Maine sued over the new campaign finance limits approved by voters

A national conservative group is suing the state to overturn new campaign finance limits approved by voters last month.

The Freedom of Expression Institute filed the suit in U.S. District Court in Portland on Friday, arguing that citizen’s initiative approved by nearly 75% of voters is unconstitutional. Among other things, the law limits contributions to political action committees to $5,000.

The lawsuit was filed on behalf of Dinner Table Action and For Our Future, two political action committees related to Rep. Laurel LibbyR-Auburn, a top fundraiser for Republican legislative candidates.

In a press release, the Institute said the new law violates the constitution by limiting free speech and forcing groups to disclose their donors, including those who donate less than $50. The institute says the new law would prevent PACs from spending money they’ve already raised and unfairly excludes PACs controlled by political parties and those who campaign on ballot questions.

“This unconstitutional law would severely curtail our ability to speak about candidates and issues that matter to Mainers,” Alex Titcomb, executive director of Dinner Table Action, said in a written statement. “Government cannot restrict independent political speech simply because some voters want to limit the voices of their fellow citizens.”

Over the past two years, Dinner Table Action has raised nearly $502,000, with about $25,500 coming from small donors who gave less than $50. For Our Future raised nearly $406,000, $375,000 of which came from the Concord Fund, which is connected to Leonard Leoa major conservative donor and activist who played a central role in establishing a conservative majority on the US Supreme Court. Leo owns a house in Maine.

“This law is a direct attack on the fundamental constitutional rights of Mainers,” Charles “Chip” Miller, senior staff attorney at the Freedom of Expression Institute, said in a written statement. “Not only does it violate their First Amendment right to organize and pool their resources for political speech, but it also violates equal protection by treating citizen groups differently than party committees. A ballot measure cannot override these basic constitutional protections.”

The Institute is represented locally by Pierce Atwood’s Joshua Dunlap. The lawsuit was filed against the five members of Maine’s Commission on Governmental Ethics and Election Practices, which is charged with enforcing campaign finance laws, and Attorney General Aaron Frey.

The lawsuit comes as no surprise to supporters of the new law. Citizens to End SuperPACs organized the referendum and expected it to be challenged in federal court, where they hope to set a new national precedent to help control unlimited campaign spending.

A 2010 US Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. The Federal Election Commission has unleashed unlimited campaign spending from Super-PACs and other groups that can hide their donors. The court ruled that limited campaign spending by these groups was a violation of free speech.

While the Citizens United decision focused on campaign spending, a second federal court ruling applied the same rule to any contributions to those groups, effectively allowing individuals and corporations to donate unlimited amounts. The second decision was never appealed to the Supreme Court, which is the goal of the lawyers in this case.

Advocates hope to convince the conservative-majority U.S. Supreme Court that the same reason the court has upheld campaign contribution limits for candidates — that unlimited donations to candidates have a corrupting influence — should apply to Super PACs , which are often funded by a few wealthy individuals or corporations.

Maine is the first state to challenge the federal court ruling by enacting statewide limits on CAP contributions. Advocates tried something similar in Massachusetts, but the ballot measure was blocked by the state’s attorney general.

David Keating, president of the Institute for Freedom of Expression, urged Maine voters not to support the referendum a Press Herald op-ed led the November election, declaring that the proposal “directly and clearly” conflicts with the First Amendment by infringing on “our rights to organize in groups and to express our opinions on a matter of the utmost public concern—the question of who will run the government.”

“The measure would obviously lead to fewer words and less information for voters. And that would give an advantage to incumbent politicians, who are better known,” Keating wrote, arguing that higher campaign spending increases voter turnout. “If the measure passes, it will also waste precious Maine tax funds. The state will pay lawyers to defend this indefensible measure in court.”

This story will be updated.