Maine sued over new voter-approved campaign finance limits
Dec. 13—A national conservative group is suing the state to overturn new campaign finance limits approved by voters last month.
The Institute for Free Speech filed the lawsuit in U.S. District Court in Portland on Friday, arguing that the citizen's initiative approved by nearly 75% of voters is unconstitutional. Among other things, the law puts a $5,000 limit on contributions to political action committees.
The lawsuit was filed on behalf of Dinner Table Action and For Our Future, two political action committees linked to Rep. Laurel Libby, R-Auburn, a top fundraiser for Republican legislative candidates.
The institute says the new law violates the Constitution by limiting free speech and forcing groups to disclose their donors, including those who donate less than $50. The institute says the new law would prevent PACs from spending money they have already raised and unfairly excludes PACs controlled by political parties and those campaigning for ballot questions.
"This unconstitutional law would drastically reduce our ability to speak about candidates and issues that matter to Mainers," Alex Titcomb, executive director of Dinner Table Action, said in a written statement. "The government cannot restrict independent political speech simply because some voters wish to limit the voices of their fellow citizens."
Over the last two years, Dinner Table Action has raised nearly $502,000, with about $25,500 coming from small donors giving less than $50. For Our Future has raised nearly $406,000 — $375,000 of which came from the Concord Fund, which is connected to Leonard Leo, a major conservative donor and activist who played a central role in establishing a conservative majority on the U.S. Supreme Court. Leo owns a home in Maine.
"This law is a direct attack on Mainers' fundamental constitutional rights," Charles "Chip" Miller, senior attorney at the Institute for Free Speech, said in a written 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."
The institute is represented locally by Joshua Dunlap of Pierce Atwood. The suit was filed against the five members of the Maine Commission on Governmental Ethics and Election Practices, which is charged with enforcing campaign finance laws, and Attorney General Aaron Frey.
A spokesperson for Frey said the attorney general did not want to comment on pending litigation.
The lawsuit does not come as a surprise to proponents of the new law. Citizens to End SuperPACs organized the referendum and expected it to be challenged in federal court, where it hopes to set a new national precedent to help rein in unlimited campaign spending.
Cara McCormick, who led the effort to get the referendum on the ballot, said in a written statement that the limits were supported by more than 600,000 voters, which is nearly half of the state's total population. She said that level of support is historic for any citizens' initiative or candidate election in Maine.
"By passing this law, we are asserting our freedom to have a political system in Maine that is protected from the risk or appearance of quid pro quo corruption," McCormick said. "We know we are on the right side of history and that our state will defend our new law with all its might."
The 2010 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. the Federal Election Commission unleashed unlimited campaign spending by Super-PACs and other groups that are able to conceal their donors. The court ruled that limiting campaign spending by these groups was an infringement of free speech.
While the Citizens United ruling focused on campaign spending by the groups, a second ruling by a lower federal court applied that same rule to contributions to those groups, effectively allowing individuals and corporations to donate unlimited sums. That second decision was never appealed to the Supreme Court, which is the advocates' goal in this case.
They are hoping to convince the Supreme Court, which has a conservative majority, that the same reason the court has upheld limits on campaign contributions to individual candidates for public office — that unlimited donations to candidates has a corrupting influence — should also be applied to contributions to Super PACs, which are often funded by a few wealthy individuals or corporations.
Maine is the first state to challenge the federal court ruling by adopting state-level limits on PAC contributions. Advocates tried something similar in Massachusetts, but the ballot measure was blocked by the state attorney general.
Sen. Joe Baldacci, who supported the referendum, said in a written statement that "this lawsuit is not about free speech."
"That is a facade," Baldacci said. "It is about super-wealthy people wanting to essentially upend our political process and spend enough money to drown out other voices. The Citizens United decision was wrong. Most Americans recognize that political reform is needed and that reasonable limits on campaign financing should be established to make American campaigns themselves safe for democracy."
David Keating, president of the Institute for Free Speech, urged Maine voters not to support the referendum in a Press Herald op-ed leading up the November elections, saying the proposal "directly and clearly" conflicts with the First Amendment by infringing "on our rights to organize into groups and express our opinions on a matter of the utmost public concern — the question of who will run the government."
"The measure would obviously lead to less speech and less information for voters. And that would give an advantage to incumbent politicians, who are better known," Keating wrote, arguing that higher campaign spending drives up voter turnout. "If the measure passes, it will also waste precious Maine tax funds. The state will pay lawyers to defend this indefensible measure in court."
Copy the Story Link
