A voter-approved law in Maine capping contributions to super PAC-style political committees at $5,000 has triggered a federal lawsuit, Dinner Table Action v. Schneider, that could help determine how far states may go in regulating independent‑expenditure PACs. Advocates say the case could clarify federal campaign‑finance precedent and potentially bolster states’ ability to police big‑money donations.
In 2024, Maine residents advanced and approved a citizens’ initiative to cap contributions to super PACs at $5,000 per donor per year, drawing on a legal strategy associated with Harvard Law School professor Lawrence Lessig. The measure, known as Question 1, was backed by campaign‑finance advocate Cara McCormick and the group Citizens to End Super PACs, which promoted the effort as a potential test case for other states.
On Election Day, Nov. 5, 2024, the initiative passed with 74.9 percent support, according to campaign materials and state tallies, marking one of the strongest margins for a citizens’ initiative in Maine history.
Supporters contend that the U.S. Supreme Court has never squarely decided whether the Constitution requires states to allow unlimited contributions to independent‑expenditure‑only committees, commonly called super PACs, even though it has permitted unlimited independent spending by corporations and unions. They argue that large donations to such PACs can still create or appear to create quid pro quo corruption and should therefore be subject to contribution limits.
Soon after Question 1 passed, two Maine political action committees, Dinner Table Action and For Our Future, backed by the Institute for Free Speech and supported by other conservative and business‑aligned organizations, filed a federal lawsuit to block the law. The plaintiffs argue that the cap violates the First Amendment and conflicts with federal precedent, including the D.C. Circuit’s 2010 decision in SpeechNow.org v. FEC and the Supreme Court’s Citizens United ruling, which together undergird the current super PAC system.
The case, Dinner Table Action v. Schneider, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maine against members of the Maine Commission on Governmental Ethics and Election Practices and the state attorney general.
Equal Citizens, a nonprofit founded by Lessig, has publicly supported Maine’s law and the broader strategy of testing super PAC contribution limits in the courts. Equal Citizens’ leaders have emphasized that their goal is not to overturn Citizens United directly, but to persuade courts to reconsider whether unlimited contributions to super PACs must be allowed under the First Amendment. Their legal focus is on the SpeechNow decision, which held that contributions to independent‑expenditure‑only committees are non‑corrupting and thus cannot be capped.
In July 2025, U.S. Magistrate Judge Karen Frink Wolf permanently enjoined Maine from enforcing the law, ruling that the contribution limits and related disclosure requirements were unconstitutional. The decision relied on existing Supreme Court and federal appellate precedent, including Citizens United and SpeechNow, and concluded that there was no set of circumstances under which the caps on contributions to independent‑expenditure PACs could be applied constitutionally.
The state and supporters of the law have appealed, and the case is now before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. Reform advocates argue that a favorable ruling could open the door for states to impose contribution limits on super PACs as part of broader efforts to curb the influence of big money and strengthen public‑financing systems. They say that if courts permit such caps, states could make small‑donor and public‑financing programs more viable by narrowing the fundraising advantage of big‑money outside groups.
Other advocates in Maine’s clean‑elections community, however, have been more cautious. Maine Citizens for Clean Elections (MCCE), which led a 2015 initiative to restore and expand Maine’s public‑financing system after earlier court decisions weakened it, expressed support for the goals of limiting big money but raised concerns about the legal risks of directly challenging entrenched federal precedent on super PAC contributions. The group has focused instead on state‑level reforms and, over the longer term, on the possibility of constitutional change.
Nationally, polls have consistently shown broad public disapproval of the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision and skepticism toward unlimited campaign spending. Supporters of Maine’s Question 1 see the overwhelming 2024 vote as part of that broader backlash, arguing that Mainers’ support for the contribution cap reflects frustration with a political system shaped by Citizens United and SpeechNow and dominated by high‑dollar donors and outside groups.
The Maine litigation underscores a central tension in the campaign‑finance debate: even as many voters express support for stricter limits and clean‑elections systems, federal courts have repeatedly struck down attempts to cap contributions to independent‑expenditure groups, leaving reformers to search for new legal theories and test cases in the post‑Citizens United era.
