American Promise issued the following statement in response to a decision by the United States District Court for the District of Maine to permanently block a state law limiting contributions to super PACs:

“Once again, a federal court has overturned the will of the voters regarding the influence of money in politics. 

“In November 2024, 75% of Mainers voted in favor of a law limiting the size of donations to super PACs in the state. Today, a federal district court ordered a permanent injunction striking down the law as unconstitutional under Supreme Court precedent. As the judge explained, “The question in this case is whether the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United forecloses a state’s ability to limit contributions to political groups making independent expenditures.” In blocking Maine’s law from taking effect, the judge was applying policy rules that the Supreme Court has created, regardless of whether such policy is aligned with the will of Mainers. 

“The court’s ruling is just the latest example of the current dysfunction of our system: When it comes to deciding whether and how to set guardrails on money in elections, the federal judiciary is in charge, not voters or their elected representatives.

“It hasn’t always been this way. For the first 200 years of American history, policy regarding money in elections was the responsibility of legislators and policymakers in the states and Congress. But that changed beginning with a 1976 case — Buckley v. Valeo — where the Supreme Court first held that campaign finance regulations would be construed by judges as limits on free speech. Applying Buckley over the past five decades, courts have repeatedly held that most common sense campaign finance legislation — like Maine’s super PAC law — is unconstitutional.  

“The courts are wrong. The idea that the First Amendment prevents Congress and the states from regulating money in elections is not supported in the Constitution’s text or the original founding-era understanding of free speech. 

“This decision by the district court in Maine comes less than a week after the First Circuit Court of Appeals struck down a different Maine law banning foreign entities from influencing elections. 

“The good news is that the American people and lawmakers are pushing back against judicial overreach by supporting a constitutional amendment to address this issue. An amendment to the United States Constitution, like the For Our Freedom Amendment, would restore the ability of states and Congress to decide whether and how to address the influence of money in politics. To date, 23 states have called on Congress to propose such an amendment, with Utah as the most recent addition in March 2025. And Americans overwhelmingly support this solution.”