In November of 2024, Maine voters overwhelmingly approved limitations to super PACs (political action committees), with 74% of the vote in support of the referendum. In July 2025, U.S. Magistrate Judge Karen Frink Wolf determined that free speech was inhibited by the $5,000 cap to these election campaign influencers. Maine Attorney General Aaron Frey submitted an appeal in November, which resulted in a new lawsuit brought by PACs “Dinner Table Action” and “For Our Future.”

Major investments in political super PACs are being defended as “freedom of speech.” But these grants are not free. They are literally bought and paid for. One bitcoin donation by an oligarch can easily overwhelm and annihilate the PayPal and credit card contributions of Mr. and Ms. Average — multiplied by thousands or even millions. Financial turnout in the lead-up to an election is a standard often used to measure the likelihood of a win. A prediction based on billionaire donor PACs is as likely to alter the outcome of the election as any other metric. 

In the United States — where one person gets one vote in every election — why do those with deep pockets get more clout by determining how financial metrics are favored, which candidate gets the ads and how social media messages are manipulated? Equal protection in the U.S. is guaranteed by the Fifth and 14th amendments. Where is that protection in the lead-up to elections?

Catherine Whitaker
Brunswick