Nov. 3’s statewide ballot deserves more consideration than it is receiving – especially Question 1, which would significantly impact the electoral process in Maine.

The new law, if passed, would require politicians to disclose their top three donors on all political ads so the electorate would know who or what is funding their campaign. It would triple the amount of money campaigners receive from the state Legislature to run their campaigns. It also would increase penalties for those who break campaign finance rules, so they’d have to pay back all of whatever money was mismanaged or stolen, not just a portion, as is the case now.

After gaining the required number of signatures to put the question on the ballot, Maine Citizens for Clean Elections is pushing for the new rules to get private individual and corporate money out of Maine politics, replacing it with taxpayer money. However, the group is financed largely by outside interests – including J.J. Abrams, the Hollywood producer.

While it’s impossible to ignore the irony and hypocrisy the Yes on 1 camp is demonstrating – namely, relying on large donors to fund their campaign – we think their proposal, though well-meaning, fails on substance, not just style.

Question 1 would triple the amount of funding Clean Elections candidates could receive. House candidates would receive up to $15,000 and Senate candidates could receive $62,000. The bill would be paid for by the Legislature, by a means lawmakers would determine, most likely by taxing businesses through the business equipment tax program. If every candidate chose to run as a Clean Elections candidate, several million dollars per cycle would be siphoned from the BETR program, up to $6 million. It’s hard to quantify exactly, since races could attract many contestants.

First, the idea of the state government paying for politicians to hold office in that same state government seems bizarre. Opponents of Question 1 have described the effort as welfare for politicians. We agree with them that taxpayers’ dollars are too sacred to be spent on election advertising, campaign parties, parade floats and similar items. Sure, it sounds great to want to get big money out of politics, which is certainly a mantra for our time, but requiring taxpayers to foot the campaign bill isn’t the answer.

Second, we’re not too sure about the terms, “Clean Elections” and “Clean candidates,” which have been around since 1996, when Maine voters first approved the Clean Elections funding mechanism. Does that mean those who raise their money by other means are somehow not clean? Worse, are they dirty? We find it hard to believe someone who has raised many small contributions from their neighbors, coworkers, businesses, family and friends, amassing a small campaign war chest in the process, is somehow less than clean? But the Clean Election moniker, a term laden with deeper meaning if there ever was one, insinuates such. We wonder if this law goes through whether anyone would ever be bold enough to run non-Clean again for fear they’d be cast by their “clean” opponents as a shill for donors.

Thirdly, why are the amounts tripled? Does a House candidate from Dexter or Deer Isle or Detroit need $15,000 to post some signs and walk door to door listening to candidate concerns, which is the best kind of campaigning and costs relatively little? We don’t think so. The current levels of $5,000 and $22,000 seem sufficient. Additional money will be spent on campaign tactics that probably mean less face-to-face interaction with voters.

Also, just as people concerned about tycoons throwing millions into presidential campaigns, we don’t think more money, even if it is somehow purified by the Clean Elections process, is going to make things better here in Maine. We don’t think the printing companies, news outlets or PR agencies need more Clean Elections money to turn around and bombard us with negative ads and robo calls.

Campaign financing, for sure, is a complex issue. We agree with the Yes on 1 campaigners who are seeking a solution to it. But one thing is certain – just because someone spends a ton of money doesn’t mean they’re going to be elected. Recent presidential primary contestants are perfect examples. Well-heeled Jeb Bush is struggling, Scott Walker dropped out, and on the Democratic side, Bernie Sanders, who has masses of small donors aiding his run, is doing well. We think this proves that voters can be trusted with seeing through all the money and picking a candidate based on substance.

We trust the voter, in other words, and we feel campaigns such as Question 1 don’t appreciate the fact that especially here in Maine, we judge based on substance. Take the bear-baiting referendum last year. Supporters of the ban spent the bulk of the money, though failed on Election Day. Money can be influential, no doubt, but campaigns have to win based on ideas.

Also, the argument Question 1 supporters use – that good people don’t run for office nowadays because they don’t want to deal with collecting money and be beholden to donors – is based on pessimistic and false assumptions. It’s certainly not a given that a donation will make a candidate beholden to the donor. The answer isn’t changing the whole system; it’s electing independent, incorruptible people to office.

Those seeking a fix to the very complicated issue of removing the outsized influence of moneyed donors should look to other solutions. Question 1 isn’t the answer.

-John Balentine, managing editor