Skip to main content

The Maine Deveopment Foundation - Laying the Foundation for the Corporate State

               Tweet This

The charter for the Maine Development Foundation, from which the quotes in this post were taken.- Signed into law by Governor Longley- A former democrat who ran as an Independent

This is a list I maintain of legislative related links and "economic development" statutes, the most of which have come about as a result of the codification of said government function in the charter for the Maine Development Foundation.

When American colonists declared independence from England in 1776, they also freed themselves from control by English corporations that extracted their wealth and dominated trade. After fighting a revolution to end this exploitation, our country's founders retained a healthy fear of corporate power and wisely limited corporations exclusively to a business role. Corporations were forbidden from attempting to influence elections, public policy, and other realms of civic society. Our Hidden History of Corporations in the United States on

.The charter for the Maine Development Foundation begins with these words:

The10 §915. LEGISLATIVE FINDINGS AND INTENThe State of Maine has long had serious conditions of unemployment, underemployment, low per capital income and resource underutilization which cause substantial hardships to many individuals and families, impede the economic and physical development of various regions of the State, and adversely affect the general welfare and prosperity of the State. [1977, c. 548, §1 (NEW).]

There is a need to establish a new basis for a creative partnership of the private and public sectors for economic development, a partnership which can capitalize on the interests, resources and efforts of each sector,
but which does not compromise the public interest or the profit motive.The state's solitary burden to provide for development should lessen through involving the private sector in a leadership role. In so stating that 1977, c. 548, §1 (NEW).
The legislature justifies the charter for a state economic development corporation with a claim that the state has a solitary burden to provide for economic development. This disregards the constitutional amendments of 1969 Home Rule and 1962 Article IX Section 8  Taxation which establishes equal taxation and where section 2 of the Home Rule Amendment was originally located. Section two grants municilpalities limited authority to use general obligation bonds for industrial development. Not only did the state not have a solitary burden but in fact the state did not have the constitutional authority to use taxation or bonds for economic development, according to Marshal J Tinkle writing in The Maine Constitution: A Reference Guide:1

"As noted in the literature, the amendment ( Home Rule , Section 2 ) makes it clear that general obligations may now be used to assist private industry for certain purposes" .....this section applies only to general obligations of municipalities and not to forms of financing that do not create municipal debt or liability " The Maine Constitution: A Reference manual by Marshall J Tinkle  
The alleged solitary burden is then contradicted by saying the state will work with the private sector, Since economic development can take place within the private sector it is not so solitary a burden after all. The state then declares that the private sector will take the leadership role, which if true would mean that the state would not interfere with the free enterprise system by centrally managing it, since that gives the state and not the private sector the leadership role. However, the state is ostensibly using “private sector” to mean partnership with private special interests and not the entirety of the private sector. When the state grants special private interests a leadership role, the legislature then serves a private special interest faction and ceases to be the public servant as a public servant must serve the common good, which is not to be construed as the same as “public benefit” A common good benefits all in common, where as the term “public benefit” has been stretched to mean whatever the powers that be want it to mean as we saw in Kelo vs New London decision by the United States Supreme Court. If one were to consider legislation developed in the wake of the chartering of the Maine Development Foundation, and ask whose interest is the legislature serving, it is demonstrable that the legislature serves the legal and economic interests of private special interests and uses the taxpayers money as a fund of other peoples money made exclusively available to private special interests.
The chartering the Maine Development Foundation violated Article IV Part Third Section 14 of the Maine State Constitution and laid the foundation for what was to become a rapidly expanding network of state corporations serving as “instrumentalities of the state”, a purpose forbidden by section 14 pursuant to the exclusion only for municipal purposes. An “instrumentality of the state” serves state purposes. The other exception is if the object of the corporation cannot be done another way. The object of the corporation is economic development which can be done another way. Economic development can be done in the private sector. One could argue that the object is the central management of the economy but central management is a state purpose. The intent of Article IV Part Third Section Eight ,when the exception for municipal corporations is factored in, is to prohibit chartering corporations for state purposes. This is my layman's interpretation but it seems patently clear and not at all ambiguous. I remind the reader that in 1951, the Opinion of the Justices had to omit all consideration of the exemption for municipal purposes in order to claim that the Article IV Part Third Section 14 is ambiguous and that is because if one incorporates the exception for municipal purposes, there is no ambiguity.

Section 14.  Corporations, formed under general laws.  Corporations shall be formed under general laws, and shall not be created by special Acts of the Legislature, except for municipal purposes, and in cases where the objects of the corporation cannot otherwise be attained; and, however formed, they shall forever be subject to the general laws of the State.

