for cash for very worthy and worthwhile restoration and repairs, we’d prefer to vote in favor of this shot in the arm.

Vote ‘yes’ on Question 4 to support Maine trails

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?

Although none of the three bond questions on this year’s ballot have been opposed by groups or campaigns, it’s especially hard to imagine coordinated opposition to a plan to invest $30 million in the expansion, improvement and upkeep of the jewels of Maine’s crown: its outdoor trails.

Advertisement

Indeed, a cursory glance at the long, long list of supporters of the so-called Maine Trails Bond speaks volumes. Could 75 Maine cities and towns, 168 Maine businesses, 41 ATV and snowmobile clubs, and organizations like the Maine Municipal Association, the Maine State Chamber of Commerce, Bicycle Coalition of Maine, Natural Resources Council of Maine, The Nature Conservancy, Maine Coast Heritage Trust, Appalachian Mountain Club and more … be wrong? We don’t think so.

This is the definition of a “bipartisan,” both-sides-of-the-aisle idea. By making our trails better and more accessible, we’re increasing their utility and their appeal. We’ll improve their chances of being used as commuter routes; of recruiting newcomers to outdoor recreation; and of linking up towns and cities in valuable ways. This is an investment in Mainers and much as it is in Maine. Our tourism and hospitality sectors stand to benefit greatly. Our children stand to benefit. Our environment stands to benefit, in the short term and the long. On top of all that, we’re particularly in favor of the provision for a private/public funding match, a mechanism that rightly seeks to mobilize local support for this most valuable – and lucrative – of our assets.

A “yes” vote for this bond gets us on the right track.

Vote ‘yes’ on Question 5 for ‘new’ state flag

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?

As Sunday columnist Victoria Hugo-Vidal observed recently: “It’s kind of nice to just be voting on a flag.”

Advertisement

And that it is. We’ll take it a step further: It’s kind of nice to be voting for a new and more visually arresting and appealing state flag.

In our conversations about the flag, we on the editorial board noted that we would not be supportive of Question 5 if it spelled the end of the road for the Maine state seal. We’re satisfied that that piece of official history (and its resident farmer, scythe, seaman and anchor) will live on, administratively, in statute and in other ways.

We also couldn’t have been in favor of a state flag design so new that it was brand new; as voters are by now very well aware, the design up for consideration is a version of the 1901 Maine state flag (in place until 1909). Not only does it pay homage to that time, it offers Maine a crisp, readily identifiable alternative to fly long into the present century. It will complement the new pine tree license plate, which takes the place of the chickadee next year.

Any reservations? A handful. For some tree devotees, the shape of the illustrated boughs come closer to a spruce than to a pine. We’ve also been sympathetic to the suggestion by people outside of the city that this smacks as a trendy “Portland thing.” Cost – financial and environmental – is also a concern. We hope that any exuberance over the change won’t interfere with the state’s pledge to gradually, mindfully phase the new flag in.

On balance, we are glad to lend our support for a cleaner, more bold flag.

[END]
---
[1] Url: https://www.pressherald.com/2024/10/14/our-view-vote-yes-on-maines-5-referendum-questions/

Published and (C) by Common Dreams
Content appears here under this condition or license: Creative Commons CC BY-NC-ND 3.0..

via Magical.Fish Gopher News Feeds:
gopher://magical.fish/1/feeds/news/commondreams/