Politics
Our political journalists are based in the Maine State House and have deep source networks across the partisan spectrum in communities all over the state. Their coverage aims to cut through major debates and probe how officials make decisions. Read more Politics coverage here.
Maine’s midterm election season — already expected to generate almost $500 million in ad spending — could see even more money flooding in after the U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday overturned limits on spending coordinated between parties and candidates.
The 6-3 ruling by the conservative-majority court struck down caps on coordinated party-candidate spending that governed federal races for decades. Republican and Democratic operatives said the decision would quickly factor in Maine’s contentious congressional races and would likely have lasting implications on how campaigns are run across the country.
“The bottom line is that these party committees can donate or coordinate with actual campaigns and increase the volume of TV and radio ads,” Brent Littlefield, a Republican strategist who works for former Gov. Paul LePage, said. “Mainers were already going to be inundated with ads. Now it’s going to be [that] they can’t even go to the bathroom without seeing an ad.”
The decision, written by Justice Brett Kavanaugh, effectively frees up cash the parties and their campaign arms can divert to a federal candidate in competitive races like Maine’s U.S. Senate contest. Because candidates receive cheaper rates on advertising than parties and outside issue groups, the parties may get a better bang for their buck if they funnel more money directly to candidates now that the limits on coordinated spending are gone.
Stemming from a 2022 lawsuit by Vice President JD Vance before he was elected to an Ohio Senate seat, the ruling was lauded as a free speech victory by President Donald Trump and national Republican groups. It was panned by Democrats who said it further surrendered the American political process to billionaire donors.
It came the same day U.S. Senate candidate Graham Platner’s campaign warned that out-of-state groups backing Republican Sen. Susan Collins are significantly outspending the Democrat and his allies in a race where Senate control could be on the line.
“‘The [Supreme Court] delivered a blow to a 50 year precedent … designed to prevent corruption in campaigns,” Jen Lancaster, spokesperson for the liberal League of Women Voters of Maine, said. “Without contribution limits, we see money pour into our elections and corruption becomes inevitable.”
The previous cap on coordinated spending in U.S. Senate races for this cycle was between $130,000 to $4 million depending on the voting-age population of each state, according to the Federal Election Commission. In Maine, that amounted to just under $153,000. The limit for House candidates is $65,300.
With these limits eliminated, candidates who can only collect individual campaign donations up to $7,000 in a cycle (combining primary and general elections) can now rely on more funding from their parties, whose contribution limits are tens of thousands of dollars more.
Tuesday’s ruling stands in contrast to a Supreme Court decision in 2001 to uphold the limits as a potential guard against corruption or the appearance of it. Kavanaugh argued that “the combination of the statutory base limits, earmarking rules, and disclosure requirements are sufficient to prevent circumvention of the base limits.”
Brian Farnkoff, a Bernstein Shur attorney who worked on the campaigns of former President Barack Obama and Joe Biden, said the ruling was part of the court’s “continued assault on the whole campaign finance regime” established decades ago.
“At what point are they going to get rid of contribution limits?” he said. “The immediate effect of this may just be TV ads. But what’s coming down the pike even if Democrats win with this Supreme Court, the other campaign finance laws are in question.”
Republican sources said plans are underway to raise and allocate resources in the most competitive states, including Maine. Littlefield suggested operatives on both sides of the aisle are busy on the phone in the wake of the ruling seeking ways to take advantage, raise more money and get better deals on ads and other outreach. He’s still reviewing the decision when it comes to potential impacts on LePage’s campaign in the 2nd Congressional District.
The Republican National Committee said the limits undercut the party’s ability to support candidates, weakening the party and empowering outside groups.
“The RNC has been preparing for this ruling, and we are ready to expand the ways we directly help and provide resources to Republican candidates across the country,” Chairman Joe Gruters said.
The RNC has vastly more cash on hand than the Democratic National Committee: more than $125 million as of the end of May compared to Democrats’ $14 million, which is reportedly negated by the party’s almost $18 million in debt.
In Maine, Platner’s campaign has been competitive with Collins in fundraising and spending, but outside Republican groups have dominated Platner-aligned groups. Republicans have reserved more than $107 million in ads in the race compared to Democrats’ $55.5 million.
The Collins campaign said it was still reviewing the high court’s decision. Platner denounced it, as did the leaders of the Democratic Party and their House and Senate campaign committees.
In a statement, Platner said Collins’ party “keeps turning to the courts to dismantle campaign finance laws and make it even easier for special interests to drown out the voices of the rest of us who are fed up with the status quo.”