A way out of super PAC madness?

Super PACs raised $5.1 billion in 2024 — a sixfold increase from 2012 — and the 2028 cycle is projected to shatter that record. But a case working its way through the courts could change everything about how money flows into American elections.

At the center of the fight is a Maine state law that limits donations to independent political committees. The law was upheld last year by a federal magistrate judge, who called it an unconstitutional restriction on speech. But campaign finance reform advocates, led by the nonprofit Equal Citizens and Harvard law professor Lawrence Lessig, are appealing to the First Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston, arguing the magistrate got it wrong — and that the Supreme Court's own logic in Citizens United actually supports limiting donations to super PACs.

The argument is subtle but potentially revolutionary. Citizens United held that independent political spending by corporations and unions is protected speech. The D.C. Circuit then extended that logic in SpeechNow.org v. FEC, ruling that donations to independent committees couldn't be limited either. That decision birthed the super PAC era.

But Equal Citizens contends that SpeechNow went further than Citizens United required. The Supreme Court ruled that spending money independently is speech. It did not rule that donating unlimited sums to an independent committee is the same thing. Lessig and his allies argue there's a constitutional distinction between spending your own money on political speech and giving someone else millions to spend on your behalf — especially when that someone could coordinate with the candidate.

The stakes are enormous. As Lessig noted, under current law, a donor can tell a candidate over lunch: "How about if I send $10 million to your super PAC? What can you do for me in exchange?" There is nothing illegal about that exchange.

Opponents, including the group Dinner Table Action, argue that the First Amendment fully protects both spending and donating to independent committees. But if the First Circuit upholds the Maine law, and the Supreme Court agrees, it could open the door to donation limits on super PACs nationwide — without overturning Citizens United.

Big tech companies are already spending enormous sums to shape AI regulation through super PACs. "They've seen this is how you do policy," Lessig told the editorial board. "You just take out some people, get some people in, and all of a sudden, Congress is terrified to do anything that risks being attacked by these kinds of super PACs."

What This Means For You: If you think your vote matters as much as a billionaire's $10 million super PAC donation, the current system disagrees. The Maine case won't overturn Citizens United — but it could restore some limits on how much money flows through the super PAC pipeline. Whether the courts are willing to draw that line may determine whether American elections remain a marketplace of ideas or become a marketplace where only the wealthy can afford to set up shop.