Portland, ME (February 21, 2025) – Free Speech For Folks and native counsel Peter J. Brann, on behalf of Mainers For Working Households (MFWF), filed at the moment an amicus temporary in federal district court docket in Portland in assist of Maine’s regulation limiting contributions to political motion committees, successfully ending tremendous PACs. The regulation, enacted as a poll initiative with assist of the overwhelming majority of Maine voters, is now below assault by two tremendous PACs–together with at the very least one funded with darkish cash.
In November 2024, greater than 74% of the Maine citizens voted in favor of Poll Query 1, which locations a $5,000 per calendar 12 months restrict on contributions to tremendous PACs. However two tremendous PACs now demand {that a} federal court docket completely block the regulation, claiming it could violate their constitutional proper to free speech. Because the MFWF amicus temporary explains, it doesn’t.
Maine regulation has lengthy set affordable limits on the amount of cash that a person or entity can contribute to a candidate or party-controlled political motion committee (PAC). However, previous to the passage of Query 1, contributors – together with billionaires, companies, and organizations that disguise the sources of their cash – have been capable of make limitless contributions to “tremendous PACs” that aren’t managed by candidates or political events, even once they spend cash to assist or oppose particular candidates. These tremendous PACs have the ability to form elections, and candidates’ means to direct large contributions to tremendous PACs could make or break campaigns.
The Supreme Court docket has lengthy held that limits on contributions impose solely a “marginal restriction” on free speech and that states have a proper to restrict contributions to stop the chance of quid professional quo corruption and the looks of corruption. And that’s exactly what Maine does with Poll Query 1.
“The folks of Maine have spoken, they usually resoundingly agree that tremendous PACs don’t have any place in our state elections,” mentioned Evan LeBrun, government director of Mainers For Working Households. “By eradicating limitless contributions, we take away the wealthiest few’s corrupt affect in our democratic course of. Nobody ought to be capable of purchase their strategy to the outcomes they need, instantly or not directly. We’d like a good and democratic course of that displays our founding rules – that the federal government belongs to We, the folks.”
The tremendous PACs bringing the case urge the Court docket to miss the regulation’s objective and Supreme Court docket precedent, and to as an alternative depend on a wrongly determined 2010 DC Circuit Court docket of Appeals determination in SpeechNow v. FEC that struck down contribution limits to political motion committees. The appeals court docket mentioned that as a result of the Supreme Court docket dominated in Residents United v. FEC that unbiased expenditures didn’t pose a danger of corruption, that contributions to unbiased expenditure PACs couldn’t pose a danger of corruption both. However the determination neglected (1) the Supreme Court docket’s longstanding observe of distinguishing between contributions and expenditures and holding expenditures to a heightened degree of scrutiny; and (2) the truth that even when anti-coordination legal guidelines forestall candidates and tremendous PACs from reaching quid professional quo agreements, those self same legal guidelines don’t cease candidates and tremendous PAC contributors from agreeing to a quid professional quo association that contain funneling bribes via tremendous PACs. Because the MFWF temporary argues, that call was fallacious on the time, has been confirmed fallacious by fifteen years wherein unchecked tremendous PAC contributions have created critical danger of corruption and have undermined voters’ religion of their candidates, and shouldn’t be used to override Mainers’ Poll Query 1 vote.
“Our system – wherein a candidate’s means to draw megadonors to tremendous PACs is a gigantic issue of their marketing campaign’s success – has created circumstances which are ripe for corruption, and that’s exactly what voters see and concern,” mentioned Courtney Hostetler, Authorized Director of Free Speech For Folks. “Mainers have taken a stand towards this damaged system by passing an affordable, constitutional regulation limiting contributions to political motion committees. It needs to be upheld.”
Free Speech For Folks is honored to signify Mainers for Working Households alongside native counsel Peter J. Brann of Brann & Isaacson.
To learn the amicus temporary, click on right here.
To learn the state’s opposition to the movement for everlasting injunction, click on right here.
