The following is part of a continuing series analyzing political advertising this campaign season.



Who’s paying for the ad: Citizens United to Protect Our Public Safety, Schools and Communities. Members include the Maine Municipal Association and Maine Education Association.

TV ad title: “Lajoie”

Length: 30 seconds

Producer: Stevens Reed Curcio & Potholm of Alexandria, Va.

Market: Statewide television beginning Sept. 21

Announcer: Voice of Lewiston Fire Chief Mike Lajoie

Visuals: Ad opens with Lajoie, wearing a firefighter’s coat, looking into the camera, then a closeup of the back of his coat that identifies him as the chief. Standing in front of a firetruck, Lajoie has a serious look on his face. Camera shows firefighters on top of a smoking building battling a fire, then uniformed police officers walking down a street. The scene changes, showing somber-looking firefighters and police officers staring into the camera with an American flag in back of them, reminiscent of Sept. 11.

Occasionally, the screen goes black and words in white letters emphasize what Lajoie is saying, such as “Firefighters and police could lose jobs,” and “Response times for emergencies could increase.” The ad ends with a black screen and white letters: “No on Question 1.” Background music is somber, serious.

Audio from Lajoie: “I’ve been a firefighter in Maine for over 30 years. But I’ve never seen a more serious threat to public safety than Question 1, the Palesky initiative. Question 1 could cause huge cuts in police and fire protection. Firefighters and police could lose jobs. Response times for emergencies could increase. And some stations could be closed.

“This is no time to jeopardize public safety in Maine. Please join Maine’s firefighters and police and vote no on Question 1.”

Purpose of the ad: To instill fear and doubt in voters, warning of the cuts the tax cap could prompt.

Accuracy: According to an analysis of the tax-cap question by Lewiston City Administrator Jim Bennett, the ad is accurate. Bennett’s analysis shows the city’s total income would drop from $75.7 million to $35.1 million under the cap. In response, Bennett has said, there would still be firefighters and police officers in Lewiston, but far fewer. The city would lay off 50 firefighters, leaving 29. The number of police officers would go from 103 to 38. All three fire department substations, on Lisbon, Sabattus and Main streets, would be eliminated.

The catch is whether Bennett’s analysis – or any analysis – correctly predicts what would happen if the tax cap passes. There are a lot of variables, and the outcomes are not known.

Another analysis, by University of Maine economists, says the tax-cap law, as written, would result in Maine municipalities having $687.7 million less.

Tax Cap Yes! spokesmen say the analyses are wrong because they fail to take into account several factors, and because changes should be made to the tax-cap law that will reduce the law’s impact.

For instance:

• Lewiston’s property values are currently only 79 percent of their real value. If Bennett’s analysis had been based on 100 percent of value, the loss of income under the law would not be as great to the city, the group says.

• Further, passage of a statewide referendum last June should give municipalities $240 million more statewide for education.

• If the Maine Supreme Court finds unconstitutional one provision of the law, which would roll back all property tax values to 1996-97 levels to calculate the 1 percent cap, the University of Maine analysis is overinflated. The court has already hinted that it would strike down that provision.

• In addition, while the law currently says towns must include debt payments under the cap unless the debt was voter approved, tax-cap advocates say the law should be changed by the Legislature after passage to allow all debt to be excluded from the cap.

If state legislators make those changes after the election, Lewiston would have millions more than what Bennett shows, tax-cap supporters say.

But the many variables make accurate predictions difficult. What is known:

• Citing a lack of staff, Tax Cap Yes! spokesmen say they do not have figures of their own to show what the tax cap would mean for Lewiston and other cities and towns.

• Whether and how state lawmakers would alter the law, if passed, are uncertain.

• Regardless of the actual amounts of revenue reductions each town would feel, for many the cuts would be significant. Municipal governments would get smaller. Without new user fees or state taxes, there would be reductions in services.

• And for many homeowners, property taxes would go down, which is the goal of the tax cap.

Analysis: As written, the tax cap cripples local governments’ ability to raise revenue. That would translate into less money for just about everything government does, from fighting fires to paying teachers to fixing roads. The ad uses scary images to make its point, but the language is measured and precise. No one knows how bad the cuts would be for sure, but the worst case is really bad.