Against SuperPACs
The Lawsuit That Could End SuperPACs
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 have intervened to join the Maine AG to defend the initiative. Because we believe that even this Supreme Court will agree — nothing in James Madison’s First Amendment forces Maine or America to suffer the stain of SuperPACs. Join us, and learn more below!
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 initiate 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. We are preparing our legal argument to be heard in the federal district court in Maine.
Whatever the outcome in the lower court, the decision will be appealed to the First Circuit Court of Appeals.
The First Circuit 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
- An Act to Limit Contributions to Political Action Committees That Make Independent Expenditures – public approval on November 5, 2024
- Declaration of Christopher Robinson – February 26, 2025
- Declaration of Hilary Braseth – February 14, 2025
- Declaration of Jack N. Ravoke – February 26, 2025
- Declaration of Jonathan Gienapp – February 26, 2025
- Expert Report submitted by Hilary Braseth – February 14, 2025
- Intervenors’ Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Permanent Injunction – February 26, 2025
- State Defendants’ Opposition to Motion for Permanent Injunction – February 14, 2025
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
SIGN UP FOR UPDATES
FOLLOW OUR WORK
Follow Equal Citizens on social media to stay updated on the latest fights to fix our democracy
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.