This Referendum Could Help Get Big Money Out of Politics
Organizers behind a ballot measure in Maine say super PACs encourage corruption — and they want the Supreme Court to weigh in.
By Paul Blest, More Perfect Union
Most Americans agree that there’s far too much money in politics: in a Gallup poll last year, more than 70 percent of respondents said there should be limits on campaign spending, and 80 percent said that donors had too much influence on members of Congress.
The problem goes back decades but got even worse in 2010 when the Supreme Court ruled in Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission to unleash a new era of corporate spending on elections. That ruling was exacerbated by a D.C. Circuit Court decision that allowed individual people to make unlimited contributions to political action committees, which led to the “absolute profusion of super PACs [political action committees],” according to Fordham Law School professor Zephyr Teachout.
Almost 15 years later, the effects are obvious: 97 percent of spending on super PACs has come from just 1 percent of donors, according to Open Secrets. And this year’s presidential election between Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump is projected to cost more than $10 billion, which would make it the most expensive race ever.
But when residents of Maine cast their votes next month, they’ll also have an opportunity to begin to undo some of that influence — with enormous ramifications for the rest of us.
That’s because Maine has a referendum this year to cap donations to super PACs at $5,000 per person. If the measure passes, the referendum will likely be challenged in court. Such a challenge would allow the referendum’s defenders to argue that unlimited spending has a corrupting effect on politicians — a question so far left open by the federal courts.
“The argument is not that we're trying to suppress the amount of money in politics,” Lawrence Lessig, a former presidential candidate and a Harvard Law School professor, told More Perfect Union. “We're trying to avoid raising money in a way that creates the risk of quid pro quo corruption.”
Lessig specifically pointed to the case of disgraced U.S. Sen. Bob Menendez, a New Jersey Democrat who resigned in August after being convicted in a federal public corruption trial.
“The charge [in Menendez’s first corruption trial] was he promised to give government favors in exchange for money from a Florida billionaire,” Lessig said. “But the Florida billionaire was not giving Menendez the money. He wasn't giving Menendez’s campaign the money, he was giving the money to Menendez’s super PAC.”
The referendum campaign’s organizers, including Citizens to End Super PACs campaign manager Kyle Bailey, welcome that challenge.
“You know, Mainers get off the sofa and take action to do what needs to get done to solve a problem. You know, if a neighbor needs help, you help your neighbor,” he told More Perfect Union. “If there's a problem in your democracy, 'cause it's not working for you, you get up off the couch and you do something about it.”
To learn more about how American politics got so corrupted by money and the effort in Maine to change that, watch our new video below.