Two Maine-based political action committees (PACs) and their founder have sued members of the state’s ethics commission and Attorney General Aaron Frey over the new limits on PAC contributions approved by voters in November.
Brought by the Dinner Table — a Maine PAC focused on “faith, family, and freedom” and dedicated to supporting “conservative candidates” — and its founder, Alex Titcomb, this lawsuit challenges the newly-enacted $5,000 annual limit on contributions to “independent-expenditure only” PACs, more commonly known as Super PACs.
Part of this lawsuit as well is the For Our Future PAC, also founded by Titcomb and described in the filing as making significant contributions to the Dinner Table and other PACs for the purpose of independent expenditures.
Maine state law currently defines independent expenditures as any communication expense — such as for advertisements or phone banks — that clearly advocates for or against a particular candidate but is “not made in cooperation, consultation or concert with, or at the request or suggestion of, a candidate, a candidate’s authorized political committee or an agent of either.”
While traditional PACs can make contributions to political candidates in addition to making independent expenditures, they are already limited to receiving no more than $5,000 a year from any single donor.
Although Super PACs cannot donate directly to candidates, they have been eligible to receive unlimited contributions from their donors.
Under the new law, however, contributions made by both individuals and businesses to PACs “for the purpose of making independent expenditures” would be limited to a total of $5,000 per calendar year as well.
Super PACs first came about in 2010 in the wake of the Supreme Court’s ruling in Citizens United v. FEC in which the Justices decided that placing limitations on “independent political spending” by both individuals and corporations violated the First Amendment, arguing that these expenditures did not present a sufficient enough threat of corruption warrant government intervention.
With the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals’ subsequent decision in the case of SpeechNow v. FEC, it was determined that placing any limitations on donations to PACs making only independent expenditures was unconstitutional under the First Amendment, thus paving the way for the creation of Super PACs.
[RELATED: These Five Questions Will Be On the Ballot in Maine This November]
Labeled as Question 1 on the November ballot, this law limiting contributions to $5,000 originated as a citizens initiative spearheaded by Harvard Law Professor and political activist Lawrence Lessig.
Equal Citizens — the non-profit founded by Lessig — played an active role in helping to raise funds in support of gathering the signatures needed to put this issue in front of Mainers.
According to campaign finance data published by the Maine Ethics Commission, the ballot question committee (BQC) responsible for supporting the petition — Maine Citizens to End Super PACs — raised nearly $500,000, the vast majority of which came from out of state.
At the ballot box in November, Mainers overwhelmingly voted in favor of Question 1, garnering about 74 percent support, the strongest result of the five statewide ballot questions.
Both Equal Citizens and Maine Citizens to End Super PACs indicated prior to the election that they anticipated this law, if approved, would spark legal challenges that could ultimately bring the issue before the Supreme Court.
In the opening paragraphs of the lawsuit, the Plaintiffs argue that the $5,000 limit “suppresses this classic method of speech and association in a manner that has been unanimously rejected by every circuit court to decide the issue.”
In the following twenty pages, the Plaintiffs contend that the law is unconstitutional under the First and Fourteenth Amendments, alleging that it violates the protected rights of free speech and equal protection.
By restricting the size of contributions that may be made to Super PACs, the Plaintiffs argue that the state government would be seriously infringing upon both the ability of contributors to financially support causes in which they believe and that of independent-expenditure only PACs to operate effectively.
“The First Amendment protects both political association and political expression. The Amendment ‘has its fullest and most urgent application precisely to the conduct of campaigns for political office,'” the filing states. “Furthermore, ‘the right of association is a basic constitutional freedom that is closely allied to freedom of speech and a right which, like free speech, lies at the foundation of a free society.'”
“Laws that limit the amount of money a person may give to a political action committee for the purpose of making independent expenditures intrude upon both of those First Amendment interests and infringe on the rights of contributors, as well as on the rights of advocacy groups and the people who operate them,” the Plaintiffs argue.
They go on to explain that “the only governmental interest that can justify limiting political contributions is an interest in preventing quid pro quo corruption or the appearance thereof,” something the Plaintiffs suggest would be impossible given that independent expenditures are, by definition, not coordinated with a candidate.
The Plaintiffs further argue that the law violates the First Amendment because it would require the disclosure of donations under $50, something that it is not currently mandated by law.
The lawsuit also alleges that the law violates the Fourteenth Amendment’s equal protection clause on the grounds that “party committees” — representing the major recognized political parties in the state — would continue to be exempt from the $5,000 limit “based solely on a party committee being associated with a state, district, county or municipal party.”
“This unequal treatment places PACs at a significant competitive disadvantage relative to party committees in the ability to express themselves and associate with others,” the lawsuit argues. “It tilts the political system in favor of entrenched party leadership, who can continue to raise and spend unlimited funds from unlimited sources in party committees, and against those who may pursue competing political visions.”
“Limiting PACs’ ability to make independent expenditures entrenches power within political parties,” the Plaintiffs continued.
“No legitimate state interest, let alone a compelling or even important one, justifies such discrimination against PACs and those who would contribute to and otherwise associate with them,” they argue.
As a result of this lawsuit, Dinner Table, For Our Future, and Titcomb are seeking declaratory and injunctive relief against the Attorney General and Ethics Commission to block this law ahead of its effective date on December 25.
Click Here to Read the Full Lawsuit
“This unconstitutional law would drastically reduce our ability to speak about candidates and issues that matter to Mainers,” Titcomb said in a statement Friday. “The government cannot restrict independent political speech simply because some voters wish to limit the voices of their fellow citizens.”
“This law is a direct attack on Mainers’ fundamental constitutional rights,” Charles Miller — Senior Attorney at the Institute for Free Speech, one of the law firms representing the Plaintiffs — said in Friday’s statement.
“Not only does it violate their First Amendment right to organize and pool their resources for political speech, but it also violates equal protection by treating citizen groups differently from party committees. A ballot measure cannot override these core constitutional protections.”
