[link removed] [[link removed]] John,Last year, Maine voters overwhelmingly approved a ballot initiative to limit contributions to super PACs—one meaningful way to limit the influence of money in politics.
But shortly after, last December, the political action committees Dinner Table Action and For Our Future filed a lawsuit challenging the law’s implementation, arguing that the contribution limits are unconstitutional.
And just this year, a federal district court judge struck down the law, ruling that the contribution limits are unconstitutional and siding with the PACs.
John, the decision to limit contributions to super PACs was made democratically by the voters of Maine, but the courts intervened, disregarding their voice and choice.
That’s why CREW filed an amicus brief urging the First Circuit to reverse the district court’s decision and restore the law Maine voters passed.
We’re fighting to make our government more transparent and accountable—and to get big money out of politics. The time to act is now. If you’re with us, donate today to support CREW’s work → [[link removed]]
Donate → [[link removed]]
Our amicus brief challenges the district court’s claim that contributions to super PACs cannot result in quid pro quo corruption, offering clear examples of when they have.
For instance, former U.S. Senator Bob Menendez accepted bribes in the form of contributions to his super PAC and was later indicted and convicted.
At the time, the court recognized that there was “ample evidence” which showed that “Menendez placed subjective value on” the contribution to the super PAC, even though the super PAC was not coordinating its activities with Menendez.
Moreover, the brief explains that prosecutions for corruption reflect only a small portion of the ongoing corruption, since candidates commonly value support from independent groups, and donors commonly know this.
The amicus brief also highlights a key contradiction in the challengers’ argument that contributions are protected speech. They say limits are unconstitutional, yet they agree that foreign spending can be restricted. But the First Amendment protects speech regardless of who speaks.
This contradiction shows they see a difference: speech persuades, but spending can buy political influence.
The district court never considered whether there were adequate alternatives to prevent a contribution-bought quid pro quo. Current disclosure and rearmarking rules are easy to evade, making oversight difficult. That’s why the First Circuit should reverse the ruling and uphold Maine voters’ anti-bribery law.CREW’s taking on corruption and fighting for a transparent and ethical government—but we can’t do it alone. Help us continue taking on these critical fights by donating to support CREW today → [[link removed]]
Donate $5 → [[link removed]]
Donate $25 → [[link removed]]
Donate $50 → [[link removed]]
Donate $100 → [[link removed]]
Donate $250 → [[link removed]]
Other → [[link removed]]
Thank you,
CREW HQ
Make sure this email goes to your inbox. Add
[email protected] to your address book.
Email is a key way for us to stay in touch and make sure you get the latest updates from our campaign. But if you would like to unsubscribe, click here [[link removed]] .
Sign up to receive our messages straight to your phone! This is the best and fastest way to support CREW's work. Text 'JOIN' to 40234 to get updates. Txt STOP 2 end, HELP 4 help.
If you'd like to donate to support our efforts, please click here → [[link removed]]
© Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington 2020–2025
Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington
PO Box 14596
Washington, DC 20044
United States
