webodec3ARCHIVEPreview
Open in TheBrain

Maine superpak din tbl action v schneider

MERRI OK

inst free speech fedsoc leo COC

---

---

duck 3 26

Search Assist

The case "Dinner Table Action v. Schneider" involves a challenge to a 2024 Maine law that imposed a $5,000 cap on contributions to super PACs, which was permanently enjoined by a U.S. District Court in 2025. The case is now on appeal to the First Circuit, KBJ with amicus briefs filed by organizations like the Brennan Center and Campaign Legal Center arguing for the constitutionality of the law to prevent corruption.

Brennan Center for Justice campaignlegal.org

Overview of Dinner Table Action v. Schneider

Dinner Table Action v. Schneider is a significant legal case concerning campaign finance in Maine. It challenges a 2024 law that limits contributions to political action committees (PACs) making independent expenditures, commonly known as super PACs.

Key Details of the Case

Court Rulings

Implications

The outcome of this case could significantly impact campaign finance laws in Maine and potentially influence similar laws across the United States. It raises important questions about the balance between regulating political contributions and protecting free speech rights.

Brennan Center for Justice campaignlegal.org

--

NATION MAG

The Maine Lawsuit That Could Save Democracy From Big Money

A legal fight could restore the state’s power to set its own limits on contributions to super PACs and encourage public financing.

Thai Loyd

This story was produced for StudentNation, a program of the Nation Fund for Independent Journalism, which is dedicated to highlighting the best of student journalism. For more StudentNation, check out our archive or learn more about the program here. StudentNation is made possible through generous funding from The Puffin Foundation. If you’re a student and you have an article idea, please send pitches and questions to pitches@thenationfund.org.

When voters in Maine passed a ballot measure last year to cap donations to super PACs—also known as independent political action committees—it appeared to be another milestone toward fairer elections. In a state known for election reforms such as public campaign financing and ranked-choice voting, the proposal looked like another way to successfully curb the flow of money from corporate and wealthy donors into local races.

Then came the lawsuit. In October, the US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit agreed to hear Dinner Table Action v. Schneider, a case that could decide the future of money in American politics.

Fifteen years after the Supreme Court opened the floodgates to dark money and unchecked spending with Citizens United, the Maine initiative has exposed a tension in the movement for clean elections: should advocates pursue state and local reforms, or bet on a high-stakes legal battle that could radically rewrite the rules of campaign finance nationwide?

In the summer of 2023, Maine residents began to think about how to place a question about limiting super PAC contributions on the ballot. Drawing on a legal theory developed by Harvard Law professor Lawrence Lessig, organizer Cara McCormick founded Citizens to End Super PACs, the ballot-question committee formed to lead the campaign.

McCormick, who pushed for Maine to adopt ranked-choice voting in 2016, crafted the initiative to cap donations at $5,000 based on efforts by Lessig’s nonprofit, Equal Citizens, which had pursued similar initiatives in Alaska and Massachusetts—both ultimately blocked in court.

“The Supreme Court has never addressed whether SuperPACs are constitutionally mandated,” McCormick wrote in January. “The people of Maine, by supporting this initiative, want to give the Court the chance to address the question—and finally, correct this awful mistake.”

On election day, voters agreed, with the measure receiving nearly 75 percent of the vote. But within a month, two political action committees sued to block the law. Backed by conservative groups, the Maine PACs argue that the cap infringes on their free speech.

Equal Citizens, led by Lessig and executive director Maia Cook, intervened in the case in February, filing a brief defending the law. “Our argument is not that we are trying to overturn Citizens United,” Cook explained. “We’re trying to raise a question about whether we can limit contributions to super PACs. That question goes back to this decision called SpeechNow v. FEC, which, although it’s treated as the law of the land, it is not.”

The 2010 ruling at the DC Circuit effectively gave birth to super PACs, holding that contributions “do not corrupt or create the appearance of quid pro quo corruption.” Lessig and Cook assert that this logic is fundamentally flawed and believe that their originalist argument could appeal to the Supreme Court’s conservative majority.

A successful case could restore states’ power to set their own limits on contributions to super PACs and amplify the role of public financing in elections. “If we level the playing field,” added Cook, “public financing can become an option—so regular people can run, and we’ll have a more representative government—not one run by rich people.”

But in Maine, the grassroots groups that built the state’s clean-elections system declined to endorse the super PACs measure. While local newspapers, including the Portland Press Herald, urged a “yes” vote, the group Democracy Maine, which includes Maine Citizens for Clean Elections (MCCE), the League of Women Voters of Maine, and Maine Students Vote, did not join the campaign.

