Court should agree with Maine voters that large super PAC contributions warp democracy

By Tom Daschle, John McKernan, Olympica Snowe and Tim Wirth

We come from different states and political parties. Two of us are Republicans from Maine. One of us is a Democrat from South Dakota. And one of us is a Democrat from Colorado. We have disagreed plenty over the years, but we have come to the unsettling conclusion that super-charged political action committees known as super PACs are harming our democracy.

That is why we joined a bipartisan coalition of former elected officials supporting the decision of 75% of Maine voters to limit contributions to super PACs to $5,000 per year no matter who you are. We believe this reform is simple, sensible, and makes everyone play by the same rules. It acknowledges what millions of Americans already believe: Money buys political influence, and unlimited super PAC contributions are making corruption more likely. 

The First Circuit Court of Appeals is set to hear oral arguments in a challenge to this measure later this month.

Sixteen years ago, outside spending in federal elections measured in the tens of millions of dollars. Today, in the aftermath of legal decisions in 2010 including Citizens United and SpeechNow, it is measured in billions. Campaigns in this country are now dominated by super-charged PAC political action committees that are largely bankrolled by unlimited checks from a few powerful interests. These super PAC donors have seemingly decided that it is easier to shape an election than persuade a broad and diverse electorate. 

Candidates understand this. When a single super PAC can unleash millions of dollars in attack ads, no incumbent or challenger can afford to ignore their demands. Instead of spending their time performing critical oversight, drafting legislation that responds to their electorate’s priorities, and meeting constituents, politicians devote countless hours to chasing the favor of super PACs — or the wealthy donors who bankroll them — for their own political survival. This system creates a form of dependency that distorts representation.

Super PACs elevate the voices of the wealthy few over the voices of the average citizen. This Maine ballot measure, already approved by voters, reduces the influence of the voices of the wealthy by requiring them to be subject to the same super PAC contribution limits as the average citizen, bringing more equity to campaigns. 

Super PACs also overwhelmingly fund attacks, not ideas. They thrive on division, polarization, and a “win at any cost” mentality. The operatives behind super PACs answer to no voters and face no consequences if their tactics poison public trust. After a campaign ends, the damage they inflict lasts.

Some insist that because super PACs cannot coordinate their spending directly with campaigns, the money they collect poses no corruption risk. That claim may sound good in theory. However, the firewall between candidates and super PACs is paper thin. Everyone knows who the big donors are, and what they want.

We have seen what happens when lines blur. In recent years, prosecutors have uncovered multiple bribery schemes built around promises of super PAC support — involving Democrats and Republicans alike. These are not hypotheticals. They are warning flares.

Voters see it too. An overwhelming majority of Americans believe elected officials are more responsive to special interests than to the people who elect them. That perception is itself corrosive. Democracy cannot function when the public assumes the government is for sale.

In November 2024, Maine voters decided to reject that future. They used their own power through a ballot initiative to limit the size of super PAC contributions. Mainers from across the ideological spectrum passed this reform by a wide margin because, we believe, they want a government that answers to them.

The courts should respect this clear choice to strengthen democracy. The people of Maine acted to prevent corruption and restore balance in their politics. This effort deserves not judicial skepticism, but gratitude. Mainers are showing the country what accountability looks like.

It is time to put voters back at the center of our elections. That is not a Democratic idea or a Republican idea. It is an American one.

Daschle is a former Democratic senator from South Dakota and former U.S. Senate Majority Leader. McKernan is a former Republican governor of Maine. Snowe is a former Republican U.S. senator from Maine. Wirth is a former Democratic U.S. senator from Colorado. All are members of Issue One’s ReFormers Caucus.