PORTLAND, Maine — On Friday, two conservative organizations took legal action against a Maine law that restricts the amount individuals can donate to political action committees (PACs) which engage in independent spending for candidate elections. They argue that financial contributions aimed at facilitating political expression are essential to a healthy democracy.
The measure, which was strongly supported by voters during the recent election, was anticipated to lead to legal disputes regarding the limits on contributions to super PACs. Advocates of the referendum expressed hopes that it would result in a court case that could eventually present the issue to the U.S. Supreme Court, especially in light of the 2010 Citizens United ruling that allowed increased independent spending.
The lawsuit filed by Dinner Table Action and For Our Future, with backing from the Institute for Free Speech, challenges the state law that caps individual contributions to super PACs at $5,000. It also mandates that donor identities be disclosed, which the plaintiffs argue infringes on the principles established in Citizens United.
In the court documents, the lawyers stated, “Every American has a fundamental First Amendment right to discuss political campaigns, extending beyond those running for office.” They emphasized that independent expenditures are crucial for political discourse, allowing individuals not in political races to express their views on campaigns that matter to them.
Cara McCormick, who heads the Maine Citizens to End Super PACs and was instrumental in advocating for the referendum, expressed her disappointment with the lawsuit, noting that it seeks to undermine the democratic choice made by a substantial majority of Maine voters—74%—who endorsed the measure last month.
“Super PACs threaten our nation, and in Maine, we decided to take a stand. We are working to rebuild public faith in our political system,” she commented. “We aim to demonstrate that Maine is not passive in the face of excessive money in politics; we are actively resisting it.”
Conversely, Alex Titcomb, executive director of Dinner Table Action, asserted that the government should not have the authority to limit independent political speech simply because some citizens prefer restricting the voices of others.
The lawsuit names several officials, including Maine’s attorney general and the state’s campaign finance regulatory body, the Maine Commission on Governmental Ethics and Election Practices. According to Jonathan Wayne, who leads the ethics commission, they are currently assessing the complaint.
Unlike previous measures, the Maine referendum does not target overall spending for candidates but specifically focuses on capping individual contributions to super PACs—an area where the Supreme Court has yet to establish definitive rulings.
Lawrence Lessig, a Harvard Law School professor and a long-standing advocate for reforming campaign finance, pointed out that the Supreme Court has not provided guidance on individual donations to PACs. He believes established judicial principles allow states to impose limits on such contributions, despite a contrary decision by the D.C. Court of Appeals.
Lessig, who represented the Equal Citizens nonprofit that supported the Maine referendum, previously stated that the donation cap imposed by the referendum does not call for a change in Supreme Court jurisprudence or a reconsideration of the Citizens United ruling.