THE LAWSUIT THAT COULD
END SUPERPACS.
Dinner Table Action et al. v. William Schneider
SUMMARY
On Election Day 2024, Maine voters overwhelmingly approved a ballot measure — Question 1 — to limit contributions to SuperPACs. Defenders of the status quo challenged the law immediately. We intervened to defend the initiative. Nothing in James Madison’s First Amendment forces Maine or America to suffer the stain of SuperPACs. Join us, and learn more below!
WE PUBLISHED A BOOK!
We filed our brief in the First Circuit. Now, 9 briefs from friends of a corruption-free democracy (lawyers call them “amici”) have been filed supporting us as well.
Those briefs came from the best of the best — from Laurence Tribe, Al Alschuler, and Norm Eisen to Mark Cuban, Reid Hoffman, the Brennan Center, the Campaign Legal Center, Common Cause, Issue One (representing a group of 12 former Democrats and 12 Republicans from the House and Senate), and so many more.
Together, they form a historic defense of democracy and a roadmap for how the courts can correct one of the most consequential mistakes in modern constitutional law.
We’ve compiled these briefs into one beautifully designed volume: Friends of a Corruption–Free Government.
Get a free, downloadable PDF version here.
Or, buy a Kindle version here.
Or, buy a paper version here.
THE ORIGINS
For years, we have been trying to correct a major legal error:
The Constitution does not require SuperPACs.
To fix this mistake, we need to get the issue before the Supreme Court.
We ran two campaigns to make this happen. First, we helped Alaskans demand that their anti-SuperPAC law be enforced. The lower court agreed with us; the Alaska Supreme Court did not. Then, we brought an initiative in Massachusetts to ban SuperPACs. The MA AG blocked us, and MA Supreme Judicial Court issued a ruling that effectively ended the campaign.
THE ORIGINS
THE MAINE
STORY
THE MAINE
STORY
In August 2023, citizens in Maine began exploring a state initiative to limit contributions to independent political action committees (aka SuperPACs).
- Those citizens started a ballot question committee called Maine Citizens to End SuperPACs, and we helped raised the funds to gather the signatures.
- The initiative was approved for the ballot and Mainer across the state made extraordinary efforts to ensure its passage.
- On Election Day, voters from across the political aisle overwhelmingly approved (75%) the contributions limits to SuperPACs.
A month after the initiative passed, defenders of the status quo sued to block the law, and we are now working to defend it.
THE ARGUMENT
In 2010, three months after the Supreme Court (in Citizens United v. FEC), held that the First Amendment protected the right of corporations to spend money independently of a campaign, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals (in SpeechNow v. FEC) held that the First Amendment banned limits on contributions to independent political action committees. This decision — not Citizens United — created SuperPACs.
The D.C. Circuit’s reasoned that IF independent spending did not risk quid pro quo corruption, THEN contributions to independent spending committees could not risk quid pro quo corruption.
But here’s the deal: This is just wrong. Even if the spending is independent, contributions to independent committees can — and often do — involve quid pro quo corruption.
Consider the (sad) case of Senator Robert Menendez (D-NJ): In 2015, Menendez was indicted for an illegal quid pro quo. He was said to have promised favors to a NJ businessman; in exchange, the NJ businessman was to make a contribution to Menendez’s SuperPAC.
There it is, the thing the DC Circuit said was impossible: A quid pro quo involving a contribution to a SuperPAC. And under the reasoning of Citizens United, the risk of such abominations should empower states like Maine to limit such contributions.
For clearer (and less legalese!) demonstration of this logical error, watch these short (and creative!) videos:
THE ARGUMENT
WHAT HAPPENS NEXT?
WHAT HAPPENS NEXT?
We’ve recruited one of America’s leading Supreme Court advocates — former acting Solicitor General, Neal Katyal — to lead the fight. Our legal argument was heard in May in the federal district court in Maine.
On July 15th, the court released its opinion, which, although enjoined enforcement of the ballot initiative, conceded that the foundation of the case that gave us SuperPACs – SpeechNow v. FEC – is wrong.
We are appealing to the First Circuit, which has not yet ruled on whether SpeechNow v. FEC is correct. It will, therefore, have a chance to consider the matter without the burden of prior precedent.
If we prevail in the First Circuit, then the United States Supreme Court will have to take the case up.
WHAT YOU CAN DO NOW?
If you’re among the many in America who want a politics in which our government is, as James Madison promised, “dependent on the people alone,” where “the people” he meant “not the rich more than the poor,” then we need your help!
- This lawsuit is going to be expensive. Please consider pitching in to allow us to keep doing this important work.
- Join our list to be kept in the loop.
- Share this page with your community.