There after the Maine legislature declared each state corporation chartered by special act of legislation to be “an essential government function” and in so doing themselves admit that central management of the economy is a state purpose- as by “government function” the meaning is clearly a state government function. Thus the Maine state legislature fundamentally transformed the purpose of government expressed in the preamble to the Maine State constitution:


Objects of government.  We the people of Maine, in order to establish justice, insure tranquility, provide for our mutual defense, promote our common welfare, and secure to ourselves and our posterity the blessings of liberty, acknowledging with grateful hearts the goodness of the Sovereign Ruler of the Universe in affording us an opportunity, so favorable to the design; and, imploring God's aid and direction in its accomplishment, do agree to form ourselves into a free and independent State, by the style and title of the State of Maine and do ordain and establish the following Constitution for the government of the same.

Some will argue that what the legislature deems to be "the public benefit" is the same as the "common welfare" Others will not agree that the state's management of the economy serves everyone's interest, The term "common' means shared by all but while all Maine taxpayers share in the costs created by the state's economic development policies all do not share in the benefits..If one is to argue the benefits are in the trickle down effect in which all share then all business of all sizes are contributing to that trickle down effect and all business should be governed by general laws as provided in Article IV Part Third Section 13 of the Maine Constitution. The reasoning behind the trickle down effect is familial to the Marxist reasoning which concludes that we are all a product of our society, resulting in the further conclusion that all are property of society. We are all the means of production collectively owned by society and what ever we produce belongs not to us but to the collective society. Clearly such a line of reasoning is not consistent with a political philosophy founded on protection of individual rights.

Much of the charter for the Maine Development Foundation concerns defining who will be the privileged elite that shapes the Maine economy, culture and society, to their preferences. Although this is not a nobility transferred by blood relationships, which is prohibited by the Maine constitution, it is an overlord society with similarities to nobility. In this case, as clearly stated in the charter, it is corporate nobility granted special rights by a legislature acting more like lords than a body with a sworn allegiance to uphold the constitution. The chosen ones are granted statutory authority to impose their values and philosophy over the rest of society in the name of the "public benefit" which is not defined by the public but by an elite bureaucracy. According to Maine statutes, this ruling class knows what is best for everyone and in addition to that, they are secular saints. This arbitrary granting of special powers to special interests in the name of the "public benefit" reduces the Maine State constitution to partisan politics. Arguable opinions about "public benefit" and the characterization of the ruling elite belong in the political arena and should never be codified into law.

The political philosophy that uses as its premise that "public benefit" and "profit motive" are mutually compatible is as fanciful as Marx's projection that the state will evolve until it "withers away". To add to this preposterous delusion, the paragraph concludes by saying that the state will ease its "solitary burden" of managing the economy by partnering with special interests in the private sector. This is a complete occlusion of the references to "God's aid and direction" as found in the Maine Constitution. The secular world view posits man as the highest intelligence and power, occluding the existence of God as a natural, mysterious and higher wisdom than that of mortals. The Maine constitution acknowledges God's direction and so God's hand is in the works and the burden is never solitary.

The next paragraph in the charter deems that the newly formed government function is an "essential government function" language found repeated in every state chartered corporation and used to justify the expansion of government. However if it were an essential government function, one must ask how did Maine manage for over one hundred and fifty years without it ? In that simple seemingly throw away statement, the legislature transformed a free enterprise capitalist system into a state capitalist system without ever asking for consent from the governed. The Maine Development Foundation is a "qausi" - a political device instrumental in merging formerly three distinct economic sectors - private, non-profit, and government into one fluid instrumentality of the state, which has been transformed into a public-private partnership.

For comparison's sake, observe how fluidly the rhetoric establishing the Maine Development Corporation merges into the rhetoric of the Constitution of the People's Republic of China :
The Maine Development Foundation is hereby established to foster, support and assist economic growth and revitalization in Maine. The foundation shall carry out its purposes in complement to and in coordination with the economic development activities of the private sector, community and regional agencies and State Government. [1977, c. 548, §1 (NEW).]
The foundation shall exist as a not-for-profit corporation with a public purpose, and the exercise by the foundation of the powers conferred by this chapter shall be
 deemed and held to be an essential governmental function.[1977, c. 548, §1 (NEW).]
1977, c. 548, §1 (NEW).

Property Rights Law of the Peopl'es Republic of China 2007
During the primary stage of socialism, the State shall adhere to the basic economic system, with public ownership playing a dominant role and diverse forms of ownership developing side by side.
The State shall consolidate and develop unswervingly the public sector of the economy and at the same time encourage, support and guide the development of the non-public sectors of the economy.
The State implements the socialist market economy, ensuring equal legal status and right for development of all market players.

