Most of us would be outraged to learn that our city council had voted to use municipal funds to influence a political campaign.

In fact, we might say it was illegal.

But should the same town council be allowed to pool its money with other communities to do the same thing?

No, says the Maine Heritage Policy Center, which last week filed suit against the Maine Municipal Association, accusing it of breaking the law by using taxpayer money to support political causes.

The MHPC may have a good case.

The lawsuit, filed in Kennebec County Superior Court, says the MMA has given $2 million to political action committees to oppose tax-cut referenda over the past decade.

The nonprofit MMA collects money from its membership, which includes nearly all of the municipal governments in Maine.

That makes it essentially a government entity, according to the MHPC lawsuit, and ineligible to participate in election campaigns.

The plaintiffs in the MHPC suit include people who headed up the various taxpayer referenda that were designed to limit taxation, as well as Cyr Plantation in Aroostook County, which had 117 residents in 2000.

The suit asks that the MMA be forbidden from making such contributions in the future, and that it return to its members the $2 million spent.

The MMA, of course, has a different take.

“Governmental entities pass laws, enact regulations and pass ordinances,” MMA spokesman Eric Conrad told the Portland Press Herald. “We don’t do any of that. We provide professional services to our members as a nonprofit organization.”

If that’s the MMA’s best argument, it seems likely to lose this suit. It’s still taxpayer money, just one step removed. A court is likely to see that as a difference without a distinction.

Then there’s the nonprofit status issue.

If the MMA is a 501(c)(3) organization under the federal tax code, it is subject to a host of limitations and prohibitions against participating in political activity.

Organizations often skirt this issue. For instance, churches sometimes hand out “informational” material about election issues without directly telling their members how to vote.

But they are forbidden from taking an outright position in a campaign.

It would be difficult to show that PAC activities supported by the MMA, including the purchase of TV advertising, were only informational in nature.

MHPC lawyer David Crocker points to the MMA’s articles of incorporation, which say the organization must be “nonpolitical and nonpartisan.”

Few things have been more political and partisan than the handful of campaigns like TABOR to curtail government taxing power.

Although none has passed, all have pitted citizens against the entrenched interest of government.

Which is the final reason the MMA, regardless of the outcome of this suit, may want to reassess its position.

Taxpayers simply resent having their tax money spent for political purposes rather than government services.

Perhaps this would be an opportune time for the MMA to simply discontinue a practice which, regardless of its legality, just seems wrong.

[email protected]