- If you have any skills that might be useful in our work to spread the word about our case (social media, graphic design, coding, etc.), send us an email at info [at] equalcitizens.us
WHAT YOU CAN DO NOW
RECENT NEWS
LEARN MORE ABOUT THE CASE THAT WILL PUT AN END TO SUPERPACS
MAINE LEGAL FILINGS
First Circuit Court of Appeals Filings
- Brief of Mark Cuban, William Von Mueffling, Steve Jurvetson, Vin Ryan, and Reid Hoffman as Amici Curiae in Support of Defendants-Appellants and Reversal – Oct. 29, 2025
- Brief of the Center for American Progress as Amicus Curiae in Support of Defendants-Appellants and Supporting Reversal – Oct. 29, 2025
- Brief of Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law in Support of Defendants-Appellants and Reversal – Oct. 29, 2025
- Amicus Curiae Brief of Campaign Legal Center in Support of Appellants and Reversal – Oct. 29, 2025
- Brief of Former Members of Congress and Former Governors as Amici in Support of Defendants-Appellants and Reversal – Oct. 29, 2025
- Brief of Amici Curiae Demos and Common Cause in Support of Defendants-Appellants – Oct. 29, 2025
- Brief of Amicus Curiae Mainers for Working Families in Support of Defendants-Appellants and Reversal – Oct. 29, 2025
- Brief of Amicus Curiae Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics Washington in Support of Appellants – Oct. 29, 2025
- Brief of Amicus Curiae Albert Alschuler, Laurence Tribe, and Norman Eisen in Support of Appellants and Reversal – Oct. 29, 2025
- Brief of Defendants-Appellants William J. Schneider, David R. Hastings, III, Dennis Marble, Aaron M. Frey, and Sarah E. LeClaire – Oct. 22, 2025
- Opening Brief for Defendants-Appellants Equal Citizens, Cara McCormick, Peter McCormick, Richard A. Bennett – Oct. 22, 2025
- Defendants-Appellants Opposition to Motion to Dismiss Appeal – Oct. 22, 2025
- Plaintiffs-Appellees’ Motion to Dismiss Appeal – Oct. 12, 2025
Maine Federal District Court Filings
- Neal Katyal’s Memo on DTA v. Schneider – Jul. 18, 2025
- Magistrate Judge Karen Wolf’s Order on Permanent Injunction – Jul. 16, 2025
- Intervenors’ Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Permanent Injunction – Feb. 26, 2025
- Exhibit Declaration of Christopher Robertson – Feb. 26, 2025
- Exhibit Declaration of Jack N. Ravoke – Feb. 26, 2025
- Exhibit Declaration of Jonathan Gienapp – Feb. 26, 2025
- Order Granting Motion for Intervention – Feb. 25, 2025
- Amicus brief by Mainers for Working Families – Feb. 21, 2025
- Exhibit Declaration of Jonathan Bolton – Feb. 14, 2025
- Exhibit Declaration of Jonathan Wayne – Feb. 14, 2025
- Expert Report submitted by Hilary Braseth – Feb. 14, 2025
- State Defendants’ Opposition to Motion for Permanent Injunction – Feb. 14, 2025
Ballot Initiative
- An Act to Limit Contributions to Political Action Committees That Make Independent Expenditures – public approval on Nov. 5, 2024
SIGN UP FOR UPDATES
SEE OUR HISTORIC CASES AGAINST SUPERPACS
ALASKA LEGAL FILINGS
- Petition for a Writ of Certiorari – December 2, 2021
- Alaska Supreme Court Decision – September 3, 2021
- Equal Citizens Alaska Supreme Court response brief – September 2, 2020
- APOC Alaska Supreme Court opening brief – June 11, 2020
- Superior Court Order – November 4, 2019
- Reply Brief of Appellants – February 26, 2019
- Brief of Appellee– January 30, 2019
- Brief of Appellants– November 16, 2018
- Expert Report of Adam Bonica
– Entered into evidence on October 4, 2018 - Expert Report of Jack Rakove – Entered into evidence on October 4, 2018
- Statement of Point on Appeal – March 30, 2018
- Notice of Appeal – March 30, 2018
- Complaint – Patrick v. Interior Voters for John Coghill and Working Families, January 31, 2018
- Complaint – Lambert v. Interior Voters for John Coghill and Working Families, January 31, 2018
- Complaint – Barnett v. Interior Voters for John Coghill and Working Families, January 31, 2018
- Case Description Form
Except where otherwise noted, content on this site is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. This website is shared by Equal Citizens Foundation (501(c)3 and EqualCitizens.US (501(c)4). Equal Citizens Foundation is not responsible for any political content on this website. Read our Privacy Policy here.