Maine PACs say campaign finance lawsuit is about free speech. The state says it's about corruption
May 22—The U.S. Supreme Court changed campaign finance law significantly when it ruled in 2010 against efforts to limit spending by political action committees, calling it an infringement of free speech. But does that apply to how much money these groups receive in contributions to pay for protected expenditures such as TV ads and text messages?
U.S. District Court Magistrate Karen Wolf plans to answer that question by July 15.
Lawyers for two of Maine's conservative political action committees, or PACs, were in federal court in Portland on Thursday asking her to stop the state from enforcing a new law that caps PAC contributions at $5,000. The law was approved in a referendum last fall, but state officials agreed to delay its implementation until May 30.
The plaintiffs' attorneys urged Wolf to consider the Supreme Court's 2010 decision, Citizens United v. the Federal Elections Commission, and what they argue is a serious threat to the First Amendment. The state's attorneys pointed to the popularity of the new law and suggested voters are concerned with corruption. Wolf has also allowed numerous people to intervene in the legal case to defend the law, including the Mainers who started the citizens' initiative, state Sen. Richard Bennett, R-Oxford, and a nonpartisan fair elections organization called EqualCitizens.
POPULAR INITIATIVE
Roughly 75% of voters last fall agreed to restrict how much people can donate to PACs. It was put on the ballot because of a citizen initiative that required 68,000 signatures. The effort received at least 84,000 signatures, making it one of the most popular citizens' initiatives in Maine history, the state's lawyer said.
The measure sets a $5,000 limit on contributions to PACs that make independent expenditures to elect or defeat candidates for public office. It also caps contributions to candidates and requires the disclosure of small-amount donors.
The Institute for Free Speech, a nonprofit law firm based in Washington, D.C., known to oppose campaign finance reform, sued the state in December. They represent both the Dinner Table Action Committee and For Our Future, two PACs that would be hindered from raising funds under the new law.
Their attorney, Charles Miller, argued that the Citizens United decision must be applied "one step further" to contributions.
Miller said there's a process in place to ensure that contributions to PACs are ethical. He's not against having a system to regulate that. He argued these contributions should be presumed independent from influence, despite the state's claims that even the appearance of corruption merits restrictions.
Miller also had concerns with the law's disclosure provisions for small donors who contribute less than $50.
"I'm not standing here today to say that disclosure requirements, writ large, aren't appropriate," said Miller, but, he argued, it's unlikely these small donations are bribes. He said disclosure could put donors at risk of harassment if they give to unpopular causes.
CORRUPTION CONCERNS
Miller argued that capping donations could also be seen as punishing those with unpopular, but constitutionally protected, views.
When Wolf pointed to the law's popularity, Miller suggested it didn't matter how many votes the referendum got, because the law still violates the First Amendment.
"They don't want to hear the speech. That's the visceral reaction they have," Miller said. "(That's) why we have the First Amendment."
Lawyers for the state argued that Mainers were more concerned about corruption, not free speech.
Assistant Attorney General Jonathan Bolton pointed to clear, publicized instances in other states where he said PACs have been tied to massive corruption. He referenced former Sen. Bob Menendez of New Jersey, who was convicted in 2024 of accepting bribes from businessmen and acting as an agent for the Egyptian government.
Menendez had gone to trial several years earlier, facing similar but unrelated allegations, including one charge that he solicited bribes for a PAC. That ended in a hung jury.
"This is a real thing that can happen," Bolton said. "It's not hypothetical. He was convicted, and we went to court documents that show there was a super PAC that was involved in the scheme, that was making expenditures in support of the candidate."
