Truth in advertising

Perhaps it is a measure of how quiet Maine’s congressional campaigns have been so far this season, or perhaps it is the exquisite sensitivity of politicians to the wrongs done unto them by their competitors. Whichever, the first strong disagreement over campaign tactics occurred this week in the 1st Congressional District, where Rep. Tom Allen accused challenger Jane Amero of distorting his record on tax votes.

At issue was one of her television campaign ads, which said, “But in Congress, Tom Allen voted for higher taxes on Maine’s working families.” Turns out what she meant by that was Rep. Allen did not vote in favor of some bills that would reduce taxes, although in some instances he did vote for versions of those bills, just not the ones she preferred. In particular, the Amero campaign cites the marriage-penalty tax, a bill for tax deductions to medical savings accounts, estate tax cuts and the tax break on Internet sales, among a couple of others.

Certainly, votes not to reduce taxes are not the same as votes for higher taxes. Her ad is inaccurate, although it is a mild form of inaccuracy. State Sen. Amero, who was minority leader in the Legislature, knows that with all the procedural votes, votes on bills that contain killer amendments, votes on bills designed to help voting records rather than being designed to go anywhere, etc., it takes almost no effort to find a seemingly damning voting history on any candidate. What is surprising is that the votes her campaign cited were the best they could do.

All of the congressional candidates signed the Maine Code of Election Ethics, which calls for high-minded, fact-based campaigns and observes that, “Negative campaigns are directly related to the cynicism, alienation and decreasing participation rates among American voters.” There’s no reason to get overwrought by the inaccuracy in the ad, but the Amero campaign and Maine voters would be better served if it were taken off the air.