Graham Platner backs legal maneuver using Maine law to rein in political spending

Democratic U.S. Senate nominee Graham Platner wants to overturn the landmark U.S. Supreme Court ruling that enabled corporations and other outside groups to spend unlimited money on elections by any means possible. 

He supports a constitutional amendment and ethics rules on the high court, which the Sullivan oyster farmer included in his latest policy rollout Thursday to rid politics of corruption. He also supports more roundabout efforts, such as an ongoing attempt to use a Maine law to debunk the foundation of the 2010 Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission decision, he told Maine Morning Star. 

“Getting money out of American politics is the end state,” Platner said. “How we get there may take several different kinds of possibilities, but we should be right now aggressively pursuing every single one of them.”

In 2024, Maine voters overwhelmingly passed a citizen-initiated ballot question that set a $5,000 limit on contributions to political action committees that independently spend money to try to support or defeat candidates, commonly referred to as super PACs.

The committee behind the referendum and the non-profit Equal Citizens, spearheaded by legal scholar Lawrence Lessig, proposed it with the expectation that the state would be sued if it passed. That’s because their ultimate goal is to bring the issue to the U.S. Supreme Court to argue that the reasoning provided in the Citizens United decision was inherently flawed, an argument Lessig has been pedaling for years.

While supportive of Equal Citizen’s effort, Platner said he is skeptical the current court would rule in their favor, which is also why opponents and some supporters have deemed the attempt a long shot. 

“I am skeptical of a Supreme Court that continues to, in many ways, simply act as an activist wing of corporate power in this country,” Platner said. 

Given that, Platner said there should be ethics rules on the high court and specific ethics oversight by the U.S. Senate. 

Platner said he also supports novel attempts in Hawaii and Montana to bypass Citizens United by depriving corporations and other “artificial persons” of the power to spend in elections. Hawaii has already passed a law doing so, which is being challenged in court, and Montana voters will be deciding whether to do so in November. 

In addition to overturning Citizens United, Platner’s policy plan proposes ensuring the Pentagon passes an audit before receiving more funding and preventing members of Congress and their family members from financially benefiting from their positions, among other measures. 

“These arrangements are legal, and that is the scandal,” Platner said during a press conference outside of his opponent incumbent Republican U.S. Sen. Susan Collins’ office in Portland on Thursday.

Oral arguments in the case involving the Maine law are scheduled for July in Boston. If the First Circuit Court of Appeals decides in favor of the law, there is a straighter shot of reaching the high court, but if it doesn’t, that path becomes even more difficult. 

Since Buckley v. Valeo in 1976, the Supreme Court has allowed contributions to be regulated when there is a risk of “quid pro quo” corruption, essentially a favor for a favor. In the case of elections, if there is a risk someone could be making a donation to a candidate in exchange for a favor, then Congress can regulate that contribution. 

In 2010, the Supreme Court extended this reasoning to corporations and unions in Citizens United, ruling that those entities can otherwise spend unlimited amounts of money on elections because they have free speech rights under the First Amendment.

Three months later, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in SpeechNow.org v. FEC that contributions to PACs cannot be regulated either, as long as the PAC is “independent” of the campaign. 

Those behind the Maine law argue SpeechNow misinterpreted Citizens United. 

They argue Citizens United actually does allow for super PACs to be regulated because there’s a possibility for donations to a committee that makes independent expenditures to be coordinated with a candidate. That would mean risk of quid pro quo corruption and therefore allow Congress to regulate it.