On Tuesday, November 5, Maine voters will vote on five statewide ballot questions. Question 1 relates to money in politics and proposes to limit contributions to PACs, or Political Action Committees.
Specifically, the question will ask:
An Act to Limit Contributions to Political Action Committees That Make Independent Expenditures.
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?
What it’s asking
This question asks if you want to set a contribution limit of $5,000 to Political Action Committees, or PACs, that make independent expenditures, also known as Super PACs. A YES vote means you want to set a contribution limit of $5,000 to Political Action Committees. A NO vote means you do not want a contribution limit.
What are Political Action Committees? Political Action Committees, or PACs, allow groups to raise and spend private money in order to influence our elections. A PAC can contribute to candidates and/or spend money to support or oppose a candidate. PACs that contribute to candidates are typically subject to $5,000 contribution limits.
What are Super PACs? PACs that make only independent expenditures – those that do not contribute to candidates – are called Super PACs, and Super PACs may accept unlimited contributions, even from corporations, including nonprofit corporations. Super PACs became a reality following the disastrous Citizens United decision, when SCOTUS ruled that corporations can spend money in our elections as a form of "free speech." Since then, there has been a drastic increase of independent expenditures around the country and in Maine.
What are Independent Expenditures? Anyone can make an independent expenditure for or against a candidate. That includes individuals, groups, corporations, labor organizations, and political committees. Independent expenditures are not contributions and are not subject to limits. What does an independent expenditure look like? As an example, a Super PAC, instead of donating money to a political candidate, could spend a ton of their own money on an independently produced ad that promotes their preferred candidate — or attacks their opponent.
Who's behind Question 1?
This ballot question began as a citizen's initiative written by Lawrence Lessig, a Harvard law professor. A citizen initiative is legislation proposed through a petition process. When enough Maine voters sign the petition, the question goes on the ballot for a statewide vote.
If the question is passed by voters, it will be enacted into law. However, in this case, it is expected that groups will immediately challenge the law in the courts. Lessig hypothesizes that the lawsuit will eventually head to the U.S. Supreme Court and give the Court an opportunity to re-open the question of whether contributions to Super PACs are a form of corruption and allow them to rule on contribution limits to these PACs in the same way that there are contribution limits to other PACs and to candidates.
Does Maine Citizens for Clean Elections endorse Question 1?
Not exactly. We wholeheartedly support the aspirations of this bill and believe the U.S. Constitution could and should be interpreted to sustain a functioning democracy, including allowing states and Congress to regulate money in politics. But we cannot fully endorse this ballot question. We don’t believe that the Courts will rule in favor of the proponents. It could also open Pandora's box and lead to a number of unintended consequences that set back our efforts. We judge that the U.S. Supreme Court is unlikely to take this case, and if they do, they may use the opportunity to further chip away at the framework for campaign finance reform.
In short, we don’t agree with the legal strategy behind Question 1. We long for limits on contributions to Super PACs, but the courts have not been ruling in our favor. In recent years, the courts have – we think wrongly – decided cases that make those limits unconstitutional, and we do not believe they are likely to change course on this case.
MCCE is directing our energy towards a U.S. constitutional amendment, strengthening and expanding Clean Elections, and building on our existing legislative agenda of disclosure and reforms that are defensible in the current court climate.