Copy the Story Link
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
10 minutes ago
- Yahoo
More than 30 arrested at immigration protest in Spokane sparked by arrest of 2 immigrants
Jun. 12—Immigration protests erupted in Spokane on Wednesday, sparking a massive police response and 30 arrests. Mayor Lisa Brown issued a 9:30 p.m. curfew for perhaps 1,000 protestors who flooded Riverfront Park and surrounding downtown streets. It's the first such measure since the 2020 Black Lives Matter protests in the wake of George Floyd's murder. The curfew and police presence had the desired effect as most of the crowd dispersed. By 11 p.m. about 20 protesters remained. "We want everybody to be safe and we thought this was the best path forward in order to achieve that," Brown said. "I made the decision that the safest course of action was by Spokane Police, not ICE, to try to safely disperse the crowd." She made the call in response to hundreds of demonstrators who blocked federal immigration enforcement agents in Spokane on Wednesday evening from leaving a downtown immigration office reportedly with refugees who were detained at court hearings earlier in the day. Spokane Police Chief Kevin Hall said at a late-night news conference that while it appeared that officers deployed tear gas, it was actually smoke grenades. He also said Spokane police officers used pepper balls but did not fire rubber bullets. He said about 185 city officers responded to both incidents. Hall said that he not heard that any other law enforcement agency used rubber bullets. "Certainly there were peaceful folks demonstrating and utilizing their First Amendment rights, and there were also people in the crowd who were committing crimes," Hall said. The protest is arguably the most extreme local showing of resistance, among others in Los Angeles and across the country, to President Donald Trump's sweeping immigration crackdowns since he took office for the second time in January. The day of unrest began on Cataldo Avenue after former City Council President Ben Stuckart sent a social media post at about 1 p.m. asking "that if you care at all about these illegal detainers you meet me at 411 West Cataldo by 2 p.m. I am going to set in front of the bus. Feel free to join me .... "The Latino community needs the rest of our community. Not tonight, not Saturday but right now!!!!" Stuckart was responding to the arrest of 21-year-old Cesar Alexander Alvarez Perez, who is seeking asylum from Venezuela, and Joswar Slater Rodriguez Torres, a Colombian national also in his early twenties. Stuckart said he officially became the Venezuelan's legal guardian three weeks ago, and arrived with him and the man from Colombia for a scheduled "check-in" appointment at the Spokane facility this morning. The two were in the United States on work visas and had full-time employment at the Walmart in Airway Heights until Friday, when their "work permits were revoked," he said. Both young men are hard workers who have been diligent about following the legal process and building better lives, Stuckart said. "You can't help spend time with them and not understand just what great young men they are," Stuckart said. "They've done everything right, and they're escaping horrible situations, and then to have them come in for a checkup and be detained illegally is morally reprehensible." For the first few hours, most of the demonstration remained peaceful, aside from a masked person who covered the driver's side of the bus windshield with a layer of white spray paint about a half hour into the demonstration. More than a dozen protestors joined Stuckart despite warnings from a pair of uniformed federal agents who came out of the building to warn the crowd that obstructing their pathway could lead to arrests and charges. Protesters responded by parking their vehicles in front and behind the bus. "I don't want this bus to leave with my friends," Stuckart said. "And I told everybody I was down here, and if people wanted to join me, they could. It's not right. It's not morally right, what's happening." The Cataldo crowd included several prominent politicians, activists and community leaders, including Spokane County Democratic Party Chair Naida Spencer; state Rep. Timm Orsmby; Spokane City Council candidate Sarah Dixit; union advocate and a former Democratic candidate for local, state and federal offices Ted Cummings; Thrive International Director Mark Finney and Latinos en Spokane Director Jennyfer Mesa. While the protestors share a desire to see the young men let go, and frustrations with federal immigration enforcement, they disagreed as to how. Some were a silent presence, others carried signs and chanted, while others were more direct in showing their displeasure by shouting at the law enforcement officers. The disconnect