The Maine Ethics Commission announced recently it would submit legislation that, if enacted, would require state departments to disclose and report political activity.

One statewide paper went further and called for state departments to be banned from political speech altogether. On face value, this stance might seem logical, but such a law would not only destroy wildlife management, it would cripple other important referendum issues, such as bonds.

Newspapers and the public are best-served with a vibrant, thriving First Amendment right of free speech. More than anyone, newspapers should see the value of a thorough and exhaustive debate.

The Bangor Daily News took exception with biologists and game wardens appearing in bear referendum campaign ads that urged residents to vote no on Question 1 despite the contradictory decision by Superior Court Justice Joyce A. Wheeler in the case brought by Mainers for Fair Bear Hunting, which sought to bar staff of the Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife from participating in the campaign.

In her ruling, Justice Wheeler said, “Restricting speech on contested public issues is directly contrary to the public interest, which favors a robust and dynamic public discourse. It is up to the voters, not the plaintiffs or the courts, to assess the relative merits of conflicting speech. … DIFW’s advocacy activities are based on their experience and expertise, and relate to initiatives that it perceives would have serious consequences for their effective management of Maine’s bear population.”

Justice Wheeler continued: “The fact that advocacy may persuade the electorate is hardly a reason to suppress it. … The people in our democracy are entrusted with the responsibility for judging and evaluating the relative merits of conflicting arguments.”

The Bangor Daily News also is advocating for legislation that would require disclosure of political activity undertaken by state departments during referendums. This is odd, considering no one concealed DIFW’s role in the bear referendum. In fact, DIFW staff identified themselves in all venues. In its editorial, the Bangor Daily News advocated expanding the scope of the legislation to ban any political activity by state departments during referendums. This position is naïve.

According to the Maine Ethics Commission, about 340 registered state department lobbyists and representatives work the halls of Augusta and monitor legislation. Executive branch representatives outnumber private sector lobbyists 2-1; they give a valuable voice to the executive branch.

This army of department spokesmen and civil servants plays a vital role in the political process; they represent thousands of years of experience managing programs, a wealth of institutional memory. Legislators and special interests introduce an average of 1,800 bills in the first year of a two-year session; the departments sort through these bills, and place them in context with existing law and history. They help shape complex political discussion and bring sanity to Augusta’s political world. All of this activity is political in nature.

This delicate balance is particularly vital when managing complex wildlife programs. The Humane Society of the United States and similar organizations likely would see banning state wildlife department participation as their Holy Grail.

If wildlife biologists had been silenced from participating in campaigns complex biological claims such as “bear reproduction is enhanced by bear baiting,” would have gone unchallenged. Animal rights activists rely on emotional 30-second ads to overpower the facts. Imagine how different the recent debate would have been without our biologists and wardens setting the record straight.

State departments, the University of Maine and countless quasi-state and municipal governments rely on state bonds for infrastructure improvement. According to our laws, these bonds must appear on the ballot for approval. Should we ban the recipients of these bonds from participating in the political activity necessary to pass them? If so, the public would be deprived of important voting information.

Lastly, how valuable is mandatory disclosure without enforcement authority? The Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife is being attacked for spending $31,000 on political activity in a campaign that spent a combined $4.6 million. We know the department spent $31,000 because it falls under the Freedom of Access law and has to divulge every communication related to the subject. State departments already receive far greater scrutiny during referendum campaigns than nongovernmental organizations. So what value is more disclosure?

Freedom of speech can be painful, especially considering that lying is legal. Judge Wheeler got it right. Let everyone speak, right up to Election Day, and then let the voters sort it out.

David Trahan is executive director of the Sportsman’s Alliance of Maine, Augusta. Email at David.Trahan@SportsmansAllianceofMaine.org.