Maine’s voter-approved limit on PAC contributions triggers lawsuit in federal court

PORTLAND, Maine — A pair of conservative groups on Friday challenged a Maine law that limits donations to political action committees that spend independently in candidate elections, arguing that money spent to support political expression is “a vital feature of our democracy.”

Supporters of the referendum overwhelmingly approved on Election Day fully expected a legal showdown over caps on individual contributions to so-called super PACs. They hoped the referendum would trigger a case and ultimately prompt the U.S. Supreme Court to clarify the matter of donor limits after the court opened the floodgates to independent spending in its 2010 Citizens United decision.

The lawsuit brought by Dinner Table Action and For Our Future, and supported by the Institute for Free Speech, contends the state law limiting individual super PAC donations to $5,000 and requiring disclosure of donor names runs afoul of that Citizens United legal precedent.

“All Americans, not just those running for office, have a fundamental First Amendment right to talk about political campaigns,” lawyers wrote in the lawsuit in federal court. “Their ‘independent expenditures,’ payments that fund political expression by those who are not running for office but nonetheless have something to say about a campaign, are a vital feature of our democracy.”

Cara McCormick, leader of the Maine Citizens to End Super PACs, which pressed for the referendum, said the lawsuit attempts to undermine the will of the people after an overwhelming majority — 74% of voters — approved the referendum last month.

“Super PACs are killing the country and in Maine we decided to do something about it. We want to restore public trust in the political process,” she said. “We want to say that in Maine we are not resigned to the tide of big money. We are the tide.”

But Alex Titcomb, executive director of Dinner Table Action, argued Friday that the government “cannot restrict independent political speech simply because some voters wish to limit the voices of their fellow citizens.”

Named in the lawsuit are Maine’s attorney general and the state’s campaign spending watchdog, the Maine Commission on Governmental Ethics and Election Practices. The ethics commission is reviewing the complaint, said Jonathan Wayne, executive director.

The Maine referendum didn’t attempt to limit spending on behalf of candidates. Instead, it focused on limits on individual donations to super PACS, an area the Supreme Court has not ruled on, observers say.

Harvard Law School professor Lawrence Lessig, a longtime advocate for campaign finance reform, contends the U.S. Supreme Court has not ruled on the issue of individual contributions to PACs, and long-established case law supports the notion that states can limit individual contributions to PACs despite a decision to the contrary by the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.

Lessig, whose Equal Citizens nonprofit backed the Maine referendum, previously said the cap on donations imposed by the referendum “is not asking the Supreme Court to change its jurisprudence, not asking them to overturn Citizens United.”