Dear Editor:

Last week, Sen. Johnson used his elected position and a column in a local newspaper to share a “do as I say — not as I do” explanation of legislation he has repeatedly supported — Clean Elections.

Mr. Johnson’s support for this legislation, which is, in reality, “incumbent protection,” is most troubling given his actions last fall. His campaign spent nearly $215,000 on a state senate seat with $190,000 coming from outside sources, a policy which he has clearly stated, he opposes!

And in addition, it is also interesting to note this fact: that almost $100,000 of the $190,000 was spent on negative messaging against the senator’s challenger. His challenger did not lose by very many votes. Hey, that outside money really helped with attacking his opponent!

Clean election legislation does not work due to the fact that it seeks to cut off those funds that a challenger may need in an effort to overcome the advantage every incumbent usually sustains. Indeed, clean elections attempt to thwart the fundamental principles of fair competition. I agree, the title “clean” sounds good and pure and fair, but just look at the stats on this strategy! Go to the Internet and investigate the dirty secrets about clean elections! What is the bottom line on their effectiveness? Just think how over the years money flowed from various labor union groups to their candidates! But Mr. Johnson does not want his future challengers to have equal advantage. He wishes to silence them.

Clean means something very different by Mr. Johnson’s definition. His rhetoric is lofty and verbose, but ask him how many sustainable, high-paying jobs he has solicited or brought to Lincoln County? Has he found more and more ways to spend the taxpayers’ money, or has he brought us relief with innovative, competitive, viable economic systems and ideas? These are the No. 1 Questions I have for Mr. Johnson, and I’d like the clean truth!

Keep elections fair, open and honest.

Elizabeth Printy

Damariscotta