A U.S. District Court judge in Portland has ruled that a referendum on campaign finance limits passed by nearly 75% of Maine voters in November is unconstitutional.

The referendum passed in November limits the amount of money that can be donated to political action committees seeking to influence candidate elections. The limit does not apply to PACs operated by political parties or that seek to influence referendum campaigns.

However, its enactment date of Dec. 25, 2024, was delayed due to a lawsuit filed by the Institute for Free Speech, a national conservative advocacy group, on behalf of two PACs, Dinner Table Action and For Our Future, and their founder, Alex Titcomb.

Both PACs are linked to Rep. Laurel Libby, who is a co-founder of Dinner Table Action.

The institute argued that the $5,000 contribution limit is unconstitutional and directly contradicts the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2010 ruling in Citizens United v. the Federal Election Commission. That ruling said the First Amendment in the U.S. Constitution allows PACs to spend as much money as they want in elections.

“The Supreme Court has recognized only one constitutional basis for restricting political speech: preventing quid pro quo corruption or its appearance,” U.S. Magistrate Judge Karen Frink Wolf states in the decision filed Tuesday. “Along those lines, the court has struck down restrictions on independent political expenditures made without any candidate coordination after concluding that such expenditures — unlike direct campaign contributions — ‘do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption.'”

“The primary question,” the injunction states, is whether Maine’s act is a means to prevent quid pro quo corruption or if it “runs afoul” of the First Amendment.

“‘An Act to Limit Contributions to Political Action Committees That Make Independent Expenditures’ is declared unconstitutional on its face,” the ruling concludes.

The institute said the decision is a victory for free speech.

“The ruling reaffirms that the First Amendment protects citizens’ right to pool their resources for political speech,” Charles “Chip” Miller, the institute’s senior attorney, said in a statement issued Tuesday. “The Free Speech Clause is not only for the wealthy few who can afford to get a message out individually. The rest of us can pool our money to speak too.”

In the release, Titcomb stated that Dinner Table Action has hundreds of members.

“This injunction protects our, and every Mainer’s, fundamental right to join together and speak about elections,” Titcomb said. “I’m thrilled with this outcome as it makes it clear that the government cannot restrict independent political speech or limit Mainers’ ability to speak about the issues that matter to them.”

The Office of the Maine Attorney General did not respond to a request for comment Tuesday night.