Two rulings were handed down against different Maine ballot initiatives in recent weeks, with federal courts finding that they both violated the First Amendment by restricting political speech. The rulings are a win for freedom of speech in Maine, as they each reaffirmed that political contributions to political action committees (PACs) cannot be hindered. Notably, Maine Policy highlighted these constitutional issues in prior analysis of both Question 1 in 2024 and Question 2 in 2023.
Maine’s Question 1 from November 2024 capped donations made to Super PACs at $5,000 per person or entity annually. These entities are called Super PACs because, unlike other PACs, they don’t directly contribute or have any direct communication with candidates.
The primary purpose of Question 1 was to remove “big money” and “dark money” from Maine politics. However, as we explained in our previous blog post, it was likely to be found unconstitutional by the courts. Essentially, political contributions made to Super PACs are considered a form of free speech under the U.S. Constitution, as established by the U.S. Supreme Court in Citizens United v. FEC.
The only difference in this case is that, unlike in Citizens United, this case focuses on limiting the money going into Super PACs rather than the money coming out of them. Despite this, other federal appellate courts have ruled that capping campaign donations to Super PACs would still infringe upon citizens’ First Amendment rights based on Citizens United.
Question 1’s story in Maine came about as a result of its failure in Massachusetts. Harvard Law Professor Lawrence Lessig and his organization, EqualCitizens.us, proposed a ballot question in the Bay State with the explicit goal of attempting to change federal Courts’ interpretation of the First Amendment.
Lessig focused on the First Circuit because no case specifically made donations coming into Super PACs constitutionally protected. In contrast, other circuits have already established that donations coming into Super PACs cannot be restricted. Despite being driven by out-of-state advocates, Question 1 passed overwhelmingly with nearly 75% support.
Unlike Maine, Massachusetts law stipulates that the attorney general must ensure ballot initiative language is constitutional before a question may appear on the ballot. For this reason, Massachusetts’ attorney general killed Lessig’s proposed initiative there. Lessig subsequently sued the attorney general and argued that the case was different from Citizens United because it focused on the contributions to Super PACs rather than expenditures.
Lessig was unable to reverse the decision after the Massachusetts Supreme Court found that he had missed various deadlines in the process, and there would be no possible recourse if they made a ruling. Thus, Lessig decided to propose the same question in Maine, which has no attorney general review of ballot initiatives. As a result, he succeeded in getting it proposed and certified for the ballot in Maine.
On December 13, 2024, the Institute for Free Speech (IFS) and Joshua Dunlap of Pierce Atwood filed a lawsuit against Maine Attorney General Aaron Frey and members of the Maine Commission on Governmental Ethics and Election Practices on behalf of Dinner Table Action, For Our Future, and Alex Titcomb.
U.S. Magistrate Judge Karen Frink Wolf granted a permanent injunction to stop Question 1 on July 17, 2025, finding that Question 1 was unconstitutional. The case is expected to be appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, where the defendants and Lessig hope to find a more favorable ruling.
If they do win, it could force the U.S. Supreme Court to consider the case, which has been Lessig’s goal, as a circuit split on a major issue like Super PAC contributions could cause massive problems in national elections. If he loses, though, it’s likely the Supreme Court will discard a writ to consider the case to avoid further drama on an arguably settled issue.
Similarly, Maine’s Question 2 from 2023 passed with 86% of the vote back in November 2023. The ballot initiative prohibits foreign governments or entities with at least 5% foreign government ownership or control from spending money on elections or ballot measures in Maine. Much like Question 1 from 2024, this is unconstitutional because it restricts the free speech of corporations that foreign governments don’t fully control.
Additionally, ownership fluctuates, and it can be hard to determine how much of a company is owned by a foreign government or interest at any given time. It also required media outlets to do the due diligence involved with determining the percentage of foreign ownership when an entity purchased advertisements, which unnecessarily restricts free speech.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit ruled in favor of multiple plaintiffs against the state of Maine on July 11, 2025, granting a preliminary injunction to temporarily halt the law’s implementation. Plaintiffs included Central Maine Power, Versant Power, Maine Association of Broadcasters, Maine Press Association, and several individual plaintiffs.
The court ruled that this law would violate the First Amendment rights of U.S. corporations that had foreign ownership. Moreover, they pointed out the vagueness of what constitutes a foreign government, as well as the constantly changing ownership of companies. The case will return to the lower court where the actual ruling will be made.
These rulings further reaffirm freedom of speech not just in Maine, but throughout the entire First Circuit. The issue of political giving has now been solidified in the First Circuit in line with the Citizens United decision. Lessig and others have thus far failed to change the longstanding precedent that protects political giving and spending.
As these cases move forward, Maine will remain a pivotal battleground in the ongoing national debate over the balance between campaign finance regulation and the constitutional right to free political expression.
Jack Cullen is an incoming sophomore at University of Maine Farmington studying Actuarial Science and Computer Science. He currently serves as a public policy intern at Maine Policy Institute.