Maine voters overwhelmingly passed a ballot initiative on Tuesday to cap donations to super PACs, marking a significant step in the fight against dark money in politics. The measure, known as Maine Question 1, restricts contributions to political action committees that operate independently of candidates, targeting a major source of political influence in U.S. elections. This reform aims to restore public trust in the political process, countering the power of wealthy donors and special interests. With Maine leading the charge, the measure could eventually reach the Supreme Court, challenging rulings that have previously allowed unlimited contributions to super PACs.
Maine’s Question 1 asked voters, “Do you want to set a $5,000 limit for giving to political action committees that spend money independently to support or defeat candidates for office?” As a state-driven initiative, this limit applies exclusively to state-level elections, leaving federal races unaffected. With nearly three-quarters of the electorate voting in favor, Maine demonstrated strong bipartisan support for campaign finance reform. According to The New York Times, the measure passed by a margin of 74 to 26 percent, reflecting widespread discontent with current campaign finance practices.
The campaign behind Question 1, Maine Citizens to End Super PACs, gathered the signatures necessary to place the initiative on the ballot, advocating for transparency and fairness in state elections. Cara McCormick, chair of Maine Citizens to End Super PACs, praised Maine voters for “once again leading the way to help fix our broken political system.”
“The Maine people deserve a system that is not only free from corruption, but also free from the appearance of corruption,” McCormick continued. “Our greatest hope is to restore people’s faith in our democracy and increase participation across the board.”
Experts believe that Maine’s initiative could set the stage for a significant legal showdown. The measure challenges previous judicial rulings that have allowed unlimited contributions to independent expenditure groups, most notably Citizens United v. FEC and SpeechNow.org v. FEC. Under the current legal framework, only donations with potential for “quid pro quo” corruption can be regulated, leaving contributions to independent expenditure groups largely unrestricted.
As Maine Morning Star explains, “Since Buckley v. Valeo in 1976, the Supreme Court has allowed contributions to be regulated when there is a risk of ‘quid pro quo’ corruption, essentially a favor for a favor.” While Citizens United extended corporate and union contributions in 2010, SpeechNow.org v. FEC allowed super PACs to accept unlimited donations, provided they don’t coordinate directly with candidates.
Legal scholars see Maine’s initiative as an opportunity to revisit these rulings. “When the Supreme Court affirms what Maine voters have done, it could end super PACs everywhere,” stated Harvard Law professor Lawrence Lessig, who has supported the effort in Maine.
The campaign for Question 1 received backing from some of the nation’s foremost legal experts, including Harvard Law’s Lawrence Lessig, Laurence Tribe, and University of Chicago’s Al Alschuler. These scholars argue that contributions to PACs pose a real risk of corruption. Tribe and Alschuler claim that donations to supposedly independent PACs create opportunities for “quid pro quo” arrangements even without direct coordination. Therefore, Congress could regulate these contributions to address corruption risks.
“This is a great gift from Maine to democracy in America,” said Lessig. “We expect this initiative will be challenged. But when the Supreme Court affirms what Maine voters have done, it could end super PACs everywhere.”
Not all advocates for campaign finance reform supported Question 1. Some reformers worry that the initiative could backfire, potentially leading the Supreme Court to issue rulings that further entrench super PACs. The Maine Education Association and Maine Citizens for Clean Elections expressed concerns, fearing that the measure might be declared unconstitutional. Additionally, some local attorneys opposed the initiative, arguing that the referendum could provide the Supreme Court an opportunity to weaken existing campaign finance regulations.
Prominent Maine media outlets voiced support for Question 1. In a recent editorial, Portland Press Herald stated, “Ours would be the first state in the nation since the Supreme Court’s Citizens United ruling in 2010 to move to limit contributions to PACs that can make independent expenditures.” Highlighting the need for campaign finance reform, the editorial board argued, “If Maine can play a leading role in bringing some order and fairness to political spending nationally, we should seize the chance.”
Should the initiative reach the Supreme Court, the outcome could reshape campaign finance law in the U.S. While Citizens United is unlikely to be overturned, constitutional scholars believe that the Court could clarify whether contributions to independent expenditure PACs can be regulated under anti-corruption statutes.
Reflecting on the importance of the referendum, McCormick underscored the broader significance of the measure: “Our greatest hope is to restore people’s faith in our democracy and increase participation across the board.”
COMMENTS