The Page, part 2
Posted: April 17, 2026 Filed under: Chronicles of a First Time Parent Leave a comment
Bitter is our national divide and debate over rights; like sharp toothed dogs we gnaw on our prey, the Amendments 1st, 2nd, and 14th to name the more frequently challenged three among the twenty seven. Discussion of civic responsibility, meanwhile, seems held in an empty auditorium where few if any attend; that yoke not willingly assumed in this age when might makes right and dominance has become a defining trait.
On the day, however, my Daughter was Page on the floor of the State of Maine Senate, debate was vigorous between rights and responsibility. The topic was LD 1822, the Maine Online Data Privacy Act, which fundamentally addressed the 4th Amendment, defining “reasonable expectations of privacy.” The choice was between the responsibility of individual privacy versus the rights of business using digital data to target market to consumers, and minors, in Maine.
LD 1822 has been the most heavily lobbied bill this year. The Chamber of Commerce aggressively challenged it, which mirrored a trend nationally. More than $1.1 Billion has been spent since the 2024 election by Big Tech, including Meta, Amazon, and Google parent Alphabet, as reported by the consumer advocacy group Public Citizen.
There is no single comprehensive federal policy for digital privacy. A few disparate regulations – for health care (HIPPA), finance (GLBA) and Children’s Online Privacy (COPPA) – have been made law, but those were written almost 30-years ago. The US Government Accountability Office reports, “The collection or use of personal information by the federal government is governed primarily by two laws…But there is no overarching federal privacy law that governs the collection and sale of personal information among private-sector companies. There is also no federal statute that gives consumers the right to learn what information is held about them for marketing purposes and who holds it.” Upon the states falls the responsibility to protect consumers.
Our day on the Senate floor saw LD 1822’s final vote take place. The law was written to exceed the requirements of other states, by imposing stricter data minimization (to collect less) and stronger limitations on data sharing (to share less). The “accept all cookies” question gives companies unrestricted permission to track, store, and sell user data for targeted advertising. Debate was vigorous.
Anne Carney, a strong proponent, and the Senator who invited my Daughter to serve as Page, opened up the debate. She commented the bill has been 6-years in development, the financial impact fell substantially to large corporations, much less to family owned businesses, and that Massachusetts is considering a similar law.
An Honorable Senator stood to counter, “Massachusetts is never smart to follow. A bad idea gets bad results.” He acknowledged he neither understood nor used “the Facebook thing,” but, as the owner of a vegetable stand in the Penobscot region, assured the floor that his Son-in-Law had said the law would be bad for their family business.
Carney regained the floor: “The law protects children from predators. Who benefits?” rhetorically, she asked, “not the small Maine businesses. The data brokers are unrestrained.” She quoted a Reuters special report from November 2025, “Meta internally projected…10% of its overall annual revenue – or $16 billion – from advertising for scams and banned goods…fraudulent e-commerce and investment schemes, illegal online casinos, and the sale of banned medical products.” She concluded, “This is an abject failure of the Feds.”
The Penobscot farmer, armed with opinions but no facts, regained the floor to argue this law was “a 1st Amendment issue, the language is vague, this is an additional cost to Maine business that will empower out-of-state businesses.” Another Senator gained the floor to read from the very long list of major corporations in the State – LL Bean, included – who strongly opposed the bill. He implored a no vote. Opposition was vocal and strong.
Rick Bennett, the only Independent on the Floor, stood to speak, seeking a compromise, “The bill contains an exemption for not-for-profits, which are a huge employer. The ACLU supports this bill, and they advocate in politics, meaning the bill is imposed on others but not upon themselves.” Bennett called for a vote on a “Movement to Recede to Prepare an Amendment.” Carney stood to challenge, “This is 6-years work! No amendment will help now.” Bennett replied, “The Senator had proposed the not-for-profit amendment, why not another now?” Vote on the Movement to Recede failed 14 in favor and 19 opposed.
A meeting was held in private with the President of the Senate, and when Bennett returned, he called a vote to “Table Until Later.” Vote to Table failed 14 in favor and 19 opposed.
Still another meeting with the President, after which a vote for “Indefinite Postponement” was called but that vote also failed 14 in favor and 19 opposed.
On the day my Daughter was an Honorary Page, civic responsibility rather than corporate rights was affirmed as LD 1822 passed the Maine Senate. That evening Senator Carney wrote to me, “I have been involved in this data privacy work in the Judiciary Committee for the past six years, and this iteration is a great bill that is well-equipped to comprehensively protect users online — particularly minors.”
A poet once wrote, “Laws are like sausages. It is best not to see them being made.” Indeed, that is what we experienced on our day and the following 9 days.
The House of Representatives two days later rejected the Senate version because of its exemption for political groups: 70 in favor and 78 opposed.
Four days later, the Senate again voted to approve the bill, 18 in favor and 14 opposed, thus sending the Bill back to the lower chamber.
Three days later, on 9 April, a motion in the House to Recede and Concur with the Senate failed by a vote of 70 in favor and 79 opposed.
Businesses en masse lobbied to oppose the law, arguing undue hardship by limiting their advertising to targeted consumers based on search history, location and other personal data. Most states have passed an industry-favored version, allowing companies to collect data as long as consumers agree to it. But Maine has nothing in place. Corporate interest is unrestricted.
Rep. Rachel Henderson, who originally had proposed a less strict version lamented, “The sad reality is that…when the bill dies tonight, we still walk out of here without a privacy policy.”
Might makes right, until we choose change.
an Art Farm 