Free Speech For People and local counsel Peter J. Brann, on behalf of Mainers For Working Families, has filed an amicus brief in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, in support of Maine’s law that effectively ended super PACs by placing reasonable contribution limits on political action committees (PACs) that make independent expenditures. Despite the devastating impact that super PACs have had on our elections—creating vast and nearly untraceable opportunities and incentives for contributors and candidates to enter corrupt agreements—the district court blocked the law. FSFP is asking the First Circuit to reverse that decision, correct legal errors within that decision, and allow this important law to go into effect.

Maine has long set reasonable limits on the amount of money that an individual or entity can contribute to PACs run by candidates and parties. But the law didn’t place any limits on contributions to PACs that only make “independent expenditures”—expenditures that are not formally controlled by and are not supposed to be coordinated with a candidate or political party. Billionaires, millionaires, corporations, and dark money organizations could evade Maine’s other contribution limits by funneling money, including multi-million dollar contributions, into these PACs, known as super PACs. 

Super PACs have existed only since 2010, when a wrongly decided ruling of the DC Circuit Court of Appeals, SpeechNow v. FEC, struck down federal limits on independent expenditure PACs. In just fifteen years, super PACs have emerged as a significant force in our elections; have enormous power over candidates; and can serve as vehicles for corrupt agreements between candidates and donors. 

By November 2024, Maine voters had had enough. More than 74% of the electorate voted on a ballot measure that placed a reasonable, $5,000 annual contribution limit on independent expenditure PACs, thereby ending super PACs in Maine. Two super PACs immediately sued to block the law from going into effect, claiming the law would violate their First Amendment rights. 

It does not. But the district court, relying on SpeechNow and on an erroneous understanding of Citizens United v. FEC, enjoined the law. As FSFP has previously explained, the district court got it wrong. Maine is now appealing the ruling. 

As FSFP presents in its amicus brief in support of the appeal, the Supreme Court has long distinguished between political expenditures and contributions, and typically upholds the constitutionality of contribution limits even where it strikes down expenditure limits. Maine’s law is only a contribution limit—one that clearly serves the state’s interest of preventing quid pro quo corruption and the appearance of corruption. It is plainly constitutional. 

The district court in this case, and the DC Circuit in SpeechNow, wrongly concluded that Citizens United requires them to reach the opposite conclusion. It does not. In Citizens United, the Supreme Court struck down a limit on independent expenditures. The court’s ruling did not implicate contributions, and, in fact, the court distinguished between expenditures and contributions, and acknowledged that contribution limits are generally a constitutional means of preventing corruption.

If the First Circuit applies the proper legal analysis to Maine’s contribution limit, it should uphold the law. This is particularly true given the record that is before the court, which shows that in the fifteen years since super PACs came into existence, they have served as vehicles for corruption and have created such an appearance of corruption that they have undermined voters’ faith in their candidates and our democratic system. Maine’s solution is commonsense and constitutional; the law should be allowed to go into effect.

Free Speech For People is honored to represent Mainers For Working Families on this brief.  

Read the amicus brief here.

Read more about the case here.