A Question 1 campaign sign in Portland. (Photo by Emma Davis/ Maine Morning Star)
A federal court ruled on Tuesday that the law Maine voters passed in 2024 to set limits on so-called super PACs is unconstitutional — the second time within a few days that challenges to Maine’s voter-backed campaign finance restrictions have prevailed.
However, in this case, the ruling plays into the ultimate goal of those behind the law.
Roughly 75%, or 600,000, Maine voters approved this law, which set a $5,000 limit on donations to political action committees that independently spend money to try to support or defeat candidates, commonly referred to as super PACs. It also requires the disclosure of all donors who contribute toward independent expenditures, regardless of amount.
The ruling in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maine by U.S. Magistrate Judge Karen Frink Wolf concluded both constitute violations of the First Amendment.
The lawsuit, which was filed by two PACs (Dinner Table Action, founded by state Rep. Laurel Libby (R-Auburn) and activist Alex Titcomb, and For Our Future, run by Titcomb) was an expected and welcomed part of the plan of those who introduced the referendum.
Their hope is to eventually bring the question of the legality of such limits to the U.S. Supreme Court.
While the plaintiffs view Tuesday’s ruling as an outcome in their favor, those behind the referendum, notably legal scholar Lawrence Lessig who spearheaded it, still have an eye on that path. The state is now expected to appeal, and the ballot question committee also has the option to do so since the court granted them standing as interveners.
Charles Miller of the Institute for Free Speech, one of the plaintiff’s two attorneys, told Maine Morning Star he believes this decision and another federal court decision on Friday that a law passed by Maine voters in 2023 prohibiting foreign government spending in elections is likely unconstitutional demonstrate that an appeal doesn’t make sense.
“This, combined with the decision from the First Circuit last week, was very clear that the courts across the country recognize the importance of people being able to engage in election-related speech,” Miller said.
While the two recent court decisions are topically related, Lessig, a professor at Harvard Law School, told Maine Morning Star they are distinct in key ways. And that no one should be surprised that the district court followed the decisions of all other courts so far.
The district court’s interpretation of the controversial, landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision on corporate contributions is wrong, Lessig argues, and constitutes the core question he and other supporters hope will now be addressed in the First Circuit Court of Appeals.
The bigger picture
The ban on foreign spending in elections deals with limiting the ability of certain entities to spend money in Maine elections. However, Tuesday’s ruling doesn’t involve limits on expenditures, only limits to the contributions to committees that make the expenditures.
While this may seem like splitting hairs, it is the very distinction in the Supreme Court’s philosophy that Lessig and others behind the Super PAC referendum say makes interpretations of Citizens United v. Federal Election Campaign Act to date flawed.
“Citizens United forecloses limits on contributions to independent expenditure groups,” Frink Wolf wrote in Tuesday’s decision.
Since Buckley v. Valeo in 1976, the Supreme Court has allowed contributions to be regulated when there is a risk of “quid pro quo” corruption, essentially a favor for a favor. In the case of elections, if there is a risk someone could be making a donation to a candidate in exchange for a favor, then Congress can regulate that contribution. In 2010, the Supreme Court extended this reasoning to corporations and unions in Citizens United.
Three months later, in SpeechNow.org v. FEC, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld that contributions to PACs cannot be regulated either, as long as the PAC is “independent.” Other lower federal and state courts followed suit but the ruling was never reviewed by the Supreme Court.
Lessig doesn’t think the Supreme Court will change Citizens United, but he believes the question the Maine referendum raises — whether contributions to a committee that makes independent expenditures can be limited — is not answered in Citizens United.
Under the logic of Citizens United, independent expenditures are uncoordinated and create no risk of quid pro quo corruption, but donations to a committee that makes independent expenditures may or may not be coordinated. Therefore, Lessig said, they create the risk of quid pro quo corruption and can be regulated by Congress.
Lessig hopes the appeal will be swift so the First Circuit will have an opportunity to take up the question by the fall and issue a decision sometime in the spring. If the court decides in favor of the law, the issue could be in the Supreme Court by the fall of 2026. If the First Circuit rules otherwise, the path to the high court is less direct but still possible, Lessig said.
“The key thing is just stay tuned,” he said. “I think 600,000 Mainers were correct.”