Free Speech for People Files Amicus Brief in Defense of Maine's Ballot Initiative to End Super PACs

Free Speech For People and local counsel Peter J. Brann, on behalf of Mainers For Working Families (MFWF), filed today an amicus brief in federal district court in Portland in support of Maine’s law limiting contributions to political action committees, effectively ending super PACs. The law, enacted as a ballot initiative with support of the vast majority of Maine voters, is now under attack by two super PACs–including at least one funded with dark money.

In November 2024, more than 74% of the Maine electorate voted in favor of Ballot Question 1, which places a $5,000 per calendar year limit on contributions to super PACs. But two super PACs now demand that a federal court permanently block the law, claiming it would violate their constitutional right to free speech. As the MFWF amicus brief explains, it does not.

Maine law has long set reasonable limits on the amount of money that an individual or entity can contribute to a candidate or party-controlled political action committee (PAC). But, prior to the passage of Question 1, contributors – including billionaires, corporations, and organizations that hide the sources of their money – were able to make unlimited contributions to “super PACs” that are not controlled by candidates or political parties, even when they spend money to support or oppose specific candidates. These super PACs have the power to shape elections, and candidates’ ability to direct massive contributions to super PACs can make or break campaigns.

The Supreme Court has long held that limits on contributions impose only a “marginal restriction” on free speech and that states have a right to limit contributions to prevent the risk of quid pro quo corruption and the appearance of corruption. And that is precisely what Maine does with Ballot Question 1.

“The people of Maine have spoken, and they resoundingly agree that super PACs have no place in our state elections,” said Evan LeBrun, executive director of Mainers For Working Families. “By removing unlimited contributions, we remove the wealthiest few’s corrupt influence in our democratic process. No one should be able to buy their way to the results they want, directly or indirectly. We need a fair and democratic process that reflects our founding principles – that the government belongs to We, the people.”

The super PACs bringing the case urge the Court to overlook the law’s purpose and Supreme Court precedent, and to instead rely on a wrongly decided 2010 DC Circuit Court of Appeals decision in SpeechNow v. FEC that struck down contribution limits to political action committees. The appeals court said that because the Supreme Court ruled in Citizens United v. FEC that independent expenditures did not pose a risk of corruption, that contributions to independent expenditure PACs could not pose a risk of corruption either. But the decision overlooked (1) the Supreme Court’s longstanding practice of distinguishing between contributions and expenditures and holding expenditures to a heightened level of scrutiny; and (2) the fact that even if anti-coordination laws prevent candidates and super PACs from reaching quid pro quo agreements, those same laws do not stop candidates and super PAC contributors from agreeing to a quid pro quo arrangement that involve funneling bribes through super PACs. As the MFWF brief argues, that decision was wrong at the time, has been proven wrong by fifteen years in which unchecked super PAC contributions have created serious risk of corruption and have undermined voters’ faith in their candidates, and should not be used to override Mainers’ Ballot Question 1 vote.

“Our system – in which a candidate’s ability to attract megadonors to super PACs is an enormous factor in their campaign’s success – has created conditions that are ripe for corruption, and that is precisely what voters see and fear,” said Courtney Hostetler, Legal Director of Free Speech For People. “Mainers have taken a stand against this broken system by passing a reasonable, constitutional law limiting contributions to political action committees. It should be upheld.”

Free Speech For People is honored to represent Mainers for Working Families alongside local counsel Peter J. Brann of Brann & Isaacson.

To read the amicus brief, click here.

To read the state’s opposition to the motion for permanent injunction, click here.