On Tuesday, U.S. Magistrate Judge Karen Wolf permanently enjoined the State of Maine from enforcing the new limits on Super PAC contributions approved by voters last November.
According to Judge Wolf, the Supreme Court’s fifteen-year-old ruling in Citizens United “forecloses limits on contribution to independent expenditure groups.”
She also found that the law’s disclosure requirements were in violation of the First Amendment because they would encompass all Super PAC donors, regardless of how much any one person contributed.
“The disclosure requirement is facially unconstitutional because it risks chilling contributors’ rights to speak and associate, and that risk ‘is enough because First Amendment freedoms need breathing space to survive,”’ Judge Wolf said.
With respect to the contribution limits, Wolf found that “there is no set of circumstances where they could be applied constitutionally,” leading her to void the restrictions.
Unless appealed, Wolf’s permanent injunction will prevent the State of Maine from enforcing both these aspects of the law approved by voters at the end of last year.
[RELATED: Judge Hears Arguments in Case Alleging New Limits on Super PAC Contributions Violate Mainers’ Rights]
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 now-void law, however, contributions made by both individuals and businesses to PACs “for the purpose of making independent expenditures” would have been 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 last year, this law limiting contributions to $5,000 originated as a citizens initiative spearheaded by Harvard Law Professor and political activist Lawrence Lessig.
At the ballot box, Mainers overwhelmingly voted in favor of Question 1, garnering about 74 percent support, the strongest result of the five statewide ballot questions.
In response to this legal challenge, enforcement of the law was repeatedly delayed by the state government while the case was pending. The last of these agreements was set to expire on Tuesday, July 15, the day that Wolf’s ruling was released.
“This ruling reaffirms that the First Amendment protects citizens’ right to pool their resources for political speech,” said Institute for Free Speech Senior Attorney Charles Miller in a statement Tuesday.
“Maine cannot silence independent voices while giving party bosses unlimited fundraising power,” Miller said. “Today’s decision ensures all Mainers can participate equally in the democratic process.”
“Dinner Table Action has hundreds of members who value the right to speak collectively,” said Alex Titcomb, Executive Director of Dinner Table Action, one of the parties in this case.
“This injunction protects our, and every Mainer’s, fundamental right to join together and speak about elections,” Titcomb said. “I’m thrilled with this outcome, as it makes it clear that the government cannot restrict independent political speech or limit Mainers’ ability to speak about the issues that matter to them.”
As of this article’s publication, the state defendants in this case have not yet publicly indicated whether or not they plan to appeal Wolf’s permanent injunction.
