A federal judge has blocked Maine's new law capping the amount that individuals or organizations can contribute to so-called super PACs, ruling that the limits violate free speech.
The ballot initiative approved by Maine voters last year would set a $5,000 annual limit on donations to political action committees that make "independent expenditures" on candidate campaigns. Supporters argue that the cap is needed to avoid potential quid-pro-quo corruption — which is when an individual or group makes a donation and gets political favors in return from the elected official who benefited from their supposedly independent spending.
Roughly 75% of voters supported Question 1 on last year's ballot. But two Maine super PACs — For Our Future and Dinner Table Action — teamed up with national group the Institute for Free Speech to challenge the new law in court.
On Tuesday, U.S. Magistrate Judge Karen Frink Wolf declared the restrictions unconstitutional and blocked enforcement of the law.
"The portions of the act limiting contributions to PACs for the purposes of making independent expenditures ... violate the First Amendment on their face because there is no set of circumstances where they could be applied constitutionally," Wolf wrote in her 15-page ruling.
Wolf wrote that the Supreme Court's 2010 decision in Citizens United clearly prohibits any limits on contributions to groups that spend money to support or defeat candidates independently from those campaigns. That controversial decision opened the door for corporations and labor unions to spend unlimited sums on elections by protecting such spending as free speech under the First Amendment.
Wolf also blocked enforcement of additional donor disclosure requirements for super PACs.
“Dinner Table Action has hundreds of members who value the right to speak collectively. This injunction protects our, and every Mainer’s, fundamental right to join together and speak about elections,” said Alex Titcomb, executive director of the conservative political group. “I’m thrilled with this outcome, as it makes it clear that the government cannot restrict independent political speech or limit Mainers’ ability to speak about the issues that matter to them.”
Both Dinner Table Action and For Our Future are affiliated with state Rep. Laurel Libby, an Auburn Republican who is considering running for governor in 2026. The two PACs have waged highly successful fundraising campaigns in recent years.
The backers of last year's ballot initiative not only expected a legal challenge — they welcomed it. That's because they believe the Supreme Court hasn't addressed this specific issue involving super PACs. And they hope their case will eventually land in front of the high court.
Lawrence Lessig, a professor at Harvard Law School who founded the group Equal Citizens that launched the ballot initiative campaign, said Wednesday that he wasn't surprised by the federal District Court judge's decision. That's because courts across the country have struck down other similar measures seeking to limit donations to super PACs since the Citizens United decision and a subsequent decision by U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit.
Lessig, who teaches constitutional law at Harvard, argued that those rulings are based on a misreading of Citizens United. Lessig said the ballot initiative approved by Maine voters seeks to close a loophole in the current law that could allow "coordinated" donations to super PACs in return for favorable actions by the candidate — the classic "this for that" scenario in a quid pro quo transaction.
The DC appellate court made its ruling in the related case soon after the Supreme Court decision in Citizens United, opening the door for super PACs. And Lessig said the explosion of deep-pocketed super PACs since Citizens United — and the growing influence they are exerting on elections — makes this issue ripe for the Supreme Court.
The next step in that process, he said, is the First Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston.
"The First Circuit has never considered the question and it's a great circuit," Lessig said. "So I am optimistic that they will take the chance to look at it freshly and give us the right answer. And that's the case that we need to win. If we win in the First Circuit, we will be in the Supreme Court. If we don't, it will be a real fight to get to the Supreme Court."
The office of Maine Attorney General Aaron Frey, which represented the state in the federal case, declined to comment on Tuesday's ruling.
