On Friday, political action committees tied to a Republican state lawmaker took a significant step by filing a legal challenge in federal court. The aim was to overturn a campaign finance reform that Mainers had overwhelmingly voted for in November. This move has sparked a heated debate and raised important questions about the balance between free speech and campaign finance regulations.

Unraveling the Battle over Maine's Campaign Finance Reform

Background of the Campaign Finance Reform

Since Buckley v. Valeo in 1976, the Supreme Court has grappled with the issue of campaign finance regulations. It has allowed contributions to be regulated in cases of potential "quid pro quo" corruption. In 2010, the Supreme Court extended this reasoning to corporations and unions in Citizens United v. Federal Election Campaign Act. However, the Maine referendum has raised a new question: whether contributions to a committee that makes independent expenditures can be limited. Harvard Law professor emeritus Larry Tribe and Chicago Law professor emeritus Al Alschuler argue that large contributions to PACs inevitably create a risk of such corruption.

For example, in the past three decades, the influence of money in elections has grown significantly. Campaigns now rely heavily on large donations from various sources, which can skew the political landscape and raise concerns about fairness and transparency.

The Legal Challenge and Its Implications

The lawsuit argues that the new state law is unconstitutional as it limits Mainers' free speech and requires the disclosure of all donors. Currently, donors contributing less than $50 to candidates or political committees don't have to disclose their identity. But both aspects of the law impact the two PACs behind the lawsuit and their donors.

Dinner Table Action, founded by state Rep. Laurel Libby (R-Auburn) and activist Alex Titcomb, raised more than $454,000 during the 2024 cycle, with a significant portion coming from donors exceeding the $5,000 limit. For Our Future, currently with approximately $40,000 on hand, all from a single donor, would be effectively shut down by the law. Donations to For Our Future have come from the Concord Fund linked to conservative legal activist Leonard Leo.

The Attorneys' Perspectives

Charles Miller of the Institute for Free Speech argues that the law restricts people's ability to speak. He believes that if someone spends a lot of money getting their message out, it shows the strength of their idea in the marketplace of ideas.

On the other hand, those behind the reform, like Cara McCormick, have faith in the courts. She believes that super PACs are harming the country and that Maine's referendum is a step in the right direction to restore public trust in the political process.

Next Steps and Potential Outcomes

The plaintiffs' counsel reached out to the Attorney General's Office before filing and asked for a temporary restraining order. If the Attorney General doesn't agree, the case will go to court. When a decision is reached, either side can appeal to the First Circuit Court of Appeals.

Lessig believes that the First Circuit Court is the best place for this challenge as it hasn't ruled on the constitutionality of Super PACs. In a similar case in Massachusetts, the challenge was blocked by the state attorney general. But in Maine, there is no such requirement for citizen initiatives to have a constitutionality check.