In a bold move to address the influence of money in politics, the people of Maine have voted overwhelmingly to limit donations to political action committees (PACs) that engage in independent expenditures to support or defeat candidates. This citizen-led referendum, which received 74% of voter support, sets the stage for a potential Supreme Court showdown that could reshape the landscape of campaign finance regulations.

Empowering the People: Maine's Referendum on PAC Donations

Challenging the Status Quo

The referendum, which asked voters whether they wanted to set a $5,000 limit on donations to PACs that spend money independently to influence elections, represents a direct challenge to the Supreme Court's previous rulings on campaign finance. Legal scholars, such as Lawrence Lessig, have long argued that the court's decisions, including the landmark Citizens United v. FEC case, have overlooked a fundamental flaw in the way independent expenditures are regulated.

Addressing the Corruption Concern

The core of the argument made by Lessig, Harvard Law professor emeritus Larry Tribe, and Chicago Law professor emeritus Al Alschuler is that large contributions to PACs inevitably create a risk of quid pro quo corruption, even if the PACs are technically independent from the candidates they support. The opportunity for collaboration between donors and candidates, they argue, is enough to warrant regulation of these contributions.

A Path to the Supreme Court

With the passage of the referendum, the stage is set for a legal challenge that could eventually reach the Supreme Court. While the outcome is uncertain, Lessig believes the justices may be receptive to the reasoning put forth by Tribe and Alschuler, potentially paving the way for a reassessment of the court's previous rulings on campaign finance.

Local Voices, National Implications

The referendum in Maine was driven by a grassroots effort, with the ballot question committee, Citizens to End super PACs, chaired by Cara McCormick, co-founder of The Committee for Ranked Choice Voting. This local initiative has garnered national attention, as it represents a direct attempt to address what many see as a fundamental flaw in the campaign finance system.

Skepticism and Concerns

Not everyone is convinced that the referendum is the right approach. Representatives of Maine Citizens for Clean Elections have expressed concerns that the effort is a long shot at best and could potentially open the door for the Supreme Court to further loosen campaign finance restrictions. The Maine Education Association and local attorneys have also voiced opposition, not because they disagree with the alleged flaw, but because of the means being used to address it – a potentially unconstitutional referendum.

A Pivotal Moment in Campaign Finance Reform

The passage of the Maine referendum marks a significant moment in the ongoing battle over the role of money in politics. By empowering citizens to directly challenge the Supreme Court's rulings, this initiative has the potential to reshape the landscape of campaign finance regulations, with far-reaching implications for the future of American democracy.