Magistrate Judge Karen Wolf heard arguments Thursday morning in a lawsuit filed against 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 $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 as making significant contributions to the Dinner Table and other PACs for the purpose of independent expenditures.
Under Maine state law, “independent expenditures” are defined 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.”
In other words, independent expenditures encompass any campaign expenses made without collaborating with candidates.
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.
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.
It is argued in the original complaint that the recently approved law violates both their First and Fourteenth Amendment rights.
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, thus violating their First Amendment rights.
The lawsuit alleges that the terms of law violate the Fourteenth Amendment’s equal protection clause because the “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.”
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.
All the parties in this case must now await a ruling from the court.
