The ultra-rich poured more money into the last presidential election than ever before. Tesla founder, Billionaire Michael Bloomberg donated $50 million to Future Forward PAC, a group backing the Democratic ticket. Howard Lutnick, a cryptocurrency billionaire whom Trump recently appointed as Secretary of Commerce, has donated $5 million to MAGA Inc., according to FEC documents.
An analysis by the Brennan Center for Justice found that wealthy donors who gave more than $5 million to super PACs supporting Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris gave a combined $864 million in 2024, more than double the amount they gave in 2020. Billionaires across the country opened their wallets to support the candidate of their choice, a stark reminder of the power special interests have in American elections.
But in the small state of Maine, home to just over a million people, voters tried to curb that power. On November 5, Maine residents passed Question 1, a ballot initiative that limits the amount an individual or business can donate to a political action committee to $5,000. The law went into effect on December 1 and, for the first time, set a limit on the amount an individual or group can donate to a super PAC.
The law was almost immediately the subject of legal challenges, which could end up before the Supreme Court, which will be in a position to either restore the ability of governments to restrict the flow of money into politics, or the power of the to strengthen dark money. the ultra-rich.
“We deserve a system that is not only free of corruption, but a system that is free of the appearance of corruption,” Cara McCormick, leader of the group Citizens to End Super PACs in Maine who led the campaign, told Salon.
The initiative passed with 74% of the vote and the state was praised for rejecting the incredibly large influence of dark money in American politics.
“In a year when special interests flooded our elections with more money than ever before, Maine voters just delivered a stunning rejection of the big-money status quo,” Joshua Lynn, CEO of the nonprofit RepresentUs, said in a statement. “This victory is a testament to the hard work of Maine Citizens to end Super PACs and the other grassroots organizers who worked to make this happen. Raising big money is no easy task, but Maine people have made their voices heard loud and clear.”
Despite nearly three-quarters of voters approving Question 1, the initiative has been criticized by those who argue that political donations are a form of expression, including the Institute for Free Speech, an organization dedicated to protecting First Amendment rights through litigation and advocacy.
In an op-ed for the Portland Herald Press, David Keating, president of the Institute for Free Speech, argued that Question 1 is “unconstitutional” and “counterproductive.”
“By attempting to limit contributions to independent expenditure organizations, the proposed measure from Maine directly and clearly contradicts our rights as Americans under the First Amendment,” he wrote. “It infringes on our rights to organize in groups and express our opinions on an issue of the utmost public importance – the question of who will lead the government.” Keating added that the measure would “clearly lead to less speech and less information for voters” and “provide an advantage to incumbent politicians.”
On December 13, Question 1 was officially challenged by two conservative groups, Dinner Table Action and For Our Future. They argue that super PAC donations are “an essential feature of our democracy.”
“All Americans, not just those running for office, have a fundamental First Amendment right to discuss political campaigns,” the federal lawsuit reads. “Their ‘independent expenditures,’ payments that fund the political expression of those who do not run for office but nevertheless have a say in a campaign, are an essential feature of our democracy.”
The lawsuit names Maine’s attorney general and the Maine Commission on Governmental Ethics and Election Practices, which is reviewing the complaint, the Associated Press reported.
Although super PACs have come to define American politics over the past decade, they did not exist before 2010. The rules surrounding contributions to political action committees were much stricter: individuals could give no more than $2,500, and corporations and unions could not donate.
Two lawsuits in 2010 led to the creation of super PACs and laid the foundation for an electoral system that favors the wealthy. The first was Citizens United v. FEC, in which a conservative nonprofit group, Citizens United, challenged campaign finance rules after the Federal Election Commission prevented it from airing a film critical of Hilary Clinton just before the presidential election.
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Citizens United, finding that any restriction on “independent political spending” by corporations and other groups violates the right to free speech. In other words, groups could now spend as much as they wanted on elections because they had a First Amendment right to do so.
In a separate case just two months later, Speechnow v. FEC, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit decided that if PAC spending could not be limited for reasons of freedom of expression, then neither could individual contributions to a PAC could. Elites and special interests would be able to donate without limits, blurring the already murky lines between a political campaign and those who fund it.
Campaign spending quickly skyrocketed. In 2010, there were 81 super PACs that raised a combined $89 million. Just two years later, 1,261 super PACs raised more than $828 million in the 2012 elections, an increase of 89%. In 2016, super PAC donations topped $1 billion — and this year, super PACs have raised a record $5 billion, according to Open Secrets.
While super PACs are legally required to disclose their donors, politically active nonprofits that donate to super PACs are not. These groups are often called “dark money” groups because wealthy special interests can spend as much as they want to exert political influence while remaining hidden from the public. Many super PACs work closely with dark money groups to hide the true source of their funding.
The Future Forward PAC, for example, has raised nearly $400 million to support the Harris campaign. The PAC received half of that from its dark money nonprofit, Future Forward USA Action. It was later revealed that billionaire Bill Gates had quietly made a $50 million donation to the group, although they were not required to make this information public.
In an interview with Salon, Lawrence Lessig, a law professor at Harvard University, said super PAC funding has fundamentally changed the way political candidates can run their campaigns. If a candidate is funded primarily with super PAC money, they will inherently be careful about what they say so as not to upset their backers, Lessig said.
Harris, Lessig argued, “was very careful about talking about issues that might upset the super PACs that funded her.”
“She was unable to talk about issues in a way that would inspire the working class, because surprisingly, the issues that inspire the working class are not the issues that the super PACs are eager to support,” he added.
Super PACs have given only a handful of elites the opportunity to influence American politics, leading to a trail of corruption and conflicting interests, Lessig argued.
“This incredibly small number of people have extraordinary veto power over the ability of politicians and legislators to do what they want to do. And that dynamic – this concentrated veto power – I think is the corrupting influence here,” he said.
Want a daily digest of all the news and commentary Salon has to offer? Sign up for our morning newsletter, Crash Course.
Lessig has spent much of the past decade fighting the corrupt nature of super PACs, which he says were only formed because of a “legal error” made in the 2010 Speechnow v. FEC ruling. When the DC Circuit ruled that contributions to independent expenditure committees could not be regulated, they did so on the grounds that PAC contributions “cannot corrupt or create the appearance of corruption.” In other words, it was not possible for donors to be bribed by politicians in exchange for contributions.
But in 2015, former U.S. Sen. Robert Menendez, D-NJ., was criminally charged with offering official favors to a Florida doctor in exchange for his contributions to Menendez’s PAC, revealing that PAC contributions could in fact corrupt are. Lessig believes this case invalidates the Supreme Court’s reasoning. He has long argued that if SCOTUS were ever to review the case, it would correct this ruling, restoring the power to both states and the federal government to limit contributions.
“That question has not been asked, and I have worked in many contexts to try to resolve the question, to get it presented, and we have not been able to get it before the court. The Maine initiative is a tremendous opportunity,” Lessig said.
For McCormick, the legal challenges facing Question 1 are daunting, but she knows the outcome could be worth it.
“If you’re challenged and then you win, that’s the Holy Grail, right?” McCormick said.
While the initiative has a long way to go to the nation’s highest court and may not be supported if it gets there, both McCormick and Lessig say the overwhelming support of Question 1 shows that voters are concerned about dark money in the politics and that, if given the chance, they want change. .
“The power of our citizen democracy is real, right? We believe we have the agency to fix something that is broken,” McCormick said.