“We wholeheartedly support the aspirations of this bill,” wrote Maine Citizens for Clean Elections in a statement before the election, “but we cannot fully endorse this ballot question.” The group warned that the measure could “open Pandora’s box,” and unintentionally allow the Supreme Court to roll back existing reforms.

That apprehension reflects years of legal defeats in a post–Citizens United landscape, where federal courts have repeatedly struck down state campaign finance reforms, including parts of Maine’s landmark clean-elections program.

MCCE was formed during the campaign for the 1996 Maine Clean Elections Act. “It’s always been this phrase that ‘as Maine goes, so goes the nation’ because back in the day, our elections were held in September,” said Jen Lancaster, MCCE’s communications director. “That independent spirit is what launched the effort in the mid-1990s.”

The initiative passed, establishing a first-in-the-nation program that allows gubernatorial and state legislative candidates to run entirely on public funds. But after the Supreme Court struck down matching funds in 2011, Maine was forced to repeal a key provision of its Clean Elections program. MCCE responded by gathering over 70,000 signatures to advance the 2015 citizen initiative, which restored and strengthened the program by creating new, legally compliant mechanisms to replace lost funds.

The group, which helped revitalize Maine’s Clean Elections program, took a more cautious stance toward Equal Citizens’ approach.

“The reason why we were neither for nor against is we did not believe in the legal strategy,” said Lancaster. “We thought the courts, especially in Maine, would not rule in our favor. It’s really hard to overturn Citizens United—national groups have been trying for 15 years, and we just did not see this as a reliable path forward.”

Maine Citizens for Clean Elections instead supports a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United, while pushing ahead with immediate state and local reforms. The nonprofit mobilizes its grassroots network to organize and testify for its legislative agenda, which this year prioritizes shoring up funding for the Clean Elections Program and increasing transparency in PAC spending—efforts the group sees as “defensible in the current court climate.”

After a federal judge blocked the law in July, Equal Citizens appealed to the First Circuit Court of Appeals, and last month, the court agreed to take up the case. As it’s the remaining circuit court that has not yet ruled on the issue of super PACs, a decision in Maine’s favor could bring it to the Supreme Court by next fall.

But for clean-elections groups, the work continues within the bounds of today’s legal landscape. Lancaster said MCCE’s primary challenge is keeping public financing viable as campaigns become more expensive. Heading into the 2026 governor’s race, not a single candidate has pledged to run on public funding—a sign, she notes, that the program needs renewed investment to be able to sustain competitive campaigns.

A recent poll found that 79 percent of Americans oppose the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United. Lancaster and Cook agree that the majority of Americans, across party lines, support reform. “The funny thing is that no one likes money in politics,” said Lancaster. “It’s truly a nonpartisan issue. Anyone can see, ‘Oh, you’re spending a lot of money in our elections. I don’t like that.’”

“I think a lot of people might wrongly associate this as a fight that benefits one party over the other,” Cook said. “But the truth is, it’s disadvantaged both Republicans and Democrats, and created this arms race that people are just absolutely exhausted with.”

The Maine initiative exposes a central question for the clean-elections movement today: How do you deliver change when public opinion is on their side but the courts are not? What comes next at the First Circuit could shape the road ahead for clean-elections advocates across the nation—whether to keep reforming within a system restricted by these precedents, or to confront the legal structures that have fueled more than a decade of unchecked political spending.

“When I saw that 74.9 percent of Mainers voted in favor of this,” said Cook, “I saw that as public recognition that people are really tired with the political system born out of SpeechNow and Citizens United.”

The Maine Lawsuit That Could Save Democracy From Big Money | The Nation

New polling illuminates how the Supreme Court got Citizens United wrong and shows bipartisan momentum for money-in-politics reforms, including proposed Montana ballot measure - Issue One

---

FEDSOC

Sep102025

Topics:

Free Speech & Election Law

Sponsors:

Free Speech Practice Group• Election Law Practice Group

Event Video

IFrame Content

-44:24

InDinner Table Action v. Schneider, pending in the First Circuit, Maine is appealing a permanent injunction barring the enforcement of a ballot initiative passed in 2024 that would have capped contributions for independent expenditures at $5,000. The initiative, formulated and supported by the anti-super PAC group, Equal Citizens, was designed to challenge the case that “created” super PACs, SpeechNow.orgv. FEC, a unanimous en banc D.C. Circuit decision, which held that no limits can be placed on contributions for independent expenditures, and has since been reaffirmed by several federal circuit courts. If the First Circuit were to remove the injunction, it would create a circuit split, and open up the possibility of revisiting SpeechNow.orgv. FEC.

