PORTLAND, MAINE — A legal showdown over the future of campaign finance laws in Maine — and potentially nationwide — begins May 22 as a federal judge is set to hear oral arguments over a voter-approved cap on contributions to super PACs at a time when these groups continue to shatter records in election spending.
In November 2024, nearly three-quarters of Maine voters passed a ballot initiative that prohibits individuals from contributing more than $5,000 annually to super PACs involved in candidate campaigns. The measure, known as Question 1, marked a bold challenge to the status quo of political financing and is destined to put Maine at the forefront of efforts to rein in what advocates see as outsized and often opaque political influence.
Supporters of the law say the case could eventually reach the US Supreme Court. Opponents, including two Maine-based Super PACs, have filed suit against the State of Maine to try and stop enforcement of the law, arguing that the contribution cap infringes on political association and free speech.
Super PACs — or independent expenditure-only political action committees — are allowed to raise and spend unlimited funds in support of or opposition to candidates, provided they do not coordinate directly with campaigns. The Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United decision and the SpeechNow v. FEC ruling that followed paved the way for these groups to wield increasing influence in elections while remaining legally separate from candidates.
But critics argue that in practice, the line between coordination and independence has become increasingly blurred and that unlimited donations open the door to the appearance of corruption and backchannel influence.
An analysis from the Brennan Center for Justice found that wealthy donors who gave more than $5 million to super PACs supporting Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris donated a combined $864 million in 2024.
Advocates for Maine’s law say the $5,000 cap is a modest, constitutionally sound step toward restoring accountability.
“This law doesn’t limit speech, but it does limit the appearance of corruption in our politics,” said Cara McCormick, Chair of the Maine-based group Citizens to End SuperPACs, which led the campaign in favor of the initiative. “Super PACs are still free to speak and spend. They just can’t take over $5,000 from any one person.”
“In a year when special interests flooded our elections with more cash than ever before, Maine voters just delivered a stunning rejection of the big money status quo,” Joshua Lynn, CEO of the non-profit group RepresentUs, said in a statement after the polls closed. “This victory is a testament to the hard work of Maine Citizens to End Super PACs and the other grassroots organizers who worked to make it possible. Taking on big money is no easy task, but the people of Maine made their voices loud and clear.”
Challenging the law are two political groups represented by attorneys from the Institute for Free Speech, a Washington, D.C.-based legal advocacy group. Oral arguments for Case 1:24-cv-00430-KFW are scheduled for this Thursday in the U.S. District Court of Maine at the Edward T. Gignoux U.S. Courthouse.
Many voters may not be aware that on May 1 the Federal Election Commission (FEC) lost its ability to enforce federal campaign finance and election laws after Republican Allen Dickerson departed the agency, leaving it without the quorum it needs to perform its most important roles....
Alaskans made history in 2020 when they passed the first-in-the-nation election system that not only eliminated party primaries but adopted a voting system for the general election that gave them the option to rank candidates in order of preference....
Senator Ruben Gallego (D-Ariz.) has introduced a plan for systemic immigration reform and a front-and-center border security plan to reach what he says should be a bipartisan goal of “getting illegal border crossing to as near zero as possible.” ...
Shawn Griffiths
