June 3, 2025, 5:40 p.m.
A little-known court case in Maine could have major national implications concerning the future of super PAC giving and spending.
Last month, a federal court heard arguments challenging a voter-approved measure to rein in independent-expenditure political committees.
Mainers overwhelmingly passed a ballot initiative in November that limited individual super PAC contributions to $5,000 per calendar year. The activists and legal experts behind the initiative expected a challenge following its passage—which was their goal all along.
In Maine, super PACs have played an outsized role the last few cycles. In 2020, the contest between Republican Sen. Susan Collins and Democrat Sara Gideon surpassed $200 million in spending, with $40 million coming from super PACs. The hefty price tag on the race ignited an effort to overturn Citizens United.
“This is not just about Maine,” Harvard Law professor Lawrence Lessig, who helped organize the effort, told National Journal. “It’s also about reviving the regulation that limits super PACs nationally but that was struck down in the SpeechNow case.”
On the national level, disbursements for independent expenditures were $4.4 billion nationwide during the 24-month campaign cycle for the 2024 cycle.
Depending on the outcome of this trial, the case could end up in the First Circuit Court of Appeals, precisely where organizers want it to land.
Challenges to existing campaign finance laws are nothing new, and this latest one again takes aim at two highly influential court rulings from the previous decade.
In 2010, SpeechNow.org v. Federal Election Commission tested the constitutionality of the Federal Election Campaign Act, which established contribution limits and formed the Federal Election Commission. A federal court, applying the Supreme Court’s Citizens United ruling from months prior, found that contribution limits on super PACs violated First Amendment protections.
Lessig and organizers say the court erred in its decision that independent expenditures were not prone to the same corruption risks as direct-to-candidate contributions, which are limited under FECA. This time around, the defendants are presenting their argument with an originalist reading of the Constitution, arguing that the super PACs would be subject to regulation in spite of the First Amendment. Lessig said that argument has not been tried in court before.
“In SpeechNow, the question was asked whether the fact that you can spend unlimited amounts of money means that you should have a constitutional right to give unlimited amounts of money to a committee that is going to spend it independently,” said Lessig, adding that the ruling in Citizens United limited contributions only for the risk of quid pro quo corruption.
The prior rulings in SpeechNow and Citizens United understood super PACs to be wholly independent from candidates, eliminating the risk of corruption. Campaign finance advocates say that’s not the case.
“What we see every single day is these six-, seven-, eight-, nine-figure dollar checks that billionaires write to super PACs, and they’re coming with strings attached,” said Tiffany Muller, president of End Citizens United, a PAC committed to ending super PACs.
During the previous election cycle, Elon Musk bankrolled America PAC, which spent more than $270 million electing Republicans up and down the ballot. He then became an informal adviser to President Trump and assumed a large role in governmental affairs.
Musk said he will stop opening his political checkbook in the future, but he gave more than $20 million for a Wisconsin Supreme Court race in April—the most expensive judicial election in history. He has since served his 130 days of service as a “special government employee” but will likely continue to be influential in the administration.
“How are we just auctioning off access to the high levels of government to the highest bidder?” said Muller, referring to Musk’s “unprecedented access and power in our government.” Muller said the Supreme Court has the opportunity to revisit the Citizens United ruling.
But before the case reaches the Supreme Court, the real battle may be in the First Circuit Court of Appeals, which has not yet considered the question of super PACs.
“They’re essentially asking the First Circuit to be political,” said Institute for Free Speech attorney Chip Miller, who is working on the case. Miller said that if the First Circuit reaches similar conclusions to other circuit courts, the Supreme Court “is not likely to take the case.”
Even if the case did reach the highest court in the land, the conservative majority has not necessarily seemed interested in campaign finance reform.
“The Court has only become more conservative in the years since Citizens United,” said Brendan Fischer, deputy executive director of the watchdog group Documented. “It’s a risky gamble putting any campaign finance case before this Supreme Court, because it’s very likely that the Court will take it as an opportunity to further dismantle what remains of limits on money in politics.”
The plaintiffs in the case, such as Alex Titcomb, say that keeping money in politics is simply a matter of free speech. Titcomb is the co-founder and executive director of The Dinner Table, a member-based PAC in Maine and conservative grassroots organization.
If the Maine initiative were to stand, Titcomb argues that it “would definitely impact those people wanting to participate in the political process by way of contributing to the cause, whether it’s whatever side.” If money is equivalent to speech, then restricting contributions would violate the First Amendment, the plaintiffs argue.
Outside of Maine, efforts to curb super PAC spending on the federal level include the Stop Illegal Campaign Coordination Act in 2024, which aimed to ensure the “independent expenditure” part of super PAC spending rings true, and the Abolish Super PACs Act, introduced in March, which would place limits of $5,000 per year on super PAC contributions.
The Maine case is not the only one with potentially major ramifications for campaign finance. Last week, the Trump administration chose not to defend a federal law that enforces spending limits on coordination between committee and candidate. Republican campaign committees filed suit in 2022 to try to eliminate that cap, and the Democratic committees filed a motion following the administration's decision to back out.
Back in Maine, voters will likely see yet another influx of super PAC spending this election cycle. Collins, one of the most vulnerable Republicans, is up for reelection; the state’s 2nd Congressional District represents one of Republicans’ best chances to flip a seat; and the governor’s mansion is open due to term limits.
This process is likely to be drawn out. A ruling is expected in the case no later than July 15, and it seems poised to head to the First Circuit no matter the result. Titcomb said he will appeal the ruling if he loses.
“Depending on the decision, it could obviously set up a very long ... legal battle,” Muller said.
