40 F. Supp. 3d 186
D. Me.2014Background
- Maine law caps individual contributions to a gubernatorial candidate at $1,500 "per election," with "election" defined to include primary and general; party candidates face mandatory primaries, independents do not.
- Supporters may attribute up to $1,500 to each election; thus party-candidate supporters can give $3,000 total (primary + general) prior to the primary, while independent-candidate supporters are limited to $1,500 overall.
- In 2014, the Democratic and Republican gubernatorial nominees had uncontested primaries (no opponents by the deadlines), yet their supporters remained able to contribute up to $3,000 prior to the primary date; independent candidate Eliot Cutler’s supporters were capped at $1,500.
- Four Maine residents, having already given $1,500 to Cutler, sought a preliminary injunction to permit them to double their contributions to match party-candidate contributors. The Maine Commission said state law prohibited additional contributions.
- The district court held a motion hearing and granted the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction, finding likelihood of success on the merits of an equal protection / First Amendment challenge as applied to the 2014 election.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Maine's contribution scheme (allowing $3,000 to party-candidate supporters before an uncontested primary but only $1,500 to independent-candidate supporters) violates equal protection / First Amendment rights of contributors | Maine’s scheme discriminates among similarly situated contributors and abridges associational/speech rights; as-applied relief is warranted because uncontested primaries produce actual prejudice | State says contributors are not similarly situated because party candidates face primaries (two elections) while independents run in one; scheme rationally relates to administration of primaries and preventing corruption | Court: Plaintiffs are similarly situated to party-candidate contributors; state cannot show the differential is closely drawn to prevent quid pro quo corruption; likely to succeed on equal protection/associational claim |
Key Cases Cited
- Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976) (contribution limits implicate First Amendment but may be upheld to prevent quid pro quo corruption; limits must be closely drawn)
- Daggett v. Commission on Governmental Ethics & Election Practices, 205 F.3d 445 (1st Cir. 2000) (upheld Maine per-election limits on their face; left open as-applied questions)
- Riddle v. Hickenlooper, 742 F.3d 922 (10th Cir. 2014) (as-applied equal protection victory where uncontested primaries produced unequal contribution caps)
- McCutcheon v. Federal Election Comm’n, 134 S. Ct. 1434 (2014) (recent Supreme Court guidance on contribution limits and review standards)
- Davis v. Federal Election Comm’n, 554 U.S. 724 (2008) (invalidated laws that impose different contribution limits among candidates competing against each other)
- Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982) (explaining rational-basis review framework for classifications not involving suspect classes or fundamental rights)