Dinner Table Action v. Schneider

Dinner Table Action v. Schneider challenges a 2024 Maine ballot initiative passed overwhelmingly by voters (75% approval) that sought to regulate political spending. The initiative imposed a $5,000 cap on contributions from individuals and entities to state PACs that make independent expenditures (“Super PACs”). 

In December 2024, two PACs, Dinner Table Action and For Our Future, filed suit against the members of the Maine Commission on Governmental Ethics and Election Practices and the Maine Attorney General, arguing the contribution limits and mandatory disclosure rules violate the First and Fourteenth Amendments. They contend the limits are unconstitutional because federal court precedent—specifically the D.C. Circuit’s 2010 ruling in SpeechNow.org v. FEC—held that contribution limits cannot be applied to groups that only make independent expenditures, as such contributions cannot lead to quid pro quo corruption. Defendants argued that the Supreme Court has consistently upheld contribution limits under the First Amendment as “an accepted means to prevent quid pro quo corruption” and its appearance. 

In July 2025, a U.S. magistrate judge permanently enjoined Maine from enforcing the law, declaring it “unconstitutional on its face.” The case is now on appeal to the First Circuit. 

The Brennan Center and Ropes & Gray LLP filed a friend-of-the-court amicus brief on October 29, 2025, urging the First Circuit to uphold the constitutionality of the ballot initiative. The brief argues that Citizens United and other campaign finance cases did not reject the recognized principle that the state has an interest in preventing the reality or appearance of quid pro quo corruption, and that contribution limits are an effective and legal way to address the issue of corruption.

The brief outlines the campaign finance landscape since Citizens United, a system in which PACs—nominally “independent” outside groups that can generally fundraise and spend without limit—have deployed massive amounts of money to influence American elections, including Maine elections. Most of these funds come from a tiny group of the wealthiest donors and special interest groups, creating significant new avenues for political corruption and other harms, nationwide, and in Maine.

To address the effects of super PAC spending on Maine elections while still respecting the Court’s ruling in Citizens United, Maine voters chose by an overwhelming margin to place reasonable limits on how much these groups may raise in contributions from any one source, while continuing to place no limits on their expenditures. The brief argues that the First Circuit should honor precedent and the people of Maine’s will and uphold the ballot initiative, or at the very least remand the case to district court for the creation of a robust evidentiary record.