became evident as barriers were formed in front of the gated parking lot using benches, cones and Lime scooters, taken down by others and then reformed in front of the line of Spokane police and Spokane County Sheriff's deputy cars next to the building. Mesa said both of the young men are clients of Latinos en Spokane. But her presence Wednesday was meant as a gesture for her friends, not just her clients. "They're good kids," she said, choking back tears. "They have been volunteering, they're doing the process and everything legally. I just don't understand why they're being detained." Stuckart said the federal employees in the ICE office would not allow him to accompanying Alvarez Perez during his appointment and they did not disclose why either young men were being detained. Stuckart estimated it took around seven minutes from when they went back for their appointment for federal officials to come out and inform him they were being detained. "And each of them has a stack of legal paperwork at least 2 inches thick, with all their asylum paperwork and their guardianship paperwork, and they clearly didn't look at it," Stuckart said. "They just said, 'We're detaining them.'" Stuckart said he started the legal guardianship process earlier this year after a call from Latinos en Spokane for local residents to assist local "vulnerable juveniles." He volunteers with the organization regularly and said he has greatly enjoyed getting to know Alvarez Perez, who's lived in Spokane for six months. Alvarez Perez came to Spokane by way of Miami, after walking through nine countries on his way from Venezuela and meeting Rodriguez Torres along the way. Stuckart said his main responsibility as a guardian is to provide mentorship. "He's not living with us, and I'm not in charge of his finances or anything," Stuckart said. The gathering grew to about 100 people at about 5 p.m., including about 15 blocking the bus. Stuckart was not in front of the bus at the time, but he remained at the protest. Among the protestors was Alicea Gonzalez, 27, who brought her 5-year-old son Javell and father, Adam Betancort, 46. She wore a Mexico T-shirt to the protest, and the pair brought flags, one of Mexico, the other half-Mexican, half-American. The latter flag is representative of Betancourt and his identity, he said while holding the flapping fabric towards passing cars on the corner of Cataldo Ave and Washington Street, right outside the ICE facility. "I'm American and I'm a Mexican," he said. Though they don't know either of the men detained by ICE, they're familiar with their story; Gonzalez's maternal grandmother crossed the U.S.-Mexico border in the 1950s, floating across the river in a car tire, she said. Betancort's parents are also immigrants from Mexico. "I appreciate that; I wouldn't have the life that I live without her," Gonzalez said. "So I'm just showing my support, letting people know that they have people out here that will stand behind them, and use their voices to speak up for them." Around 5:25 p.m., a group of roughly 150 protesters ran around the back of the building to obstruct three unmarked law enforcement vehicles from leaving a fenced-in parking area abutting the public parking area for Riverfront Park. Protesters shouted "Shame" repeatedly and about 10 of them linked arms in a line in front of the parking lot gate. A handful of agents, faces covered by ski masks and sunglasses, began to push the human chain of demonstrators, knocking their glasses and handmade signs scattering on the ground. Protestors and officers shoved each other in a mass of yelling and chanting for about a minute before the agents retreated into their parking lot and the gate closed. Not long after the agents retreated back inside, a handful of protesters hauled Lime scooters and park benches as a barricade to block vehicles from leaving from the gate. Spokane Police officers arrived shortly before 6:30 p.m., followed by Spokane County sheriff's deputies. The local law enforcement response grew to dozens outside the building by about 6:45 p.m. The group then formed a sort of protective barrier for an exit on the Washington Street side of the building. They carried weapons to shoot less-lethal munitions, with what appeared to be tear gas canisters and large hip bags with unidentified materials inside. As the officers widened their perimeter to encompass much of the yard abutting the Washington Street side of the building, another group of deputies and officers began forcibly removing protestors from around the small bus. A Spokane Police Department officer spoke over the regional SWAT car speaker system at 7:13 p.m. and ordered everyone present to disperse. The officer gave the demonstrators five minutes to do so. Few left the scene when police warned at 7:22 p.m. that they