Maine asks appeals court to revive super PAC donor limit

Supporters of the limit say that in the super PAC era, formal coordination isn’t necessary to create the impression of corruption. (CN) — Maine officials argued Wednesday to restore a cap on contributions to political action committees for the purpose of backing or opposing a specific candidate.Voters passed the law in November 2024, imposing a $5,000 annual limit on contributions to state PACs that make independent expenditures, or super PACs, and requiring the groups to disclose all donors’ contributions.U.S. Magistrate Judge Karen Frink Wolf struck the measure down last July, finding it contravenes the First Amendment and precedent under Citizens United.Attorneys for the state asked a panel of the First Circuit Court of Appeals to reverse Wolf and reinstate the measure, which passed with 75% voter support.Super PACs — many of which are created to support a single candidate — are “largely taking the place of traditional expenditures for campaigns,” attorney Jonathan Bolton argued on behalf of the state. He said case precedent from other circuits doesn’t account for the “sheer amount of money that is now flowing through super PACs.”“We’re in a different world and I think that justifies taking a new look at this,” Bolton said.In the super PAC era, he said, formal coordination isn’t necessary to create the impression of corruption. “The contribution itself is enough to create the potential appearance and 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 PAC, argued that the lower court erred by applying expenditure law instead of contribution law, since super PACs don’t 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 backed the state in amicus briefs, including NYU’s Brennan Center for Justice, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington and Campaign Legal Center.Another brief in support came from a group of American investors and business magnates, including entrepreneur and TV personality Mark Cuban and LinkedIn founder Reid Hoffman.“As very wealthy Americans, amici have unique insight into the dynamics that arise in the absence of restrictions on contributions to superPACs and similar independent-expenditure entities,” the group wrote, backed by attorneys at the Election Law Clinic at Harvard Law School.Meanwhile, the U.S. 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 limits.Their attorney Charles Miller of the Institute for Free Speech, a nonprofit known for its work challenging campaign finance restriction — including the 2010 case SpeechNow.org v. FEC, which established that super PACs can accept unlimited contributions — urged the panel to affirm the lower court’s rejection of the law.“The American people have a First Amendment right to assemble and to associate, to engage in political speech and particularly election-related speech, free of infringement from many laws,” Miller said. “That’s what independent expenditures are. It’s the association of individuals to get together to speak.”U.S. Circuit Judge Seth Aframe, a Joe Biden appointee, asked Miller about quid pro quo corruption, putting himself in the shoes of a candidate.“The public will think that 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 to have that thing be flush with cash, just like it was [for] my campaign to be flush with cash — like, where’s the difference?” he asked.Miller pointed to the Supreme Court’s 2010 decision in Citizens United v. FEC and 1976 decision in Buckley v. Valeo.“The way the Supreme Court has structured these laws and everything, you’re sort of prohibited 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 gets to the candidate. It’s separate.”U.S. Circuit Judge O. Rogeriee Thompson, a Barack Obama appointee, asked: “Isn’t it reasonable to infer that, if someone is giving a million dollars to a super PAC that is specifically set up for that one candidate, that that is at least the perception of an appearance of corruption?”“We have to be careful when we say corruption, because corruption means lots of things,” Miller replied. “Does it look like the person is looking for something in return, and ingratiation? Maybe — but that’s politics. That’s what happens when people go out and do these things.”U.S. Circuit Judge Lara Montecalvo, a Joe Biden appointee, rounded out the panel, which reserved judgment.Subscribe to our free newslettersOur weekly newsletter Closing Arguments offers the latest about ongoing trials, major litigation and rulings in courthouses around the U.S. and the world, while the monthly Under the Lights dishes the legal dirt from Hollywood, sports, Big Tech and the arts.Additional Reads