The Dinner Table ActionDistrict Court also ruled that mandatory disclosure of donors starting at $0 unconstitutionally burdens Free Speech by not affording any possibility for anonymous speech. As such, this case sits at an interesting intersection between free speech and election law. Join us for a litigation update where we will discuss the developments to date in this case, its potential impacts, and where it may be headed.

Featuring:

---

COC

KAREN FRINK WOLF MAGISTR JUDGE JUL 15 2025

Opinion-Dinner-Table-Action-v.-Schneider-D.-Me

---

harvard Law professor Lawrence Lessig discusses the strategy for ongoing Maine campaign finance litigation

By Rin Pastor

Orient Staff

November 7, 2025

Abigail HebertMAINE V. DARK MONEY:Lawrence Lessig speaks in Kresge Auditorium on Wednesday night. Lessig, a Harvard Law professor and founder of the non-profit Equal Citizens, spoke about a novel legal strategy Equal Citizens is using to attempt to uphold Maine’s regulation of super PACs.

Last Wednesday in Kresge Auditorium, professor of law at Harvard Law School Lawrence Lessig discussed ongoing litigation at the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit regarding campaign finance regulations. This litigation pertains to a 2024 Maine ballot initiative limiting campaign contributions that was passed by 75 percent of voters. This law was almost immediately challenged and ruled unconstitutional at the district court level. Lessig and the organization he founded, Equal Citizens, have appealed the decision.

Maia Cook, the executive director of Equal Citizens and one of Lessig’s former research assistants, began the talk by defining super political action committees (super PACs) and outlining their impact on the amount of money involved in political campaigns. Cook explained that the modern super PAC is a product of the Supreme Court case Citizens United v. FEC (2010), which deemed limits on independent expenditures uncoordinated with specific campaigns as unconstitutional, and the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals case SpeechNow.org v. FEC (2010), which expanded the doctrine from Citizens United and deemed contribution limits to independent expenditure super PACs unconstitutional.

“Together, these decisions created the modern super PAC, a legally distinct type of political action committee that can receive unlimited sums from corporations, individuals and unions and can spend unlimited amounts so long as they are uncoordinated [with campaigns],” Cook said.

Cook stated that while the intersection of democracy and capitalism requires some amount of campaign finance, the modern super PAC has created a vast increase of money—especially anonymous donations, also called dark money—in politics. She also noted that unrestricted super PAC activity has disadvantaged both Democrats and Republicans, leading to both parties being exorbitantly influenced by the richest top one percent of Americans.

“I don’t want the scale here to be lost on anyone, because just in 15 years, dark [money] contributions went from $6.6 million to $1.3 billion, and that is a 197 times increase from its original size,” Cook said.

:{Lessig outlined the legal theory that could reform elections to be less influenced by super PACs and billionaire spending. Citizens United built off of the Supreme Court case Buckley v. Valeo (1976), which stated that if expenditures from independent organizations are not prearranged with those running for office, there is no real or apparent corruption and thus these donations cannot be limited. Under Buckley, if expenditures are coordinated between organizations and candidates, they can be regulated.

Citizens United expanded this principle to corporations and unions. The SpeechNow decision established that contributions to these expenditures also create no corruption or appearance of corruption, a decision that Lessig takes issue with. He explained that while independent expenditures cannot be prearranged or coordinated, contributions can.}:

“It’s totally legal for [a candidate] to coordinate contributions to his super PAC, even though he is regulated not to coordinate expenditures. So the fact that contributions can be coordinated means the whole premise behind equating contributions with expenditures is just false,” Lessig said.

Lessig and Equal Citizens will be using this theory to argue the case for Maine’s ballot initiative in the Court of Appeals. In district court, the judge ruled that even if there is real or apparent corruption, Maine has no right to regulate it.

“The reason that’s a great victory is that that is the most extreme any court has ever been,” Lessig said. “It’s the first court in the history of federal jurisdiction ever to hold that even though there’s a risk of corruption, there’s nothing you can do about it.”

Lessig argued that, because of this extremity, if the Court of Appeals or Supreme Court rules against Equal Citizens, it will be a betrayal of the existing law.

“You only see how bad it would be if they struck the Maine initiative down by seeing how clear it is that the Maine initiative is constitutional.… If the court goes against us now, it is an extraordinary betrayal.… They’re changing the law to protect super PACs, not upholding Citizens United but extending Citizens United for the first time,” Lessig said.

