A national legal group has filed a federal lawsuit challenging a new campaign finance law that was overwhelmingly passed by Maine voters last month.
Nearly 75% of Maine voters supported the ballot initiative setting a $5,000 annual limit on contributions to so-called super PACs that make independent expenditures in candidate campaigns. But a lawsuit filed Friday in federal district court argues that political contributions are constitutionally protected free speech.
The lawsuit was filed on behalf of two conservative political action committees in Maine — Dinner Table Action and For Our Future — that argue a $5,000 cap and new donor disclosure requirements would have "severe consequences for Mainers who wish to organize and exercise their political speech rights."
Charles Miller, an attorney with the Institute for Free Speech in Washington, D.C., said federal courts have clearly upheld in cases such as Citizens United and SpeechNOW that limits on political contributions and spending are unconstitutional.
"There have been over 30 federal appellate judges who have looked at this, including every single judge on the D.C. Circuit, which is considered to be the second-highest court in the land, and all of those judges have found this to be unconstitutional," Miller said in an interview. "It's not a heavy lift for them to have made that decision. And it's an extremely heavy lift if the proponents think the United States Supreme Court will even entertain taking this case. That's just not going to happen."
But that's exactly where the groups behind Question 1 hope to end up.
"Contrary to popular belief the Supreme Court has never ruled on super PACs and now they might have a chance to do so," said Cara McCormick with Citizens to End Super-PACs, the local political action committee that put the issue before Maine voters. "There's a glaring flaw in the lower court ruling that once you see it, you can't unsee it. We know we are on the right side of history in Maine and we have faith that the courts, with all of their might, will respect our sovereignty and uphold the new law."
Even before Question 1 passed by overwhelming margins last month, the backers of the initiative were gearing up for a legal fight. In fact, that was a major reason why the groups chose Maine as the venue to set a $5,000 annual limit on donations to super PACs that make independent expenditures in campaigns.
The high-profile Citizens United case decided by the Supreme Court in 2010 allowed for essentially unlimited spending by corporations, labor unions and other groups. These "independent expenditures" must happen outside of candidate campaigns. But critics contend the ruling opened the flood gates for wealthy groups and individuals to try to sway elections, often through "dark money" that flows to groups that don't have to disclose donors.
In a related case, called SpeechNOW, an appellate court similarly ruled that limits on political contributions (not spending) were also constitutionally protected free speech. But that case never ended up before the Supreme Court. And McCormick and her allies — led by a Harvard University law professor, Lawrence Lessig — believe the court will side with them if it hears the case.
"Super PACs are killing the country and in Maine we decided to try to do something about it," McCormick said. "We want to restore public trust in the political process . . . Maine voters once again are leading the way to help fix our broken political system. We deserve a system that is not only free of political corruption but also free from the appearance of corruption."
But Alex Titcomb, the executive director of Dinner Table Action and principle officer at For Our Future, said the new law would severely restrict his groups and their donors. The two organizations have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars in recent elections. For Our Future funneled $100,000 to Dinner Table Action, the PAC connected to Republican Rep. Laurel Libby of Auburn.
“This unconstitutional law would drastically reduce our ability to speak about candidates and issues that matter to Mainers,” Titcomb said in a statement. “The government cannot restrict independent political speech simply because some voters wish to limit the voices of their fellow citizens.”
All of the donations to For Our Future have exceeded the $5,000 cap. The group's largest donor is The Concord Fund, a conservative advocacy organization formerly known as the Judicial Crisis Network and Judicial Confirmation Network that is closely tied to Leonard Leo.
The co-chair of The Federalist Society, Leo and his allies are often credited with helping create the current conservative majority on the U.S. Supreme Court. Leo has a house on Mount Desert Island.
