TOMORROW: Federal Court Case About Limiting Corrupting Influence of Super PACs

BOSTON – On Wednesday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit will hear oral arguments in a legal challenge to a ballot measure passed by 75% of Maine voters in November 2024 to cap contributions to super PACs at $5,000 per year known as Dinner Table Action v. Schneider.

The Maine ballot initiative is one of several (including Hawaii and Montana) instances of states taking action to limit the corrupting influence of money in politics. A poll released last fall by Issue One found that 79% of Americans said that large independent expenditures by wealthy donors and corporations in elections give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption. Issue One’s poll also found that 76% of Americans said the appearance of wealthy donors or corporations gaining influence over or access to elected officials “causes me to lose faith in this democracy.”

Ahead of the oral arguments, two dozen former elected officials who are part of Issue One’s ReFormers Caucus — 12 of whom served in public office as Democrats and 12 of whom served in public office as Republicans — filed a legal brief with the First Circuit emphasizing the corruption risks associated with large super PAC contributions.

In their legal brief to the First Circuit, this bipartisan group of former elected officials warned that the risk of corruption associated with super PAC contributions “is not hypothetical,” citing law enforcement cases involving money flowing through super PACs to benefit the likes of former Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Robert Menendez (D-NJ), former Speaker of the House of Ohio Larry Householder (R-OH), and former Puerto Rico Gov. Wanda Vázquez Garced of the pro-statehood New Progressive Party, among others.Below are quotes from key stakeholders:

Former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle (D-SD):

“For more than 50 years, our legal system has recognized that contributions may be limited to prevent corruption or the appearance of corruption. Just as the McCain-Feingold Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 banned unlimited contributions to the political parties, it’s now time to ban unlimited contributions to super PACs that have become extensions of candidates’ own campaigns. Most Americans, regardless of party, do not find persuasive the claim that a massive contribution to a super PAC supporting a candidate creates no risk of corruption.”

Former Rep. Claudine Schneider (R-RI):

“This Maine ballot measure to cap super PAC contributions represents a simple, sensible reform whose time has come. Our democracy of ‘we the people’ will not survive if our government is for sale. Mainers are showing the country what meaningful anti-corruption guardrails look like, and the First Circuit should listen.”

Dan Kleban, co-founder of Maine Beer Company and member of Issue One’s Council for American Democracy:

“Democracy depends on the votes of people, not the money they have. On behalf of the 75% of Mainers who supported reining in super PACs, I call on the courts to listen to the voters. Maine has led the way to get money out of politics and has shown the nation that it’s a bipartisan issue. The courts should not upend democracy in favor of the highest bidder.”

###

Issue One is the leading crosspartisan political reform group in Washington, D.C. We unite Republicans, Democrats, and independents in the movement to fix our broken political system and build an inclusive democracy that works for everyone.