would use force if the crowd did not leave. Stuckart, Spencer and at least a dozen others were arrested just after 7:30 p.m. Brown said she talked with Stuckart earlier in the day and it was clear he was prepared to get arrested in an attempt to prevent the bus from leaving. She also consulted with Washington Attorney General Nick Brown and connected Stuckart to Nick Brown. "Ben did inform me that members of his group intended to peacefully protest, and they intended to stay at the facility until they were arrested," she said at the conference. The mayor said she told Stuckart that Spokane police would comply with the Keep Washington Working Act, strive to keep the peace and "enforce Spokane laws." The Keep Washington Working Act restricts state and local law enforcement in Washington from assisting federal immigration enforcement. She said that arresting protesters blocking immigration detainees from being jailed is not a violation of the state law because protestors were violating other city laws, like blocking the public right-of-way. She said protesters were warned repeatedly if they were violating laws before arrests were made. "The vast majority were peaceful, expressing their viewpoints as they have every right to do and compliant with officers," Brown said. "There's serious concerns about federal policies. We want people to feel free to express those concerns and we want to keep everyone safe." Police began detaining the 15 or so demonstrators who enveloped an unmarked red van with two ICE officers in the front seat. The windows of the van were tinted, but protestors thought it may soon carry the two men ICE detained. Police warned the demonstrators if they didn't move, they'd be arrested for obstruction. The 15, including Stuckart, had prepared to be arrested, writing phone numbers up their arms and leaving belongings with other protesters. Some went willingly, quietly putting their own hands behind their back as officers led them one by one to a SWAT car parked nearby. One protestor resisted their detainment, wriggling and contorting themselves while yelling as multiple officers pinned them to the group and tied their hands and feet. Eventually, each person who enveloped the red van was detained. Someone deflated one of the van's tires and it was towed off hours later after police had dispersed the crowd in that area. A second, planned protest at Riverfront Park escalated hours after the Stuckart-led event and riot-clad officers began shooting tear gas and making arrests, with the two eventually merging. Harris Kahler, a 23-year-old protestor said he was standing in the front lines when officers pulled out paint guns and shot the ground in front of the line around 8:40 p.m. After that, smoke canisters were thrown and Kahler kicked one back in response. Kahler then went to grab another, turned around and believed he was shot in the lower back with a rubber bullet. "I'm in a lot of pain, but if I physically have to be here, I'll be the shield I got to be," Kahler said. In a telephone interview, City Council President Betsy Wilkerson said she acknowledged the right of everyone to protest. "If I wasn't somewhere else, I might be there myself to support our sisters and brothers," she said. "I'm just hoping for the best outcome, elevating the issue and getting people involved in the way they feel they best can, and that's a protest. "With that being said, we're not trying to throw more wood on this fire, to elevate it to more than a peaceful protest." Reached by phone, City Councilman Jonathan Bingle said he fully supports the right of every American to peacefully protest. "It's one of the rights that makes our country so great! But, the moment a protest turns into small vandalism, threats, or lawlessness, it is no longer protected speech. It becomes a crime, and should be dealt with as such," Bingle said. "I am stunned by the position of some of our current and former elected officials in our city. Instead of standing for the rule of law and the officers who keep our streets safe, they seem more interested in scoring points or justifying bad behavior. That is not leadership." City Councilman Paul Dillon in an interview that he supported those who were willing to stand up for their beliefs. "No human being is illegal," he said. "This is a direct result of the escalation and fears the Trump administration inflicts on communities which create chaos." Reporters Elena Perry, Thomas Clouse, Emry Dinman and Corbin Vanderby contributed to this report. Elena Perry's work is funded in part by members of the Spokane community via the Community Journalism and Civic Engagement Fund. This story can be republished by other organizations for free under a Creative Commons license. For more information on this, please contact our newspaper's managing editor.
