Mainers Unite to Curb Big Money in Politics: A Bipartisan Effort to Reshape the Landscape

In a rare display of political unity, leaders across the spectrum in Maine have found common ground on a ballot initiative that aims to limit the influence of dark money in the state's elections. The initiative, known as Question 1, has garnered support from a diverse coalition of civic and business leaders, as well as lawmakers from both parties, who see it as a crucial step in restoring the power of the people in the democratic process.

Empowering Voters, Curbing Corporate Influence

A Bipartisan Crusade Against Big Money

The political landscape in Maine has been marked by a growing consensus that the outsized influence of money in elections must be addressed. Question 1, which seeks to place a $5,000 limit on donations to political action committees (PACs) that independently spend money to support or defeat candidates, has emerged as a unifying force. Endorsed by 128 civic and business leaders, the initiative has garnered the support of Maine's Democratic U.S. Representatives Chellie Pingree and Jared Golden, as well as Republican state Senator Rick Bennett.The endorsers of Question 1 share a common belief that the current system has allowed corporations and the ultra-wealthy to drown out the voices of everyday voters. Pingree, in a statement to Maine Morning Star, decried the "billions of dollars" spent by these entities to elect candidates who would further their interests, arguing that the "power should be in the hands of everyday voters, not corporations." Golden echoed this sentiment, stating that the initiative would "reduce the influence of corporations, millionaires and billionaires in our elections, and shift the balance of power in our democracy back to the voters."

A Nationwide Effort to Curb the Influence of Super PACs

The Maine initiative is part of a broader movement to address the impact of the Supreme Court's 2010 Citizens United v. FEC decision, which paved the way for the rise of super PACs. These independent expenditure-only groups can accept unlimited political donations, often from anonymous sources, and use that money to influence elections.The driving force behind the Maine effort is legal scholar Lawrence Lessig, who has been working to advance similar measures through his nonprofit, EqualCitizens.US. Lessig sees the Maine initiative as a potential pathway to a Supreme Court ruling that could ultimately limit the influence of super PACs nationwide.Lessig's argument is that the Maine referendum, if passed and subsequently challenged in court, could provide the Supreme Court with an opportunity to revisit the issue of campaign finance regulation. He believes that the growing bipartisan support for the initiative could signal to the Court that there is a political appetite for reining in the influence of big money in politics.

The Long-Term Goal: Challenging Citizens United

The ultimate aim of the Maine initiative is to set the stage for a Supreme Court ruling that could potentially overturn or significantly modify the Citizens United decision. By limiting donations to PACs, the initiative seeks to address the issue of "quid pro quo" corruption, where large contributions to these groups could create a risk of favors being exchanged between donors and candidates.Harvard Law professor emeritus Larry Tribe and Chicago Law professor emeritus Al Alschuler, who were involved in the citizen referendum process, argue that this type of regulation is constitutionally permissible, even in the wake of Citizens United. They contend that the Supreme Court's ruling did not explicitly address the issue of contributions to PACs, leaving the door open for such limits to be imposed.If the Maine referendum is passed and its constitutionality is challenged, the state's Attorney General's office would be responsible for defending the measure in court. This legal battle could ultimately make its way to the Supreme Court, providing an opportunity for the justices to revisit the issue of campaign finance regulation.

Navigating the Challenges: Skepticism and Potential Legal Hurdles

The Maine initiative has not been without its critics and challenges. Some attorneys and groups focused on reducing money in politics have expressed concerns about the potential unconstitutionality of the measure, arguing that it may be struck down by the courts.Maine Citizens for Clean Elections, a prominent organization in the state, initially raised doubts about the initiative's chances of success, citing the Supreme Court's current approach to campaign finance. However, the group has since shifted its stance, now supporting the referendum while acknowledging the risks involved.Another potential hurdle is the legal costs that the state may incur if the referendum is challenged in court. This concern is not unfounded, as Maine is currently embroiled in a legal battle over a separate campaign finance referendum that passed in 2023, which prohibits foreign government spending in elections.Despite these challenges, the bipartisan support for the Maine initiative suggests that there is a growing recognition among political leaders and the public that the influence of big money in politics must be addressed. The referendum's proponents believe that the potential benefits of curbing the power of super PACs outweigh the risks, and they are willing to take on the legal battles that may lie ahead.