Second in a series of stories this week explaining referendum questions that will be on the November ballot. A story on Question 5 – the flag referendum –  ran Sunday and can be found online here. 

Maine voters will be asked on Nov. 5 if they favor setting limits on the amount of money that can be donated to a political action committee seeking to influence the election of a candidate.

Question 1 is among five statewide ballot questions this year. Here’s everything you need to know.

What is Question 1?

Question 1: Do you want to set a $5,000 limit for giving to political action committees that spend money independently to support or defeat candidates for office?

The limit would only apply to PACs that make independent expenditures in races involving candidates. It would not apply to ballot question committees, which are formed to support or oppose state or local referendums, or to political party committees. Individuals and corporations would still be able to donate unlimited amounts of money to ballot and political party committees.

What is an independent expenditure?

An independent expenditure is when an outside group not affiliated or coordinated with any campaign pays for a communication that explicitly advocates for the election or defeat of a clearly identified candidate. Those communications include mailers, phone banking or newspaper, radio, TV or online ads. Such expenditures in Maine must identify the top three funders. Any person or group independently spending more than $250 to help elect or defeat a candidate must file a campaign finance report, which is public.

Aren’t there already limits on political contributions?

State law only limits contributions to candidates, not political action committees.

For a general election, individuals or business entities can contribute a maximum of $1,950 to a gubernatorial candidate and $475 to a legislative candidate.

But they can donate an unlimited amount of money to a political action committee that spends money to elect or defeat a candidate.

Spending by super PACs and corporations has exploded since the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2010 ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission that said limiting campaign spending by outside groups was an infringement of free speech. Following that ruling, a federal appeals court ruled that no limits should be placed on individual or corporate contributions to super PACs.

Why is it on the ballot?

Question 1 is a citizen initiative seeking to stem the influence of money in politics. But the question does not address Citizens United and spending by Super PACS. Instead, it’s designed to challenge the subsequent appeals court ruling, saying that individuals and corporations also could give unlimited amounts of money to these groups.

The current limits on candidate donations are aimed at reducing the chances of bribery and quid-pro-quo corruption.

Advocates for the referendum believe that unlimited contributions to PACS that make independent expenditures either for or against a candidate can lead to the same type of quid-pro-quo corruption as direct candidate contributions, since they’re often funded by a small number of wealthy donors.

Has any other state done this?

No. Maine would be the first state in the nation since Citizens United to limit contributions to PACs that make independent expenditures. A similar effort was attempted in Massachusetts in 2022 but was blocked by the attorney general there.

If approved, will it end up in court?

Almost certainly. And that’s the whole point. Advocates say they hope the case will advance to the U.S. Supreme Court, where a ruling in their favor would set a new precedent nationwide.

Who are the major players?

The ballot initiative is being led by the Citizens to End Super PACs, which is led by Cara McCormack, a longtime political researcher for Democrats and independents.

The group has received in-kind contributions of over $1 million in legal and consulting fees by EqualCitizens.US, a Massachusetts nonprofit founded by Harvard University Professor Lawrence Lessig, a leading critic of the high court’s ruling in Citizens United.

There is no organized opposition to the referendum.