| Question 1: Citizen Initiative | |
| An Act To Strengthen the Maine Clean Election Act, Improve Disclosure and Make Other Changes to the Campaign Finance Laws | |
| Yes: | 119912 |
| No: | 98343 |
| Total: | 220834 |
| Notes: | Source: Office of the Secretary of State of Maine, Tabulation of Votes |
Maine Question 1, "An Act To Strengthen the Maine Clean Election Act, Improve Disclosure and Make Other Changes to the Campaign Finance Laws", was a citizen-initiated referendum measure in Maine, which appeared on the November 3, 2015 statewide ballot. As the Maine Legislature did not exercise its ability to pass the bill on its own, it was placed on the ballot and approved by Maine voters.
The Maine Clean Elections Act was passed as a citizen-initiated referendum titled Question 3 in 1996, making Maine the first state to adopt a public campaign financing law.[1] It established a voluntary public campaign financing program for Maine gubernatorial and legislative elections, allowing candidates who demonstrated a certain level of community support through a limited number of 'seed money' contributions to qualify for public financing of their campaign. Candidates who accepted such financing could not subsequently accept any private contributions to their campaign.[2]
Initially, the Act also provided for publicly financed candidates to receive additional matching funds should privately financed candidates in their race outspend them. In 2011, the United States Supreme Court struck down a similar provision in Arizona as unconstitutional,[3] which led to a US District Court judge doing the same with Maine's provision later that year.[4] Due to those court rulings, the Maine Legislature removed the matching funds provision from the Act.[5]
The group Mainers for Accountable Elections turned in approximately 86,000 signatures to Maine Secretary of State Matthew Dunlap on January 21, 2015.[6] Dunlap verified about 80,000 of them by February 18, 2015. That was about 16,000 more than required, which sent the question to the Legislature for consideration, though they did not do so and the question was sent to the ballot.[7]
Republican State Senator Eric Brakey introduced a competing measure in the Legislature to ask voters to repeal the Act and redirect the intended funds to education costs.[8] His proposal was rejected in committee on May 6, 2015 by a 9-1 vote.[9]
The proposed changes to the Act include increasing the amount of money distributed to candidates, more disclosure requirements such as listing the top three donors that pay for political advertisements in the ad itself, and increased fines for violators.[10]
Mainers for Accountable Elections launched its campaign on July 28, 2015, at a rally where Republican State Sen. Roger Katz spoke in support of the referendum.[11]
Until September 2015, there was no organized opposition to the referendum.[12] On September 23, it was reported a Facebook page was created called "No on Question 1". It was created in part by State Rep. Joel Stetkis (R-Canaan) who appeared on WVOM radio to call the proposal "nothing but a scam" and "an assault on the Maine people who want a citizen legislator to represent them."[13]
Opponents of the Act as a whole include Governor of Maine Paul LePage who has attempted to remove funding for the Act from the state budget, calling it "welfare for politicians", without success[14] as well as the aforementioned Sen. Brakey's effort to seek repeal of the law. The conservative Maine Heritage Policy Center supported court rulings against the Act. LePage has called Question 1 specifically a "scam"[15] and that public campaign financing was like "giving your wife your checkbook".[16]
On October 21, the Maine State Chamber of Commerce announced its opposition to the Question, due to disagreeing with its funding mechanism of eliminating corporate tax breaks. Chamber President Dana Connors stated that Maine's business incentive programs are modest and it would be difficult and harm the state's business climate to eliminate any of them. The opposition was notable it that it was not based on ideological opposition to public financing of campaigns as with other opponents.[17]
| County | Yes | Votes | No | Votes | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Androscoggin | 49.55% | 9,409 | 50.44% | 9,578 | |
| Aroostook | 48.61% | 4,469 | 51.38% | 4,724 | |
| Cumberland | 63.88% | 36,290 | 36.11% | 20,514 | |
| Franklin | 48.08% | 2,037 | 51.91% | 2,199 | |
| Hancock | 57.82% | 6,426 | 42.17% | 4,687 | |
| Kennebec | 52.82% | 8,967 | 47.17% | 8,007 | |
| Knox | 59.49% | 4,263 | 40.5% | 2,902 | |
| Lincoln | 54.64% | 3,549 | 45.35% | 2,946 | |
| Oxford | 46.24% | 3,341 | 53.75% | 3,883 | |
| Penobscot | 46.9% | 10,202 | 53.09% | 11,550 | |
| Piscataquis | 40.1% | 1,116 | 59.89% | 1,667 | |
| Sagadahoc | 55.85% | 3,713 | 44.14% | 2,934 | |
| Somerset | 41.63% | 2,809 | 58.36% | 3,937 | |
| Waldo | 55.24% | 3,868 | 44.75% | 3,134 | |
| Washington | 43.24% | 2,032 | 56.75% | 2,667 | |
| York | 57.16% | 17,333 | 42.83% | 12,988 | |
| Total | 54.94% | 119,912 | 45.06% | 98,343 |