2. Economic analysis. The Maine Development Foundation may:

A. Develop and propose new ideas and recommend changes to State Government and others for the growth and development of the State's economy, including development strategies and economic development programs to best meet the economic needs, problems and conditions of the State; [1987,
c. 534, Pt. B, §§ 4, 23 (NEW).]
B. Analyze opportunities to improve the marketing of Maine products and the development of new markets, especially foreign; and [1987, c. 534, Pt. B, §§ 4, 23 (NEW).]
C. Analyze opportunities to promote business investment in the State. [1987, c. 534, Pt. B,
§§ 4, 23 (NEW).]
[ 1987, c. 534, Pt. B, §§ 4, 23 (NEW) .]
3.  Added in 1987 To the charter for the Maine Development Foundation

It is important to note that the Maine Development Foundation includes within its charter authorization to accepts gifts through the Governor This is a doorway for money to buy undue influence and favors in politics:


The State of Maine, through the Governor, may accept donations, bequests, devises, grants or other interests of any nature on behalf of the foundation and transfer such funds, property or other interests to the foundation. [1977, c. 548, §1 (NEW).]
1977, c. 548, §1 (NEW).

1The Maine Constitution A Reference Guide 1992 pg 130

Afternote added April 17 2013

Lest there be any doubt that Maine State Enterprise is indeed exactly what the name I have granted it describes:
Here it is written out in plain English in the special act of legislation that "formed" the Maine Development Foundation-a name that sounds like a non-profit foundation, rather than a government enterprise that it actually is:
3. Ex officio corporators. Ex officio corporators consist of the heads of the major state departments and agencies and the Chancellor of the University of Maine System. State department and agency heads include the following:
Treasurer of State;
Director of the Governor's Office of Policy and Management;
Commissioner of Economic and Community Development;
Commissioner of Agriculture, Conservation and Forestry;
Commissioner of Professional and Financial Regulation;
Commissioner of Education;
Commissioner of Environmental Protection;
Commissioner of Administrative and Financial Services;
Commissioner of Health and Human Services;
Commissioner of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife;
Commissioner of Labor;
Commissioner of Marine Resources;
Commissioner of Transportation;
Chief Executive Officer of the Finance Authority of Maine;
Executive Director of the Maine Municipal Bond Bank; and
Executive Director of the Maine State Housing Authority.


Popular posts from this blog

Communism and State Ownership of Intellectual Property

Tweet This: Government As a Secret Society The response to my informal suggestion that public accessibility to government could be improved by making information available in a searchable data base ( see previous post) subjectively confirmed that the  functioning power elite of Maine's economic development programs and policies are both intentional in instituting a political ideology that supersedes the will of the people, as expressed in the Maine State Constitution, and deceptive towards the general public. 1.Information made available on an agency website but not in a searchable database format may not provide the research and investigative tool needed by the public. The Freedom of Access Act does not require that public information be posted online in any particular format, just that public records be made available. While there is a strong argument for increasing the accessibility and usefulness of information, there is no current requ

An Incomplete Theory of Inflation Made to Order for Mass Consumption.

M oney is not what it used to be, so must our ways of thinking about it adapt. jaakko-kemppainen-unsplash The message treads across the media terrain, beating louder and louder as if to drown out the beat of the distant drummer. W arning! The only thing the stimulus will stimulate is inflation. The people will pay as the wealthy elite invests their windfalls in financial assets. Doom and gloom set to march across the land to the beat of the distribution of stimulus funds. In recent years as past predictions of fiscal disaster following stimulus spending failed to materialize and so the thinking about national debt and deficits has evolved, most noticeably with the development of  Modern Monetary Theory . In the   fall of 2020,  National Affairs  published a story,  Does the Debt Matter ? by Peter Wehner & Ian Tufts. Peter Wehner is vice president and senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center and served in the last three Republican administrations. Ian Tufts is a recent g

Its Not the Economy, Its the Culture!

Trump has brought into focus a long brewing social crisis SELECTED FOR THE BEST OF TREMR darren-deloach-unsplash I was a Republican, until the 2016 convention when a petition gathered enough signatures to let delegates vote their conscience, and was promptly dismissed by a voice vote.  That was when I first became aware that the Republican party was afraid, intimidated and dominated by the Trump base. I felt the party took the traditional base of the party, which included myself, for granted, as if we were party players, guaranteed to support the party, unquestionably, no matter where it went. Deeply ro o ted party obedience has been established. Many whom I once respected and are no longer recognizable. Those of us who did not follow the leaders no longer have a place in the Republican party and have largely become Independents. I voted straight blue in the last election, but consider myself Independent. There is no reason to believe that either one party or the other will continue to