Dinner Table Action v. Schneider
The Fight Against SuperPACs
In 2024, Maine voters approved a landmark ballot initiative (by 74.9%) limiting contributions to SuperPACs. The law was immediately challenged. This Equal Citizens page collects the legal briefs filed in support of Maine's law in the First Circuit.
Case Documents
Briefs in Support of Reversal
All briefs below support Defendants-Appellants and ask the First Circuit to reverse the district court's decision striking down Maine's SuperPAC contribution limit.
Equal Citizens, McCormick & Bennett
Reply Brief
Counsel: Neal Kumar Katyal & Colleen E. Roh Sinzdak — Milbank LLP · Filed January 30, 2026
Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law
Argues that a decade of experience since SpeechNow weighs strongly against extending Citizens United to contribution limits, and that Maine voters' judgment warrants judicial deference.
Center for American Progress
Presents new empirical evidence showing that two factual premises of Citizens United—that independent expenditures cannot create the appearance of corruption, and will not erode public faith in democracy—have now failed.
Campaign Legal Center
Argues the Act is constitutionally permissible to prevent actual and apparent quid-pro-quo corruption, and is independently justified by the compelling governmental interest in preventing the appearance of corruption.
Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW)
Documents specific criminal cases proving SuperPAC contributions can and do facilitate quid-pro-quo corruption, and shows that no viable alternative to contribution limits exists.
Mark Cuban, Reid Hoffman, Steve Jurvetson & Fellow Investors
Wealthy Americans with unique standing argue that unlimited SuperPAC contributions are low-value speech, fuel real corruption, and make government less responsive to ordinary voters. They urge limits on their own power.
Dēmos & Common Cause
Traces the history of contribution-based corruption from Watergate through the SuperPAC era and shows that Buckley's contribution/expenditure distinction—reaffirmed in Citizens United—fully supports Maine's law.
Former Members of Congress & Former Governors
Elected officials who served in the SuperPAC era explain from firsthand experience how limitless contributions have broken politics, distorted governance, and created real corruption that courts should not ignore.
Mainers for Working Families
The Maine-based organization that championed the ballot initiative argues that fifteen years of evidence confirm SuperPAC contributions fuel corruption, and urges the court to honor voters' direct democratic judgment.
Professors Alschuler, Tribe & Eisen
Three leading constitutional scholars—including Harvard's Laurence Tribe—argue that SpeechNow's logic was flawed from the start, rested on dictum rather than holding, and has been comprehensively refuted by experience.