Lessig believes that an extension of Citizens United would present a real political crisis, necessitating a bravery amongst lawyers, universities and the press.

“As we look around at this moment, there’s a certain cowardice that has become contagious. People make a judgment about what they should do, and they do the reasonable thing. And the reasonable thing is an act of cowardice,” Lessig said. “It’s understandable why they do what they do. It’s also wrong.”

Ultimately, Lessig is hopeful that the Supreme Court will agree with Equal Citizens. However, he also argues that should the Court disagree, it will be a sign for a necessary reform to the United States’ political structures.

“I’m optimistic the Court will agree with me. I think we should realize just what’s at stake if the Court goes the other way,” Lessig said in an interview with the Orient. “We need to start thinking seriously about how we bring constitutional reform through this process that involves citizens as opposed to lawyers and politicians.”

Attendee Gigi Ford ’27 admired Lessig’s ability to explain legal issues and theory in a concise and accessible manner.

“The most impactful part of the talk was Lessig explaining the logical fallacies found in the judicial system’s reasoning and practice. Being able to communicate this effectively to someone without a background in law is very important in the fight for ending super PACs,” Ford said.

---

medium

A district court in Maine has enjoined enforcement of an anti-SuperPAC initiative that had been enacted by Maine voters in November with 74.9% of the vote. 600,000 Mainers had said “enough” to SuperPACs — more Mainers voting for the initiative than had ever voted for any initiative or any person in the history of the state — and yet the court has now said, “not yet.”

I’ve written a long essay about the core mistake the district court made in interpreting Citizens United. You can read that here. In this much shorter essay, I want to show just why this district court opinion, in fact, should give us real hope.

Because the district court has conceded that the foundation to the case that gave us SuperPACs — SpeechNow v. FEC—is wrong.

The Error in SpeechNow

In 2010, three months after the Supreme Court decided Citizens United v. FEC, the DC Circuit decided the case that would give us SuperPACs — SpeechNow v. FEC.

Citizens Unitedhad held that independent expenditures could not be limited. SpeechNow held that contributionsto committees that make independent expenditures*could not be limited

The core reasoning in SpeechNowis this:

In light of the [Supreme Court’s] holding [in Citizens United that] as a matter of law [] independent expenditures do not corrupt or create the appearance of quid pro quo corruption, contributions to groups that make only independent expenditures also cannot corrupt or create the appearance of corruption. The Court has effectively held that there is no corrupting “quid” for which a candidate might in exchange offer a corrupt “quo.”

Given this analysis from Citizens United, we must conclude that the government has no anti-corruption interest in limiting contributions to an independent expenditure group such as SpeechNow.

“No anti-corruption interest,” in other words, because — “as a matter of law” — “there is no corrupting ‘quid’ for which a candidate might in exchange offer a corrupt ‘quo.’”

We had argued that premise was false. That indeed, there were plenty of examples where there was a “corrupting ‘quid’ for which a candidate might in exchange offer a corrupt ‘quo’.” The most famous of these cases was the indictment in 2015 of Robert Menendez: Menendez had been indicted for offering government benefits (the “quo”) in exchange for a contribution to Menendez’s SuperPAC (the “quid”) — the very thing the DC Circuit said could not be.

The district court in our case accepted this claim. As it found, “contributions to independent expenditure PACs can serve as the quid in a quid pro quo arrangement.”

But apparently, the court didn’t hear the “bingo” that must have then rung out across the land. Because the opposite finding had been the foundation of SpeechNow.

SpeechNow acknowledged the question it was answering had not been decided in Citizens United.Instead, it reasoned from Citizens Unitedto a premise it believed must be true: that there was “no anti-corruption interest,” because — “as a matter of law” — “there is no corrupting ‘quid’ for which a candidate might in exchange offer a corrupt ‘quo.’” And because there was “no anti-corruption interest,” the DC Circuit found it unnecessary to weigh that non-interest against a free speech interest. “The First Amendment,” the court held, “cannot be encroached upon for naught.”

But the district court in our case has now found that the interest is not a “naught.” That indeed, the core justification for regulating contributions to a political action committee — that they create a risk of quid pro quo corruption — is real. Which is to say, the whole foundation for SpeechNow is gone — leaving SuperPACs in the Wile E. Coyote position described in the gif above.

This is real progress, even if wrapped in a mistake (see my other essay about that mistake). Because though we may live in looney times, as with every Looney Tunes cartoon, eventually, gravity catches up.

