Maine lawmaker introduces bill challenging Citizens United decision

A Portland lawmaker has joined the growing list of those challenging the U.S. Supreme Court's "Citizens United" decision by submitting a proposal that would ban unlimited corporate and union campaign contributions to candidates.

The bill, sponsored by Rep. Jon Hinck, D-Portland, is identical to a Montana law that was recently affirmed by that state's a highest court.

The Montana justices argued that the state's people and small business owners could be silenced by big-pocketed, in-state, or out-of-state interests.

Campaign finance advocates are championing the Montana decision as a blow against Citizens United, a controversial ruling that loosened the campaign finance law to allow unlimited, and often anonymous, spending by corporations and unions.

Montana has a 100-year-old ban on corporate contributions. Hinck's proposal would institute a similar ban in Maine.

The proposal is an after-deadline bill, which means it needs clearance by the Legislative Council in order to be considered by the Legislature. The possibility that it will clear the council, where Republicans hold the majority, is slim.

However, the largely symbolic submission appears to build on public sentiment against the Citizens United ruling. Recently, a poll by Rasmussen showed that 58 percent of Americans favored campaign finance reform.

Democrats in other states have attempted to seize that sentiment by introducing bills that would end Citizens United so-called corporate personhood.

Last week the Portland City Council voted to overturn the Citizens United ruling.

"All of us would rather see the living, breathing voters of Maine instead of faceless corporations determine the outcome of our elections,” Hinck said in a written statement. “Barring corporations from making political donations helps ensure that the voices of ordinary voters are heard."

While campaign finance advocates are touting the Montana decision, it remains to be seen if the court ruling there will stand. James Bopp Jr., the lawyer who argued the Citizens United case, has been brought in to appeal the Montana decision.

smistler@sunjournal.com

Stay informed — Get the news delivered for free in your inbox.

I'm interested in ...

In order to make comments, you must verify your account.

In order to comment on SunJournal.com, you must use your real name and include the town in which you live in your profile. A member of our staff will call you to verify this information. To join in, fill out your user profile completely and check the box "please verify my status." We'll get back to you within one business day to verify your account.

Login or create an account here.

Our policy prohibits comments that are:

  • Defamatory, abusive, obscene, racist, or otherwise hateful
  • Excessively foul and/or vulgar
  • Inappropriately sexual
  • Baseless personal attacks or otherwise threatening
  • Contain illegal material, or material that infringes on the rights of others
  • Commercial postings attempting to sell a product/item
If you violate this policy, your comment will be removed and your account may be banned.

Advertisement

Displaying comments, from newest to oldest

tron's picture

if republicans block the

if republicans block the introduction of this bill, then a grassroot campaign should initiated to bring a people's referendum. Sadly, I believe republicans will probably block it, since it is a major roadblock to their constituency, they want to continue to enjoy their unfair advantage and hiding campaign funds behind sheets.

elshi133's picture
verified

Fiscal Conservative Republican all my life

Dan,

We moved to Maine from NJ in 1954 when Geiger Bros. moved there. Bob, my husband, was one of a handfull of employees who came up from Newark. He evovled and became a Director and Developed Sun Graphix with Gene in our living room!

We are fiscal conservatives, who in the world not want to get the most for their money; but, we are Social Liberals. We don't want the government in our bedrooms or not taking care of the elderly, poor, or handicapped! Republicans, were always against Social Security or any form of helping others! Pull Yourself Up By your Boot Strap was what I grew up with during the "Great Depression"! I was born in 1932 and never heard anything else!

I am almost 80 years old and I remember, in PA, when a coal miner was killed in the mines (my dad), they dropped their bodies on the poarch and said "So Sorry"! Do we really want to go back to "Those Good Old Days" before Unions, thank God for John L Lewis; Medicare, Social Security, etc?

In Maine, there were "Poor Farms" and, unless you belonged to a religious group, who with some pursuasion would feed you; your were out in the cold. I remember those "Good Old Days" in Maine!

It takes "A Village to care for you", because some don't have families; Even our religions tell us that "The Poor we will have with us Forever". That will truly be the test of our generosity.

Do we really want to go back to "States Rights"! I am not a Pennsylvanian (My Birth State)! Nor a Maniac,my Adopted State, where we have lived for 57 years; nor a Floridian "Summer Bird" back and forth to Maine for 15 years! We are Americans; my husband was drafted into the Army in 1952, Korea, from PA. we moved to Maine in 1954 where he was on call via the Reserve.

We are now residents of FL.;BUT AMERICANS: SO MUCH FOR "STATES RIGHTS". I want our REPRESENTATIVES to PROTECT our Rights as Americans so that I know as I move from STATE TO STATE that all of my AMERICAN RIGHTS are protected! Not a different educational system;Hey if you want to Home School so be it but : Don't destroy our Public Schools that made this country great: first solve it's problems! Yes, you the Unions. And those of who think Religion should be taught; please, only in your own schools! Yes, some of my children were educated in St. Josephs and Sacred Heart and lost their Faith!

We have GAY members in our family. I want my family to have the same rights that you all want for your children. All of our good Catholic Friends, who go to mass daily but discriminate; PLEASE; What would Jesus Say!? I think that if he were here today, traveling with his male decipiles he could have a problem!
Think About It!

skippy's picture
verified

This is a fantastic and

This is a fantastic and needed bill if it indeed bans both corporate and union funding of candidates in all forms. The idea of limiting funding to only people who can vote for the candidate or item on the ballot is an excellent idea and could help in getting the obscene amount of money being spent in these political campaigns out.

elshi133's picture
verified

Campaign Finance Simple to Solve

We should not be allowed to contribute to a candidate unless we can
actually cast a vote for them. This would really get the money out of politics. I have been trying to get someone to listen to my suggestion
for years!

As of now, our votes are being hijacked by a U.S. Supreme Court that claims money is speech and corporations are people. I think it was a
5-4 decision based on Party lines!

This is the first year, since I turned 18 so many years ago, that I will not vote. Can't think of one good reason why I should. Our representatives are too busy listening to the money; after all, it does talk. Who would pay attention to my vote? Very few have the courage to initiate a change.

Do we need a Constitutional amendment or just a new court?

Glad to see that someone in the State of Maine is doing something to force a change. I will try again here in Florida. At least our Maine delegation would respond. Florida is another story, even calls to Washington get no response.

Where's the press when we really need them? But ofcourse, all that advertising money helps to maintain the silence for reform!

Advertisement