Do you want Maine to adopt new campaign finance laws and give public funding to candidates for state office who agree to spending limits?

This is a difficult measure to oppose because it is well-intentioned and an improved version of it could be worth supporting. Unfortunately, the Maine Clean Election Act leaves too many unanswered questions — particularly over its cost to taxpayers — to be supported.

The act is designed to rid the state’s elections of the influence of large campaign donations from individuals and political action committees. It offers public funding to qualified candidates and reduces the amount that groups can give to any candidate. The act also expands the duties and computer capabilities of the commission charged with overseeing elections, with the larger mission to be paid for through increased fees from lobbyists.

Question 3, which is voluntary for candidates, applies only to state-level offices — governor and state House and Senate candidates — not to federal positions. This is important because most of the big-money campaign problems occur at the federal level where races are far more expensive. Though the cost of running for governor is high in Maine, the large majority of candidates covered by Question 3 will be campaigning for the state House, where knocking on doors is still the best way to get elected and an average campaign costs about $4,000 — a tiny amount in politics.

No one knows the total amount of taxpayer dollars that would be needed to support the public-financing component — it will be determined later — but the cost could be about $2 million a year. The governor’s race would account for much of that. That race could cost the government approximiately $1 million per candidate. When Maine’s General Fund already has a shortfall of $400 million, it is hard to justify taking more money out of worthy education and human-services programs that already have been slashed.

The act requires that gubernatorial candidates amass 2,500 signatures and $5 donations to qualify for the public dollars. Major-party candidates should be able to meet this goal, but candidates from outside the traditional powers — the Green Party or Reform Party, for instance — will have a far more difficult time. Ironically, it is these candidates who are most often underfunded.

Question 3, in fact, does not adequately address questions pertaining to third-party campaigns. If, for example, a Republican not participating in the Clean Election Act exceeds a spending limit, the state would give additional funds to his or her participating Democratic opponent. A low-spending third party candidate in that race, however, would receive no extra funding and be left even further behind. It makes no sense to encourage this unfairness.

Congress needs campaign finance reform. President Clinton’s coffers easily demonstrate how even the public funding system of the presidential campaign needs to be overhauled. But proponents of Question 3 have yet to show why state legislators running door-to-door races require a multi-million dollar, taxpayer-supported system of restrictions.