Maine’s Super PAC Donation Limits Spark Legal Battle

In the latest twist in the ongoing saga of campaign finance, Maine has taken a significant step in limiting the power of super PAC donations. In a recent vote, residents approved a measure that restricts individual or group contributions to super PACs to $5,000, with nearly three times as many in favor as against.

Lawrence Lessig, a Harvard Law School professor involved in this effort through the nonprofit group Equal Citizens, noted that the support for this measure cuts across political lines. “This shows that this is a very purple issue,” he stated, observing no observable difference in voter support in either red or blue districts.

The legal challenge following this vote, known as Dinner Table Action v. Schneider, is shaping up to be one of the most pivotal court cases in recent political history, potentially impacting the upcoming 2028 presidential election.

In July, a federal judge in Portland, Karen Frink Wolf, ruled against the contribution limits established by this new law, stating that they infringed upon the First Amendment rights. Her decision suggested that even if corruption risks exist, states can’t impose regulations to mitigate them.

Lessig strongly criticized Wolf’s ruling, calling it “the most extreme opinion in federal judicial history,” and implying that it dismisses the ability of states to act against corruption.

This ruling is now under appeal and awaits examination by the First Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston.

The rise of super PACs can be traced back to the Supreme Court’s 2010 landmark decision in Citizens United v. FEC, which lifted federal restrictions on spending by individuals and corporations in elections. Since then, super PACs have amassed over $5.1 billion in funds just this election cycle alone, overshadowing traditional campaign financing limits.

Lessig emphasized that it’s unlikely the Supreme Court will overturn Citizens United, arguing that the ruling itself allowed for regulation if risks of corruption exist.

However, Judge Wolf was skeptical about the justification for spending limits on independent groups, stating that if government concerns about corruption don’t suffice to impose limits on independent spending, they likely shouldn’t apply to contributions to such groups either.

The Supreme Court has not directly ruled on the constitutionality of limits on super PAC contributions, leaving it to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, which ruled shortly after the Citizens United case that restrictions on independent spending contributions were unconstitutional.

Since that time, several appeals courts have consistently ruled against imposing limits, with critics from organizations like the Institute for Free Speech (IFS) arguing that Lessig’s initiative is a repackaging of arguments that have previously failed.

Former FEC Chairman Allen Dickerson pointed out that while limiting contributions might seem appealing, it could unintentionally restrict a broader range of political voices. He argued that ordinary citizens might find themselves at a disadvantage compared to wealthy individuals and organizations.

Currently, Lessig’s focus is on capping super PAC donations rather than abolishing them entirely. He believes that while the measure would allow individuals to pool their resources, the influx of unlimited donations has shrunk the pool of influential donors to a more exclusive group.

However, he acknowledged the constraints imposed by historical rulings like Buckley v. Valeo, which allow individuals to spend freely on their campaigns but cap contributions from individual donors due to corruption concerns.

Dickerson countered that if unrestricted spending on candidates is permissible, establishing organizations to pool donations should also be allowed to encourage broader political participation.

As the legal battle continues, it remains uncertain whether the Supreme Court will take up this case, but ongoing discussions reveal deep divisions on how to handle money in politics.

Lessig argued passionately, “If we as a people have no faith in anything we have ever done in writing the Constitution, why don’t five Supreme Court justices agree with it?” The debate around super PACs and financial contributions in politics, if anything, is far from over.