In 2014, voters in the state of Washington passed a universal gun background check referendum similar to Maine’s upcoming 2016 referendum. In Washington, a group of billionaires, including former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, raised more than $10 million to push the initiative. Opponents of the referendum were outspent by a ratio of nearly 10:1.

In Maine, a similar scenario appears to be unfolding, with Bloomberg essentially paying for the entire referendum petition gathering effort.

Leaving aside the serious issue of buying elections, it is fair to ask how the law has been working in Washington. Seattle TV station KING Channel 5 did just that with an investigation of federal instant background check data from April through October 2015 .

What the investigators discovered shocked them. Less than 2 percent of the 170,876 gun background checks for that period were conducted for “private party” transfers of guns. Researchers at the University of Chicago had estimated that as many as 40 percent of gun transfers are private party related.

That data presents a problem for proponents of Maine’s background check referendum. Either the 40 percent estimate of private gun transfers is grossly inflated, or there is wholesale non-compliance with the law. If private transfers are really that inconsequential, why impose this law on Mainers? If these background check laws are ignored and unenforced, what is the point of them?

Maine voters would be wise to learn from Washington’s problematic experience and avoid those consequences by voting “no” on the universal background check referendum.

Alex Giger, Naples