As a fervent believer in the importance of reliable local news and a longtime subscriber to the paper, I have watched with interest the changes being made recently. Welcome to Steve Collins, with his thoughtful and well-written columns. I’m particularly concerned about the decision to give opinion submissions and letters to the editor relating to Maine “first preference,” presumably over those more closely related to national issues. That begs the question of when pertinent Maine issues would be unrelated to national issues.

Mr. Collins’ April 15 column is a case in point. He makes a strong case for electing by popular vote, rather than selection by the Legislature, of Maine’s attorney general, secretary of state, treasurer and auditor. The rationale for this is that it would be more democratic even if the voters sometimes fail to choose wisely, or well.

The Republican leader of Maine’s Legislature opines that this would “enhance legitimacy” and ensure a state government that voters “are more likely to trust.” An analyst from the Maine Policy Institute opines this change would improve transparency and accountability. While this seems to be an example of a Maine issue, it is in fact closely related to current national issues related to the state of our democracy.

The Maine Policy Institute, formerly known as the Maine Heritage Institute, is the state branch of the national Heritage Policy Institute that has created Project 2025, under which the Trump administration is rampaging through our federal government agencies with a clear intent to destroy government functioning as we have known it since the end of WWII.

Its intent is to do away with a government focused on protecting people and providing infrastructure and a social safety net and replace it with one focused on the benefit of business, with minimal taxation and minimal regulation. In the process, it has created unimaginable chaos and a threat to our democracy.

Any changes to state government, particularly ones serious enough to require a constitutional amendment, should be deeply and thoughtfully considered for both their intended and their unintended consequences. Consider, for instance, what might occur if some billionaire decided to spend $25 million to influence the election of the attorney general so that that individual, being beholden, wouldn’t challenge attempts at national policies.

What if another oligarch wanted to donate a half million dollars to a Republican-sponsored voter suppression referendum so they could “shape” the electorate who would be choosing these officers?

In my opinion, if we are looking at ways to protect, preserve and expand our democracy, a far more important first step would be to require full disclosure of who is spending, and how much they are spending, to influence our elections. Ever since our corrupt Supreme Court, several of them bought and paid for by Leonard Leo, et al.’s Federalist Society, decided in Citizens United, among other misguided decisions, that money was a form of political “speech.”

Democracy has all too often been co-opted by wealthy operatives so that government can be shaped to serve their needs regardless of the needs of the citizenry. So let’s see what can be done to ensure honesty and integrity regarding who is “speaking” before we worry about increasing the voice of the people.

We need to know that the ability to exercise the right to vote isn’t being impeded by voter suppression efforts and that the will of the people isn’t being subjected to undue influence from unknown actors. Then we can feel we’ve actually worked on a functioning democracy.

Copy the Story Link