22-05-2025
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
