Maine voters need to insist on free speech

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

Question 1 The November newsletter touches on this issue and asks whether the government can set a limit on the amount we can spend on performing if we do it together as a group. The proposal would establish a $5,000 limit on contributions to political action committees (PACs), which make independent expenditures to support or oppose candidates, also sometimes called “super action PACs.”

Independent expenditures are political expenditures that, by definition, are not coordinated or endorsed by a candidate. They can be spent on many forms of political speech, such as advertising, sending mailers, or organizing efforts to attract votes for or against a candidate. While supporters argue that this fall measure would reduce the influence of money in politics by limiting contributions to PACs, which are independent organizations dedicated only to spending, such a policy is both unconstitutional and counterproductive.

A question similar to the one Maine voters will answer in November was at the center of the momentous event. SpeechNow.org v. Federal Election Commission Case. There, the court grappled with whether the government could limit donations to groups that engage exclusively in independent political propaganda.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit answered with a resounding and unanimous “no.” In all, at least 30 federal appellate judges have ruled on the same issue in many cases, and they all said no.

Being President Free Speech Institute And as the plaintiff in this case, I have a unique perspective on this issue. By attempting to limit contributions to independent spending-only organizations, Maine’s proposed measure directly and clearly violates our First Amendment rights as Americans. This infringes on our rights to organize in groups and express our opinions on the issue of greatest 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 proposal contained in Question 1 clearly fails to meet that analysis. This measure is also simply a bad idea.

If the government can limit what we spend on our rights in this way, what else can it do? You can publish a newspaper and support candidates, but you cannot receive more than $5,000 in income 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 the cause a candidate is promoting, and you can only afford to contribute $50 and I can contribute $10,000, why should the government prevent us from pooling our funds to spread the same message? What about a celebrity who charges $50,000 to endorse a product? This measure would allow a celebrity to personally endorse a candidate, even if this is done in consultation with the candidate. But five unknown people can’t pool their money and spend $50,000 to independently talk about the same candidate?

This measure will obviously result in less speech and information available to voters. And this would give an advantage to incumbent politicians who are better known. Why do we want to do this?

The reality is that since the courts gave their blessing to independent spending groups, campaign spending has increased. This is a big reason why election campaigns are more competitive than they have been in decades. Voter turnout also increased.

If passed, this measure would also result in a loss of precious tax dollars for the State of Maine. The state will pay lawyers to defend this unjustified measure in court.

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