The First Circuit should overturn the U.S. District Court of Maine’s rejection of a statewide ballot initiative capping donations to super PACs making independent expenditures, according to an amicus brief filed by CREW. 

In response to the explosive growth of super PACs and the deepening influence of money in politics, in 2024, Maine voters overwhelmingly approved a ballot initiative to place limits on the amount of money that could be contributed to super PACs. In December of that year, the political action committees Dinner Table Action and For Our Future brought a lawsuit against the law’s implementation, challenging the contribution limits as unconstitutional. This year, a federal district court judge struck down the law, arguing that because the landmark Citizens United decision established that independent spending cannot corrupt, contributions to independent spending groups like super PACs could not corrupt either. 

CREW’s amicus brief counters the district court’s notion that contributions to super PACs cannot result in quid pro quo corruption by highlighting examples of when this type of corruption has occurred. For instance, former U.S. Senator Bob Menendez was indicted for accepting bribes in the form of contributions to a super PAC. At the time, the court recognized that there was “ample evidence” which showed that “Menendez placed subjective value on” the contribution to the super PAC, even though the super PAC was not coordinating its activities with Menendez. Moreover, the brief explains that prosecutions against corruption only reflect a small portion of the corruption that is ongoing, since candidates commonly value support for independent groups and donors commonly know that.

The amicus brief also calls attention to a fundamental contradiction in the challengers’ argument that contributions cannot be limited because they are considered constitutionally protected speech. The challengers do not apply this logic to foreign spending, which they concede can be limited in accordance with the First Amendment. The First Amendment, however, protects speech regardless of the nationality of its origin. This contradiction reflects a recognition that spending is different from speech in that speech persuades but spending can buy political influence.

As CREW’s brief lays out, the district court crucially did not analyze whether there are adequate alternatives to protecting against contribution-bought quid pro quo prior to making its decision. As they exist today, disclosure and earmarking rules can be easily circumvented, making it difficult for the public to monitor compliance and protect against corruption.

To that end, the First Circuit should overturn the district court’s decision and allow this limit on contributions to remain, as was democratically decided by the voters of Maine.

Read the amicus here.

Read More in Legal Complaints