Chris Cinquemani's blog

On October 28, David Offer, the former executive editor of the Kennebec Journal, wrote a column in his old newspaper calling for Mainers to reconsider term limits for State Representatives and Senators.  I wonder where David was on November 6, 2007, when Maine voters decided to uphold the four consecutive term limit for state legislators.

Unfortunately, nobody was paying attention to this term limits column just eight days before a history-making presidential election and a referendum to repeal a $70 million tax increase. But now that election craziness has come to an end, revisiting the term limits discussion is appropriate in light of the recent antics of New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg and Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez.

Republicans across Maine were decimated on Election Day. Two incumbent Republican state senators were knocked off, and Democrats picked up additional seats in the State House, leaving Susan Collins as the only bright spot for the Maine GOP.

Many factors contributed to Republican losses. Obama-mania overshadowed discussions on legislative records and responsible reforms, the Democrats’ ground game identified new and existing Democrats and made sure they voted, and President Bush’s low approval ratings didn’t do Republicans any favors. While losses may have been inevitable with the political deck Republicans were dealt, a more effective Maine Republican Party might have mitigated those losses, or even held back the national blue wave.

In 1996, Mainers passed the Maine Clean Elections Act. The Act was supposed to remove special interests from campaign financing for Governor, State Senate and State House races. In the 12 years since, clean elections have become a massive burden on Maine taxpayers, another disadvantage to challengers facing an incumbent, and a limit on our right to support candidates.

Maine’s clean elections are taxpayer-funded political campaigns. Candidates qualify for taxpayer funding by collecting a certain amount of $5 checks from residents of the districts they hope to represent. Clean election candidates for Governor must now collect 3,250 checks to qualify, while candidates for State Senate and House must collect 150 and 50 checks, respectively. Collecting these checks entitles a clean elections candidate to receive a certain amount of taxpayer dollars for their campaigns.

It’s crunch time.  Less than 30 days remain until we head to the polls to vote for President down to School Board—unless you’re joining Maine’s growing absentee voting movement (click here to request your absentee ballot online).

It’s tough to escape the onslaught of campaign activity: glossy mailers, fundraising letters, TV ads, YouTube videos, press releases, Main Street walks, door knocks, phone banks, literature drops, sign campaigns, media interviews, radio ads, bulk e-mails, house parties, debates, voter IDs, polls, and, of course, spin, message discipline and damage control.  Are you jaded yet?

Campaigns are notoriously absent of substance.  Candidates from both parties rely on highly scripted talking points to deliver messages of tax cuts, universal healthcare, gun rights, social justice; whatever the polls reveal is the topic of the hour.  As voters, we support candidates best prepared to handle issues important to us.  Unfortunately, there isn’t enough time to put the pieces of a campaign puzzle together to learn how our candidates will address those issues.  Sometimes, there isn’t even time to figure out just what questions to ask.

Because of their roles as advisors, negotiators, and spokespersons, chiefs of staff and communications staff are some of the most visible employees at the State House.  These staffers are blasted and praised on any given day, but the negative comments are usually the loudest. As the former communications director for the Senate Republicans, I was referred to as Karl Rove, Rush Limbaugh, a hack and a mudslinger.

It’s all part of the job. When people agree with the issue, a chief of staff is complimented for moving the process forward and the communications team is praised for informing the public. When people disagree, a chief of staff is in the pocket of the special interests and communications directors are manipulative liars. Whether you believe these staffers improve government, are partisan spinsters, or any combination, you should know how your tax dollars are spent on their salaries.

I spent some time on The Maine Heritage Policy Center’s new open government website, which shows how taxpayer dollars are used for state employee salaries. I came across some interesting information when I looked into the chiefs of staff and communications teams.

While we scrambled to meet income tax deadlines last April 15, Maine politicians passed $70 million in tax increases on health care and beverages to pump more tax dollars into Dirigo Health. In response, the state Chamber of Commerce, the beverage industry and other businesses united as the Fed Up With Taxes coalition to put a people's veto question on the November ballot, hoping voters will reject the new taxes.

Dirigo was supposed to be the closest thing to universal health care that Maine, and the nation, had ever seen.  Today, Dirigo is nationally recognized as a colossal failure.  Hopefully, the old saying "As Maine goes, so goes the nation" won't apply this time.

After voters shot down proposals to build a casino in Sanford in 2003, and a racino in Washington County last November, I figured the gaming industry in Maine held a losing hand, even with the slot machines ringing away in Bangor. However, a newly formed corporation, Evergreen Mountain Enterprises, is going all-in with a proposal to build a new casino in Oxford County.

I don’t object to casinos. You won’t find my name on the CasinosNO donor list. Casinos often bring new jobs and economic development to regions that could use a boost to the local economy. I even voted for that Washington County Racino last year, disappointing some of my Republican colleagues convinced that gambling contributes to a breakdown of values.