 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.
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.
Thank you, CREW HQ |
||||||||||||||||||||
|