You can sign up to follow the case here.

---

---

latest-filings-campaign-finance-court-battle-argue-maine-has-legal-right-regulate-super

The next piece of the puzzle for the group hoping to get the U.S. Supreme Court to establish greater regulations on money in elections was laid on Wednesday.

Two appeals were filed in the First Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston after a federal district court in July ruled that a 2024 Maine law overwhelmingly passed by voters was unconstitutional. The law placed limits on contributions to political action committees that independently spend money to try to support or defeat candidates, commonly referred to as super PACs.

One of the briefs is from Attorney General Aaron Frey on behalf of the state of Maine. The other is from the committee behind the referendum and the non-profit Equal Citizens, spearheaded by legal scholar Lawrence Lessig, who has been attempting to bring this issue to the high court for years.

Both make the case that the 2010 Supreme Court decision Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission actually allows for super PACs to be regulated.

The brief from the interveners incorporates a second originalism argument, which is notable since the party that instigated the lawsuit is made up of conservative political action committees.

Charles Miller of the Institute for Free Speech and Joshua Dunlap of Pierce Atwood (now nominee for the First Circuit) filed the lawsuit in U.S. District Court for the District of Maine in 2024 on behalf of Dinner Table Action, which was founded by state Rep. Laurel Libby (R-Auburn) and activist Alex Titcomb, and For Our Future, which is run by Titcomb. They argue that the law restricts free speech.

These dueling arguments have been known, but in an interview ahead of the filing Wednesday Lessig told Maine Morning Star that the intervener’s brief also argues that a component of the recent district court opinion rejects the reasoning that served as the foundation for super PACs in the first place, aiding their case.

After reviewing the filing on Wednesday, Miller said he doesn’t think that’s novel. He’ll be issuing his full rebuttal on behalf of the plaintiffs next month.

Before then, friend of the court briefs are expected next week and could add additional layers to the argument.

After oral arguments in early 2026, a ruling could come before the summer.

If the court decides in favor of the law, the issue could be in the Supreme Court by the fall of 2026. If the First Circuit rules otherwise, the path to the high court would become more difficult.

How the district court opinion plays in

Since Buckley v. Valeo in 1976, the Supreme Court has allowed contributions to be regulated when there is a risk of “quid pro quo” corruption, essentially a favor for a favor. In the case of elections, if there is a risk someone could be making a donation to a candidate in exchange for a favor, then Congress can regulate that contribution. In 2010, the Supreme Court extended this reasoning to corporations and unions in Citizens United,ruling that those entities can otherwise spend unlimited amounts of money on elections because they have free speech rights under the First Amendment.

Three months later, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in SpeechNow.org v. FEC that contributions to PACs cannot be regulated either, as long as the PAC is “independent” of the campaign.

The state of Maine and interveners argue SpeechNow misinterpreted Citizens United.

The ruling was never reviewed by the Supreme Court, though other lower federal and state courts agreed. In each one of those cases, the courts ruled that contributions to independent political action committees created no risk of “quid pro quo” corruption, so they couldn’t be regulated.

But in U.S. Magistrate Judge Karen Frink Wolf’s opinion in the district court in July, she essentially conceded that there is a risk of corruption. “Contributions to independent expenditure PACs can serve as the quid in a quid pro quo arrangement,” she wrote.

Lessig said that finding makes it “the most extreme opinion of any federal court in the history of this jurisprudence.”

However, Frink Wolf went on to write, “I am not persuaded that the Defendants’ arguments on this point can be squared with Citizens United.”

That’s where she and those backing Maine’s law diverge.

“The district court further erred by adopting the reasoning of out-of-jurisdiction decisions striking down similar contribution limits,” the brief filed by Frey reads. “Those cases did not bind the district court, just as they do not bind this Court.”

Maine sued over new campaign finance law, but that was supporters’ plan all along

What the state of Maine and the interveners are seeking is not to change the limits on expenditures in Citizens United. They think the question the Maine referendum raises — whether contributions to a committee that makes independent expenditures can be limited — is not answered in Citizens United.

“Nothing in Citizens United or in any subsequent Supreme Court case disturbs the longstanding precedent securing to the people the power to prevent quid pro quo corruption or its appearance by limiting the size of contributions,” the brief filed by the interveners reads.

Under the logic of Citizens United, independent expenditures are uncoordinated and create no risk of quid pro quo corruption, but donations to a committee that makes independent expenditures may or may not be coordinated. Therefore, they argue, they create the risk of quid pro quo corruption and can be regulated by Congress.

