(CN) – Maine officials argued Wednesday to reinstate a limit on contributions to political action committees aimed at supporting or opposing a specific candidate.
Voters approved the law in November 2024, setting a $5,000 annual limit on contributions to state PACs that make independent expenditures, or super PACs, and requiring the groups to disclose all donor contributions.
U.S. Magistrate Judge Karen Frink Wolf hit The measure was struck down last July, finding it violated the First Amendment and precedent under Citizens United.
State attorneys asked a panel of the First Circuit Court of Appeals to overturn Wolf and reinstate the measure, which passed with the support of 75% of voters.
Super PACs — many of which are created to support a single candidate — are “largely taking the place of traditional campaign spending,” attorney Jonathan Bolton argued on behalf of the state. He said case precedent from other counties doesn’t account for “the huge amount of money that’s now flowing through super PACs.”
“We’re in a different world and I think that justifies a fresh look at this,” Bolton said.
In the super PAC era, he said, formal coordination is not necessary to create the impression of corruption. “The contribution alone is sufficient to create the appearance and potential reality of quid pro quo corruption,” he said.
Neal Katyal, an attorney for intervenors EqualCitizens, a nonprofit focused on campaign finance reforms and seeking to end super PACs, argued that the lower court erred by applying expenditure law instead of contribution law, since super PACs do not create campaign materials themselves but pay other entities to do so.
“This is about funding someone else’s speech,” said Katyal, who served as acting solicitor general under President Barack Obama and now works at the firm Millbank LLP.
Several other nonprofits and government watchdogs supported the state in friendly reports, including NYU’s Brennan Center for Justice, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington and the Legal Campaign Center.
Another round of support came from a group of American investors and business magnates, including entrepreneur and TV personality Mark Cuban and LinkedIn founder Reid Hoffman.
“How very rich Americansamici have unique insight into the dynamics that arise in the absence of limits on contributions to superPACs and similar independent spending entities,” wrote the group, supported by attorneys at the Election Law Clinic at Harvard Law School.
Meanwhile, the US Chamber of Commerce sided with the plaintiffs, two Maine PACs — Dinner Table Action and For Our Future — who sued Maine Attorney General William Schneider in December 2024 to block the borders.
Their attorney Charles Miller of the Free Speech Institute, a nonprofit organization known for its work challenging campaign finance limits — including the 2010 case SpeechNow.org v. FECwhich ruled that super PACs can accept unlimited contributions — asked the panel to uphold the lower court’s rejection of the law.
“The American people have a First Amendment right to assemble and associate, to engage in political speech, and especially election-related speech, without violation of many laws,” Miller said. “That’s what independent spending is. It’s bringing individuals together to talk.”
U.S. District Judge Seth Aframe, a Joe Biden appointee, questioned Miller about quid pro quo corruption, putting himself in the candidate’s shoes.
“The public is going to think that the people who are giving (a super PAC) a lot of money are doing it because they’re going to get things from me, because my interest is in that thing being flush with cash, just like my campaign was flush with cash — like, where’s the difference?” he asked.
Miller noted the Supreme Court’s 2010 decision in Citizens United v. FEC and the 1976 decision in Buckley v Valeo.
“The way the Supreme Court has structured these laws and everything, you’re kind of barred from holding that,” he told the judge.
The high court defines quid pro quo corruption as “a donor’s contribution to a candidate in exchange for official action,” Miller said. “In a super PAC scenario, the money never goes to the candidate. It’s special.”
U.S. Circuit Judge O. Rogeriee Thompson, an appointee of Barack Obama, asked: “Isn’t it reasonable to conclude that, if someone is giving a million dollars to a super PAC that was created specifically for that candidate, that is at least the perception of an appearance of corruption?”
“We have to be careful when we say corruption, because corruption means many things,” Miller replied. “Does it seem like the person is looking for something in return and recognition? Maybe — but that’s politics. That’s what happens when people go out and do these things.”
U.S. District Judge Lara Montecalvo, a Joe Biden appointee, rounded out the panel, which reserved judgment.
Subscribe to our free newsletters
Our weekly newsletter Closing arguments provides the latest on ongoing trials, major litigation and court decisions across the US and the world, while monthly Under the lights feeds legal dirt from Hollywood, sports, Big Tech and the arts.
