Photo credit: abcnews.go.com
Legal Challenge to Maine’s Super PAC Donation Limits
PORTLAND, Maine — Two conservative organizations have initiated a lawsuit against a Maine law that restricts contributions to political action committees (PACs) that engage in independent spending on candidate elections. They argue that financial support for political expression is essential to the democratic process.
The referendum that was decisively passed by voters on Election Day sought to establish caps on individual donations to super PACs, subsequently setting the stage for a potential legal dispute. Advocates for the referendum believed it would lead to court challenges that might prompt the U.S. Supreme Court to provide clarification on donor limits. This anticipation stems from the Court’s 2010 Citizens United ruling, which relaxed restrictions on independent political spending.
The lawsuit is spearheaded by Dinner Table Action and For Our Future, with backing from the Institute for Free Speech. They argue that the new state law, which caps individual donations to super PACs at $5,000 and mandates disclosure of donor identities, conflicts with the Citizens United precedent.
The legal representatives for the plaintiffs stated, “All Americans, not just those running for office, have a fundamental First Amendment right to discuss political campaigns. These ‘independent expenditures’ are a crucial aspect of our democracy.”
Cara McCormick, a prominent figure in the Maine Citizens to End Super PACs movement that championed the referendum, expressed concern that the lawsuit aims to override the collective decision of the electorate. With 74% of voters backing the referendum, she emphasized that the residents of Maine are committed to addressing the influence of money in politics.
“Super PACs are detrimental to our democracy, and in Maine, we took a stand against them. Our goal is to rebuild public trust in our political system,” McCormick stated. “We refuse to see big money dictate our political landscape. Instead, we aim to shape that landscape ourselves.”
Conversely, Alex Titcomb, executive director of Dinner Table Action, maintained that the government should not inhibit independent political discourse merely because a segment of the electorate wishes to limit the expression of others.
The state’s attorney general and the Maine Commission on Governmental Ethics and Election Practices are named in the suit. The ethics commission has acknowledged receipt of the complaint and is currently reviewing it, as noted by executive director Jonathan Wayne.
Importantly, the Maine referendum did not seek to restrict spending on behalf of candidates but rather focused specifically on individual donation limits to super PACs, an area that observers note remains unaddressed by the Supreme Court in previous rulings.
Lawrence Lessig, a Harvard Law School professor and a prominent advocate for campaign finance reform, asserts that the Supreme Court has not definitively ruled on individual contributions to PACs. He argues that established legal precedents allow states to impose limits on such contributions, despite an opposing ruling from the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.
Lessig, whose organization Equal Citizens supported the Maine referendum, emphasized that the proposal is not an attempt to alter the Supreme Court’s existing interpretations of campaign finance law or to overturn Citizens United.
Source
abcnews.go.com