As campaign spending flows unchecked, some states are trying to impose limits
Fifteen years after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Citizens United that corporations have constitutional free-speech rights to spend money influencing elections, virtually all federal efforts to rein in political spending have fizzled out. Most elected officials now rely on outside groups, such as super PACs that accept unlimited donations, to help bankroll their campaigns.听
But even as such fundraising breaks new records 鈥� in the 2024 election cycle 鈥撀爎eform advocates in two states are pushing back. Maine and Montana are challenging, in different ways, the Supreme Court鈥檚 interpretation of campaign finance laws. Whether they succeed could matter for future elections 鈥� and not only in these states. Reformers hope to lay out a blueprint for how states can regulate corporations, unions, and 鈥渄ark money鈥� groups that play an outsize role in determining who is elected to public office.听
These efforts to reform campaign finance come against a backdrop of what many scholars call a degradation of U.S. democracy, lately exemplified by the partisan battle to redraw legislative maps ahead of 2026 midterms. To match Republican gerrymanders, Democrats are ditching past commitments to fairer maps that good-governance groups have championed.听
Why We Wrote This
The role of outside money in elections has grown exponentially since the Supreme Court ruled in 2010 that political spending is a form of speech. Now, some advocates of campaign finance reform hope to impose limits through the states, with Maine and Montana leading the way.
For candidates, to voluntarily spurn super PACs and dark money groups that don鈥檛 disclose their donors would amount to unilateral disarmament in an arms race. 鈥淏oth parties have become dependent on that money,鈥� says Robert Boatright, a professor of politics at Clark University in Worcester, Massachusetts, who studies campaign finance.听
Outside groups are technically not allowed to coordinate with campaigns, but that鈥檚 proved to be a meaningless distinction, Professor Boatright adds. 鈥淭he [Supreme] Court鈥檚 theory was that independent spending was entirely beyond a candidate鈥檚 control, but what we鈥檝e seen over the past 15 years is that it鈥檚 not necessary for people spending this money to talk to candidates about what they鈥檙e doing. It鈥檚 obvious what would benefit the candidate,鈥� he says.听
Strong support for limits on political spending
Citizens United was controversial from the start. During his 2010 State of the Union address, a week after the verdict was announced, , including foreign corporations, to spend without limit in our elections.鈥� Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito, who was in the audience, was seen mouthing 鈥渘ot true鈥� in response.听
Recent polling shows that voters are worried about the influence of money in politics and that on campaigns.听
Last November, voters in Maine overwhelmingly backed . The limit only applies to state elections. Advocates say the $5,000 cap was chosen because it polled well; voters perceived a far greater risk of corruption when donations were at this level or higher. The law also requires the disclosure of all donors, regardless of amount, to outside groups.听
A month after the measure passed, Alex Titcomb joined . Mr. Titcomb, who runs Dinner Table, a conservative grassroots organization in Maine, says it鈥檚 unconstitutional for state or federal regulators to cap donations to groups like his that engage on political issues.听
鈥淐ampaign contributions are a free speech issue,鈥� he says. 鈥淧eople gather together to influence their government, and that鈥檚 what the First Amendment is all about.鈥澛�
In July, a federal judge in Maine agreed with Mr. Titcomb, and ordering a permanent injunction.听
But the ruling hasn鈥檛 deterred Lawrence Lessig, a Harvard law professor who helped craft the Maine ballot initiative. , he expected the lawsuit. He wants an appeal to be heard in the 1st聽U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and, eventually, the U.S. Supreme Court. His goal is to show that federal courts have 鈥渕ade a mistake鈥� in interpreting Citizens United to allow super PACs to raise unlimited funds around political campaigns.听
The Maine law limits contributions, not expenditures, and doesn鈥檛 challenge the right of corporations to spend on political speech, notes Professor Lessig. What it does challenge is the legal basis of super PACs, entities that are supposed to be separate from campaigns and, unlike them, can accept unlimited donations, including from dark money groups.听
