A lawsuit emerging from Maine has positioned itself as the most serious legal challenge to the flood of anonymous corporate spending that now dominates American elections. The case hinges not on the infamous Citizens United decision, but on an even less-known 2010 ruling that courts have never actually tested before the Supreme Court.
The distinction matters. While Citizens United cleared the way for Super Pacs to spend unlimited sums, a second doctrine called SpeechNow v FEC removed the caps on donations flowing into those groups. Together, these decisions created the architecture of modern campaign finance: billionaires and corporations can now pour money into political operations in ways that voters cannot see.
The numbers tell the story. In the last election cycle, Super Pacs and related groups spent more on federal races than all candidate campaigns combined. One dollar out of every five coursing through a Super Pac came from organizations that keep their donors secret. Two billion dollars in "independent" spending remained dark, meaning politicians know who bankrolled their election but the public does not.
The current cycle is shaping up to be worse. Super Pacs have already burned through nearly a quarter billion dollars, much of it from artificial intelligence and cryptocurrency industries seeking policy decisions in Washington. Again, much arrives as untraceable cash, with dark money groups now the second-largest source of donations to Republican Super Pacs in Congress.
Polls consistently show Americans reject this system. Most understand that Citizens United bears responsibility. But few realize that the more obscure SpeechNow ruling is equally consequential. Fewer still know that SpeechNow was never actually challenged before the nation's highest court, because the Obama administration chose not to fight it when the ruling came down.
In 2010, Attorney General Eric Holder decided against appealing SpeechNow to the Supreme Court. He minimized the decision's impact, asserting it would "affect only a small subset of federally regulated contributions." That prediction proved catastrophically wrong. Independent expenditures now exceed a quarter of all election spending. A handful of the country's wealthiest individuals now account for roughly one dollar of every thirteen spent in national elections.
Maine's ballot measure, approved by voters in 2024, attempts to place limits on contributions to Super Pacs within the state. Conservatives have filed suit to block it, arguing that SpeechNow prevents such restrictions. But the measure's architects, including Harvard law professor Lawrence Lessig and the group Equal Citizens, deliberately designed the initiative to force exactly this confrontation at the Supreme Court.
They crafted it as the legal challenge Holder's administration declined to bring fourteen years ago. Only now, they have something Holder lacked: over a decade of real-world evidence showing that Super Pacs are not actually independent from candidates and that donations to them can be part of corruption schemes.
Court records from Maine already contain a crucial admission from the lower court judge: "Contributions to independent expenditure Pacs can serve as the quid in a quid pro quo arrangement." The judge cited prosecutions of politicians like Senator Bob Menendez and Ohio House Speaker Larry Householder, both involving Super Pac donations as part of alleged corrupt deals.
This recognition cuts to the heart of SpeechNow's legal weakness. That 2010 decision rests on the assumption that Super Pacs are genuinely independent from candidates and therefore donations cannot corrupt them. If courts accept that donations to Super Pacs can actually be vehicles for quid pro quo schemes, the entire premise collapses. And if the premise collapses, existing Supreme Court precedent allows limits on contributions that create corruption risks.
The conservative legal establishment knows what is at stake. In recent filings, they urge the courts to block Maine's measure before it ever reaches the Supreme Court. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has submitted briefings arguing against allowing the case to proceed upward through the appeals process.
A lower court judge already refused to let Maine's measure take effect, even while acknowledging that Super Pacs can be used for corrupt deals. The case is now climbing the judicial ladder, potentially headed toward the Roberts court itself. Success is far from guaranteed, particularly in a conservative-leaning Supreme Court that issued Citizens United in the first place.
But the architecture of Maine's case offers something unusual: a path for the Supreme Court to address the SpeechNow question while staying technically within the boundaries of its own existing precedents. It gives justices concerned about the court's eroding public legitimacy a possible off-ramp. And it demonstrates that the foundation beneath SpeechNow rests on a claim about Super Pac independence that simply no longer holds in light of prosecutions and documented corruption schemes.
Author James Rodriguez: "This case could finally prove what everyone already knows: that money flows to politicians through Super Pacs expecting favors in return, and that the legal architecture protecting this system was built on a false premise."
Comments