I have been dismayed by a number of recent letters criticizing Sen. Susan Collins’ vote against S.1 (“For the People Act of 2021”) that would have resulted in a federal takeover of the entire election system. Although it was branded a “voting rights bill,” it was actually a Trojan horse concealing a host of bad policies.
One of the bill’s misguided proposals called for injecting billions of our taxpayer dollars into federal campaigns to subsidize politicians. Does anyone honestly think that the problem with elections is that there is not enough money? I doubt many Americans support giving even more of their hard-earned dollars to already bloated campaigns rather than paving our roads and funding our schools.
Just last year, the Collins-Gideon race was the second most expensive Senate race in the country. Out-of-state groups spent more than $100 million to persuade Maine voters on top of record spending by both campaigns in an election that seemed to drag on for an eternity. If S.1 were law, it would only push the levels of spending even higher, funding (likely) negative ads and mailers targeting the voters at our own expense.
That is just plain wrong.
In addition, S.1 would have overruled the election laws of every single state – even in Maine – despite the fact that we have one of the highest turnout rates in the country and some of the most liberal election laws in the country.
Simply put, S.1 was a bad bill, and Sen. Collins was right to oppose it.
Stephanie Anderson
Cape Elizabeth
Comments are not available on this story. Read more about why we allow commenting on some stories and not on others.
We believe it's important to offer commenting on certain stories as a benefit to our readers. At its best, our comments sections can be a productive platform for readers to engage with our journalism, offer thoughts on coverage and issues, and drive conversation in a respectful, solutions-based way. It's a form of open discourse that can be useful to our community, public officials, journalists and others.
We do not enable comments on everything — exceptions include most crime stories, and coverage involving personal tragedy or sensitive issues that invite personal attacks instead of thoughtful discussion.
You can read more here about our commenting policy and terms of use. More information is also found on our FAQs.
Show less