In Citizens United, the Supreme Court said that the government couldn鈥檛 limit the political speech of some groups in order to level the playing field for all, an argument that lawmakers had used to justify caps on donations. The only justification for limits on corporations and unions, the court ruled, was to prevent quid pro quo corruption or the appearance of such corruption.听
Professor Lessig says this last point is why states should have the right to limit donations to super PACs: They have become conduits for political corruption. When New Jersey Sen. Robert Menendez, a Democrat, was convicted last year of accepting bribes and obstructing justice, . And while super PACs are supposed to be independent of campaigns, then-presidential candidate Donald Trump to run ground campaigns in 2024 battleground states. Mr. Musk was subsequently given a non-Cabinet position in the Trump administration.听
鈥淣obody is stopping [wealthy donors] from spending money on an issue,鈥� says Professor Lessig. What Maine is trying to do, he says, is to ultimately ask the Supreme Court to 鈥渃onsider whether the First Amendment protects contributions to independent political action committees.鈥澛�
He鈥檚 not seeking to overturn Citizens United, but a related decision known as SpeechNOW.org. In 2010, the D.C. Court of Appeals ruled, citing Citizens, that to produce attack ads and other political communications as long as they didn鈥檛 work directly with candidates. This ruling lit the fuse for the explosion in super PACs and other 鈥渋ndependent expenditure鈥� groups.
Mr. Titcomb acknowledges that Maine鈥檚 ballot measure was popular with voters. But he says that was not because of concerns about corruption but because they鈥檙e 鈥渟ick of [political] TV and text messages. They think a cap would reduce鈥� the volume.听
First Maine, next Montana?
Maine isn鈥檛 the first state to try to target the flow of outside money that resulted from Citizens United, says Professor Boatright. But absent a makeover of the Supreme Court, which has tilted further to the right since 2010, he sees state campaign-finance laws as similar to the abortion bans passed by GOP-run states before in 2022. States that pass campaign finance restrictions, he says, will essentially have 鈥渕ade a statement and put down a marker for the future.鈥澛�
Montana may be next: A proposed 2026 ballot initiative would, if passed, amend the state constitution to end the power of corporations and dark money groups to spend unlimited sums on politics. The 鈥淢ontana Plan鈥� would effectively neuter Citizens United by changing corporate law, which is state 鈥� not federal 鈥� law. Proponents say it could be a blueprint for other states to regulate campaign finance. It would also apply to corporations that are registered in other states.听
鈥淲e have the history to lead on this,鈥� says Jeff Mangan, a former Democratic state lawmaker and former commissioner of political practices, a state agency unique to Montana that oversees campaign finance regulations.听
In 1912, Montana pioneered legal curbs on corporate money in politics in reaction to meddling by the state鈥檚 powerful copper industry. Nearly a century later, the state Supreme Court ruled that Montana wasn鈥檛 bound by Citizens United because of its history of restricting corporate spending, a ruling that was struck down in 2012 by the Supreme Court.
Mr. Mangan heads the , which has drafted the Montana Plan initiative and submitted it to regulators. The plan distinguishes between the rights that corporations have to spend money around elections, which Citizens United upheld, and the powers granted by states to corporations. Deny corporations the power to spend, and the rights then don鈥檛 apply, he argues. 鈥淚t鈥檚 a different way of looking at the problem,鈥� he says.听
Even some experts on campaign finance who oppose Citizens United . Critics call it a political stunt backed by special interests that鈥檚 too clever by half. 鈥淧eople are scratching their heads and wondering how it鈥檚 going to work,鈥� says Brock Lowrance, a GOP operative from Montana who was the independent expenditure director for the National Republican Senatorial Committee in 2024.听
Former Sen. Jon Tester, a Montana Democrat who lost his seat last year, . Former Gov. Marc Racicot, the only Republican publicly supporting it, in 2020.听
Mr. Mangan says what he hears from regular voters in Montana is frustration about outside money pouring into the state, including by groups that mask their donors. 鈥淲e need to do something about money in politics, regardless of who鈥檚 in power,鈥� he says.听