Further, Frey’s brief adds that “the district court should have recognized that the changed campaign landscape in Maine and the United States unleashed by SpeechNow supports Maine’s important interest in imposing modest limits.”

Republican-turned-independent state Sen. Rick Bennett, who is running for governor in 2026 and was on the ballot question committee, told Maine Morning Star, that the case in Maine “gives the courts a chance to correct a 15-year mistake, return power to the people, and begin restoring trust in our democracy.”

The state of Maine is giving the Supreme Court a gift. You're saying to John Roberts, here's a case where you could decide this case and the whole country will say, ‘Huzzah.’

– Lawrence Lessig

Another member of the ballot committee, Cara McCormick, said in defending Maine’s new law, “we go to court not in anger but in faith that our democracy will listen to its people and grow even stronger through them.”

Miller, the plaintiff’s lead counsel, disagrees with their interpretation.

“They’re trying to focus on the fact that, theoretically, a candidate could solicit a donation for independent expenditure, but the law doesn’t target that,” Miller said. “It targets any contribution for independent expenditure.”

As an example, Miller said someone could corrupt a politican by giving money to his daughter, “but there’s no reporting requirements on donations to daughters of senators.” In that regard, he added, “there are lots of things that can be corrupted, a donation to a presidential library arguably can be corrupted.”

An originalism argument

The overarching point the interveners are making is that the original meaning of the First Amendment would not have blocked state legislatures or the people from limiting the size of contributions to political action committees.

“The Supreme Court has never considered the question of what the original meaning of the First Amendment means in the context of campaign finance jurisprudence,” Lessig said.

The originalist argument they’re making is typically a conservative one, so Lessig believes it would fare well with the current conservative-leaning Supreme Court. He also believes that’s why the plaintiffs want to prevent that argument from advancing beyond the First Circuit.

“That’s what gave us the new Second Amendment, that’s what overturned Roe versus Wade — it’s originalism,” Lessig said. “But here, it goes against their politics.”

Last week, the plaintiffs filed a motion to dismiss the group’s appeal.

Ultimately, Lessig views the issue of regulating super PACs as a nonpartisan one. Both Republicans and Democrats benefited from hundreds of millions of dollars from super PAC spending last election, Democrats more so than Republicans.

“The state of Maine is giving the Supreme Court a gift,” Lessig said. “You’re saying to John Roberts, here’s a case where you could decide this case and the whole country will say, ‘Huzzah.’”

---

Campaign Legal Center

https://campaignlegal.org › document › dinner-table-action-et-al-v-schneider-et-al-maine-super-pac-contributions

Dinner Table Action et al. v. Schneider et al. (Maine Super PAC ...

Oct 29, 2025On October 29, 2025, Campaign Legal Center (CLC) filed an amicus brief to defend Maine's 2024 law limiting contributions to super PACs. As CLC's brief explains, experience in the 15 years since the D.C. Circuit first blessed these committees and their ability to accept unlimited contributions — on the premise that a super PAC's supposed independence from candidates forecloses any risk ...

Brennan Center for Justice

https://www.brennancenter.org › our-work › research-reports › dinner-table-action-v-schneider

Dinner Table Action v. Schneider - Brennan Center for Justice

Oct 30, 2025Dinner Table Action v. Schneider challenges a 2024 Maine ballot initiative passed overwhelmingly by voters (75% approval) that sought to regulate political spending. The initiative imposed a $5,000 cap on contributions from individuals and entities to state PACs that make independent expenditures ("Super PACs").

ifs.org

https://www.ifs.org › cases › dinner-table-action-et-al-v-schneider-et-al

Dinner Table Action, et al. v. Schneider, et al.

Dec 13, 2024On December 20, 2024, the state of Maine consented to the restrictions being held in abeyance pending a trial in March, read the press release on the agreement here. To read the full complaint in the lawsuit, Dinner Table Action, et al. v. Schneider, et al., click here. To read the full press release about the filing of the suit, click here.

U.S. Chamber of Commerce

https://www.uschamber.com › assets › documents › Opinion-Dinner-Table-Action-v.-Schneider-D.-Me.pdf

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MAINE DINNER TABLE ACTION et ...

Citizens United v. FEC, 558 U.S. 310, 357 (2010). The primary question in this case is whether Maine's recently enacted law limiting contributions to political action committees (PACs) that make independent expenditures (often referred to as super PACs) is a constitutional means of preventing quid pro quo

---