Voters face a critical decision that will significantly affect Mainers’ First Amendment right to free speech. We all have the right to speak without limit about a political candidate. But should the government limit the political speech of two, three, or hundreds of people when they band together to do the same thing?

Question 1 in this November ballot address this issue, asking whether the government can set a limit on how much we can spend on speaking out if we do it together as a group. The proposal would set a $5,000 limit on contributions to political action committees (PACs) that make independent expenditures to support or oppose candidates, sometimes called “super PACs.”

Independent expenditures are political expenditures, by definition, not coordinated or approved by the candidate. They can be spent on many forms of political speech, such as running ads, sending mail, or organizing get-out-the-vote efforts to support or oppose a candidate. While supporters argue that this fall’s ballot measure will reduce the influence of money in politics by limiting contributions to PACs that are independent spending organizations, such a policy is both unconstitutional and counterproductive.

A question similar to the one Maine voters will answer in November was at the heart of the benchmark The case of SpeechNow.org v. Federal Election Commission. There, the court wrestled with the issue of whether the government can limit contributions to groups that engage exclusively in independent political advocacy.

The US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit answered with a resounding and unanimous “no.” In all, at least 30 federal appeals judges have ruled on the same question in many cases, and all have said no.

As president of Institute for Freedom of Expression and a plaintiff in this case, I have a unique perspective on this issue. By seeking to limit contributions to independent spendthrift organizations, Maine’s proposed measure directly and clearly contravenes our First Amendment rights as Americans. It infringes on our rights to organize into groups and express our opinions on an issue of the utmost public concern – the question of who will run the government.

The Supreme Court has consistently held that independent political speech deserves the highest level of constitutional protection, and the proposition in question 1 clearly fails this analysis. The measure is also simply a bad idea.

If the government can limit what we spend on our rights in this way, what else could it do? You are free to publish a newspaper and endorse candidates, but you cannot earn more than $5,000 from any advertiser. Or you can start a church, but no one can support it with more than $5,000.

If you and I agree on a cause promoted by a candidate, and you can only afford to contribute $50, but I can contribute $10,000, why should the government prohibit us from pooling our funds to do you say the same message? What about a celebrity charging $50,000 to endorse a product? The measure would allow a celebrity to make a personal endorsement of the candidate, even if it is done in coordination with the candidate. But five strangers can’t pool their money and spend $50,000 to independently talk about the same candidate?

The measure would obviously lead to less talk and less information for voters. And that would give an advantage to incumbent politicians who are better known. Why would we want to do that?

The reality is that since the courts have blessed independent spending groups, campaign spending has soared. It’s a big reason why election campaigns are more competitive than they’ve been in decades. Voter turnout is also on the rise.

If the measure passes, it will also waste precious Maine tax funds. The state will pay lawyers to defend this indefensible measure in court.

This ballot measure threatens your right to free speech and good government. Smart Maine voters will vote to reject Question 1 and protect constitutional rights to political speech and assembly.

Copy the story link