Tom Dunne of Cape Elizabeth was the first executive director of the Dirigo Health Agency during the administration of Gov. John Baldacci.

Campaign contributions are considered protected speech under the First Amendment because they enable political expression, allowing individuals to support candidates who represent their views.

The Supreme Court holds that limiting donations restricts this expressive activity, requiring regulations to pass strict scrutiny, often limiting permissible restrictions solely to the prevention of quid pro quo corruption (the exchange of money for political favors). The court argues that restrictions must be narrowly tailored to this purpose rather than limiting the overall amount of money in politics.

Meanwhile, according to the New York Times, “Billionaires made 19 percent of all reported federal campaign contributions in 2024 … and even more in some local elections …Wealthy donors are reaping the rewards.” In 2010, their contributions “were less than 0.3%.” Yikes. Let’s work with this.

It is not acceptable for a single voice to attend a city meeting or a legislative gathering and
shout out continuously, drowning out all other voices. Beyond depriving others of their right to speak and to be heard, it also creates a corrosive environment in which politicians are inevitably led to corruptive acts because they are effectively deprived of input from all but the loudest voice.

The salary and benefits received by elected officials are material. We all vote based on our
values and interests, and that is OK. But common sense says a substantial donation
offer of “support my cause and I will get you elected” has crossed into a corrosive exchange of money for political favor.

Further, material non-proportionate spending or speech on any cause in effect drowns out the voices and votes of others. Improvement is possible. We can’t limit how much is spent, but we can lower the potential corruptive effect by balancing out the noise.

There is a complicated but usable framework for reporting election-related contributions and expenditures federally and within Maine. Maine’s Legislature should update the Maine framework so that if any single group or individual chooses to exceed a threshold of say $65,000 (symbolically, the current governor’s salary) for a cause or an individual, they immediately give a matching amount to an account at the Maine Elections Commission.

The commission (or its designee) can then distribute some or all of that amount to an organization or individual who will provide the public with a contrasting point of view. If come the election associated funds are not spent, the balance should go toward the state’s General Fund.

Not perfect, but better.

A consequence of failing to balance spending and speech (or perhaps in parallel) should be a review and overturning of the lack of disclosure behind what is currently called dark money contributions. Every politician can only be reasonably confident they are not being corrupted if the source of the funding behind loud voices is clear. It is not fair to put every politician at such risk.

If I were an active politician, I would sue to protect myself from even inadvertently
committing quid pro quo corruption. We must protect our precious politicians. (Yes, this is snark.)