Yahoo
10 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Coalition: Lack of press shield law makes Mass. an outlier
BOSTON (SHNS) – Massachusetts is one of just nine states without a 'press shield law' that a media advocacy coalition says would to protect journalists from being required to disclose their confidential sources and other sensitive information in court. Coalition members including the Massachusetts Broadcasters Association, Massachusetts Newspaper Publishers Association and Boston Globe Media say they're making a stronger push this session for a bill (S 1253, H 1738) that would provide 'clear safeguards' for confidential sources and sensitive material so that journalists can fulfill their 'constitutionally protected watchdog role.' 'It is absolutely obvious that we are in a time where we need to pay attention to the shortfall and failure, to date, of Massachusetts to actually pass a press shield law that we so desperately need, given what is happening in the national sphere,' longtime bill sponsor Sen. Becca Rausch said on Wednesday. No version of the bill has ever cleared the Judiciary Committee. Organizers said the bill has been proposed for around 15 years, but that they tracked the concept back to the 1970s. The bill is modeled after the federal Press Act, which the U.S. House passed unanimously in 2024. According to Bob Ambrogi, executive director of the Massachusetts Newspaper Publishers Association, one of the reasons the coalition chose the federal bill as its model was because it had been 'vetted by pretty much every major news organization in the country' and leading media lawyers. If passed, journalists would not have to name sources or disclose confidential newsgathering information unless the disclosure is necessary to prevent 'an act of terrorism' or 'a threat of imminent violence, bodily harm, or death.' Unless a court finds similar threats, state officials would not be able to force third-party email or phone providers to disclose sensitive records, and journalists and news organizations would be notified before their records are sought by state officials. Organizers referenced Massachusetts cases in which journalists were challenged when protecting their anonymous sources, namely a 2022 case between the Berkshire Eagle and the Springfield Diocese and another case involving the Boston Globe, Dana Farber Cancer Institute and a physician at the hospital. Chief Operating Officer and General Counsel of Boston Globe Media Dan Krockmalnic said the Globe has filed more than a dozen motions in the last few years to fight subpoenas for information about reporters and sources. The financial burden and time-consuming nature of those kinds of cases, House bill sponsor Rep. Rich Haggerty said, puts local news specifically at a disadvantage. 'Every single time we see a local news organization challenged, spending resources and money on protecting what should be a First Amendment right already protected — and this law would help that — we know they're not spending those resources on informing our communities,' Haggerty said. Past opposition includes law enforcement, which media lawyer Jon Albano said was concerned that its ability to investigate a crime that has been in the news could be stymied if they aren't able to subpoena a reporter to find out who they've spoken with. 'In general, there's probably some other way they can figure out how to get to that source or get to that information, but it's kind of a shortcut to subpoena the reporter and say, 'Where did you get this information?'' Albano said. While concerns have existed in the past about shield laws potentially unduly protecting sources in criminal investigations, 41 states and Washington, D.C. have a press shield law, Krockmalnic said. 'The sky has not fallen anywhere there. It will not fall here. And we know that authorities in those jurisdictions regularly and successfully prosecute crimes that are reported on by the press despite the existence of a robust shield law,' Krockmalnic said. 'But here in Massachusetts, sources provide their information at their own peril. They know that their names and information that they provide can be demanded by the government or by private litigants and must rely on the press's ability and funds to fight on their behalf to try to convince the court that we deserve protection.' The bill defines a 'covered journalist' as 'a person who regularly and credibly gathers, prepares, collects, photographs, records, writes, edits, reports, investigates, or publishes news or information in a professional manner that concerns local, national, or international events or other matters of public interest for dissemination to the public.' 'It is our intention to not overly constrain how a journalist or journalism or the act of newsgathering is defined in legislation,' Krockmalnic said. 'If you are plausibly engaged in the act of newsgathering, then the law should apply to you.' Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Fox News
an hour ago
- Fox News
Chicago mayor says Trump's America looks like Confederacy won, suggests ICE are 'terrorists'
All times eastern FOX News Radio Live Channel Coverage WATCH LIVE: Trump attends bill signing ceremony at the White House
