The Nation - A legal fight could restore the state’s power to set its own limits on contributions to super PACs and encourage public financing.
When voters in Maine passed a ballot measure last year to cap donations to super PACs—also known as independent political action committees—it appeared to be another milestone toward fairer elections. In a state known for election reforms such as public campaign financing and ranked-choice voting, the proposal looked like another way to successfully curb the flow of money from corporate and wealthy donors into local races.
Then came the lawsuit. In October, the US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit agreed to hear Dinner Table Action v. Schneider, a case that could decide the future of money in American politics.
Fifteen years after the Supreme Court opened the floodgates to dark money and unchecked spending with Citizens United, the Maine initiative has exposed a tension in the movement for clean elections: should advocates pursue state and local reforms, or bet on a high-stakes legal battle that could radically rewrite the rules of campaign finance nationwide?
In the summer of 2023, Maine residents began to think about how to place a question about limiting super PAC contributions on the ballot. Drawing on a legal theory developed by Harvard Law professor Lawrence Lessig, organizer Cara McCormick founded Citizens to End Super PACs, the ballot-question committee formed to lead the campaign.
McCormick, who pushed for Maine to adopt ranked-choice voting in 2016, crafted the initiative to cap donations at $5,000 based on efforts by Lessig’s nonprofit, Equal Citizens, which had pursued similar initiatives in Alaska and Massachusetts—both ultimately blocked in court.
No comments:
Post a Comment