The following was adapted from testimony presented to the Maine Legislature’s Legal and Veterans Affairs Committee on Feb. 26.

During last year’s elections, I was struck by how Maine Heritage Policy Center (MHPC) provided extensive public relations services for the political action committee spearheading the Taxpayer Bill of Rights (TABOR) campaign. In highly visible and well-publicized debates on the ballot initiative, Bill Becker, MHPC’s executive director, was paired up against the Citizen’s United spokesman, the key anti-TABOR group.

The difference between these was not just their views. One had his funding fully disclosed while the other did not. I brought this to the Maine Ethics Commission’s attention. That has, in part, sparked attention in the Legislature. What is at stake in its deliberations is whether the finances for promoting citizen initiatives will remain out in the open, or will hiding large parts of it be legitimized.

The root problem is that our campaign finance disclosure laws were written for a different media landscape. The framework for these was set in the mid-’70s when cable TV was a novelty and where paid advertising ruled. Today, traditional advertising is losing out to public relations methods that are used to communicate the same messaging. You might TiVo out a political ad, but absorb the same message if it is skillfully woven into a news program.

The bottom line is that we don’t get a good sense of who is behind a campaign anymore if we just look at who’s paying for advertising. We also need to know who is footing the bill for the public relations campaign.

What’s the problem with allowing unreported PR campaigns? One of the most deceptive and destructive trends today is when public relations firms masquerade under the guise of public policy “think tanks.” A more accurate term for these outfits is “spin shop.” The supposed education and research they provide is akin to what you find on TV infomercials. The difference is there’s no disclaimer that the opinions and analysis are bought and paid for. What they deliver is designed to look like the real deal. You see them testifying before the Legislature regularly. In fact, their success is to have their representatives appear alongside those who openly and legitimately represent a viewpoint. These paid pitchmen appear to be independent, but are in fact hired guns.

How can we effectively distinguish between such spin shops and bona fide public policy groups? Follow the financing. Much of the value of stealth PR comes by hiding who is behind the campaigns and where the money goes. That allows them to come across as providing independent, nonpartisan views and analysis. That is why these PR firms take on the guise of not-for-profit “public policy” groups. This allows them to avoid public disclosure of their funding.

There are good reasons why many legitimate not-for-profits do not publish donor lists. But such groups do not usually get deeply involved in political campaigns. That’s because legit public charities understand and respect the public’s interest in knowing the funding for political activities. The underlying principle to transparency is simple. If you can’t see who is picking up the tab in a political campaign, something is wrong.

In terms of the current Legislature, LD 1394 has become the focus of determining what specific disclosure requirements will expose these stealth PR firms for ballot initiatives. Some suggest limiting reporting only to paid advertising or just to communications that “expressly advocate.” But this just legitimizes these abuses. Also, since staff time is the primary expenditure in PR, disclosing that is essential.

These reforms are a first step in taking on the larger culture of spin. Nationally, irresponsible and unaccountable PR stymies true dialog and authentic communications that are the lifeblood of our democracy. Think of the highly successful PR campaigns carried out by the tobacco companies passing off slanted studies as real research provided by “independent” scientists.

For many years, this stalled any appropriate response to what is an enormous public health issue. Unfortunately, this has become a model for those who use PR to confuse rather than clarify issues. At the state level, spin shops leave us dizzy and disoriented so we cannot effectively address the challenges that face us.

PR can play an invaluable role in communicating ideas and issues to enhance and enrich public dialog and discussion. But to achieve this, it cannot be deceptive. That’s why transparency is essential. Some claim that requiring the disclosures that provide transparency infringes upon freedom of speech. But true freedom of speech comes with responsibility. One responsibility is to those listening. They have a right to know who is doing the talking. And the public has an interest in knowing who’s paying for the public relations driving ballot measures in Maine.

Carl Lindemann of Portland is the founder of TrueDialog.org.