Jim Fossel: Referendum campaigns are corruptible, too

Portland, we need to talk.

Look, you have a pretty great thing going. You have the most influential part of the state’s economy. You have a stable government that is, for the most part, free of radical ideological influences. The former is thanks to your size and geographical position, making you the state’s major city; the latter is thanks to the current city-manager form of government you now employ, insulating your city government from the wave of partisan, progressive ideals sweeping the Democratic Party in other parts of the country.

Essentially, the city-manager form of government functions much as the United States Senate does at the national level, holding the more ideological elements of both parties at bay. While that’s understandably frustrating to a certain faction, just like the United States Senate is to progressives, it’s also for the best for the city as a whole, just like the U.S. Senate is for the country.

Trust me on this, you don’t want to mess with it. We’ve seen throughout human history that, regardless of the size of the political unit or the ideology, it’s never good for one faction to gain complete and utter political dominance. Nationally, even when the Republicans or the Democrats control the entire federal government, there’s always a bit of a tug and pull between ideological factions. The two parties may not agree on much these days, but even when they achieve full control, they rarely agree with themselves on everything, either. To the casual observer, that may seem completely dysfunctional. To the partisan ideological warrior, it may be completely frustrating, but in fact it’s part of our system as a democratic republic designed by the Founding Fathers.

Similarly, the professional city-manager form of government at the municipal level is designed to prevent one particular ideological faction from seizing complete control. It does this by imbuing the professional city staff with much of the decision-making power within the city, insulating public policy from partisan influence. While ideological factions might resent this as an intrusion upon democracy, in fact it’s a fairly happy compromise: The voters get a say through such bodies as the City Council and the school board, but they don’t get to completely run the city unchecked.

It’s essentially a local version of the checks and balances that exist at the federal level, with a professional city staff and the well-established local party structure serving a similar function to the United States Senate and the federal judiciary: holding the radical ideologues in check. At the federal level, this means keeping radicals in both parties, and from different ideologies, in check. At the municipal level, it ends up primarily restraining progressive goals.

Sadly, that’s where the analogy breaks down, and that’s why the current slate of initiatives on the Portland ballot are so dangerous and ought to be rejected as a whole.

It’s nice to think that the citizen initiative process – whether locally in Portland or statewide in Maine – provides a useful check on the powers of corrupt insiders who refuse to implement a popular agenda because it’s antithetical to their own personal agenda. It’s a nice theory, but the fact of the matter is that, in the age of social media and online fundraising, referendum campaigns are just as easily corruptible as any other campaign run by partisan political figures. The idea that citizen initiatives by their very nature represent the opinion of the public more than legislation enacted by their representatives – whether on the City Council or in the Legislature – is entirely passé.

The fact of the matter is that, given enough resources, citizen initiatives are just as easily influenced by well-heeled, influential individuals as candidate elections. Indeed, that’s especially true because citizen initiatives often appear to be independent, nonpartisan campaigns supported by the people. In fact, the opposite is true: With citizen initiatives, it’s all too easy – easier than with candidate elections, rather than harder – for one person or faction to have outsized influence.

So, tempting as it might be, don’t upend the entire structure of Portland city government on a whim. Instead, preserve the current professional structure, insulating your city from the influence of partisan politics and ideological agenda. That would be the best outcome not only for the city, but also for the state, upon which the city of Portland wields enormous influence.

Jim Fossel, a conservative activist from Gardiner, worked for Sen. Susan Collins. He can be contacted at:
jwfossel@gmail.com
Twitter: @jimfossel