Successful Ballot Initiative Ends Super PACs in Maine

In this lawsuit, two super PACs challenged a Maine law, passed via ballot measure with the support of 74% of voters, to limit contributions to political action committees (PACs), effectively ending super PACs in Maine.

Maine law has long set reasonable limits on the amount of money that an individual or entity can contribute to candidate- or party-run PACs. But, prior to the passage of Question 1, contributors – including billionaires, corporations, and organizations that hide the sources of their money – were able to make unlimited contributions to “super PACs” that make independent expenditures to support or oppose specific candidates—despite the fact that “independent expenditures” have lost much of their independence, and candidates and super PACs are able to closely align on messaging and campaigning.

The Supreme Court has long held that limits on contributions impose only a “marginal restriction” on free speech and that federal and state governments have a legitimate interest in limiting contributions to prevent the risk of quid pro quo corruption and the appearance of corruption. That is precisely why Mainer voted in favor of Ballot Question 1.

The plaintiff super PACs in this case have asked the District Court of Maine to enjoin the new law, and to do so by relying on a wrongly decided 2010 D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals decision,  SpeechNow v. FEC. SpeechNow created super PACs by striking down federal contribution limits to political action committees that make independent expenditures—expenditures that are not coordinated with a candidate or the candidate’s campaign. The SpeechNow court ruled that because the Supreme Court in Citizens United v. FEC held that independent expenditures cannot create the risk of quid pro quo corruption, contributions to PACs that make independent expenditures also cannot create the risk of quid pro quo corruption.

The flaw in the wrongly-decided SpeechNow is clear. A candidate and donor can make a corrupt agreement for the donor to funnel a contribution into a PAC in exchange for political favors without the PAC being aware that the contribution is a bribe payment. A bribe doesn’t have to go directly into a candidate’s pocket; indeed, federal bribery law explicitly prohibits bribe payments to third-party entities, including super PACs. The flaw was clear in 2010; it is even more obvious now that fifteen years of unchecked super PAC contributions have created serious risk of corruption and have undermined voters’ faith in their candidates. Donors can make massive contributions to supportive super PACs, which positions super PACs as opportune vehicles for corrupt agreements. Mainers ended this risk, and the law should be upheld. The Supreme Court has never reviewed the SpeechNow decision.

On February 14, Maine filed its opposition to the plaintiffs’ motion for permanent injunction, and on February 21, Free Speech For People, on behalf of Mainers For Working Families (MFWF), filed an amicus brief in support of the state. The MFWF amicus brief explains that SpeechNow was wrongly decided, is not binding on the District Court of Maine, and that the Question 1 contribution limit is constitutional. After these briefs were filed, the court granted intervention in February 2025 to EqualCitizens, a state senator, and a group of citizens who proposed Ballot Question 1.

Free Speech For People and pro bono local counsel Peter J. Brann of Brann & Isaacson are proud to represent Mainers For Working Families in this matter.

Learn more about Free Speech For People’s work challenging super PACs