Me. Rev. Stat. » Title 21-A
Maine Revised Statutes

Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 21-A, § 1019 (2026)

Reports of independent expenditures

✓ laws through the 2025 session (checked July 2026)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ME-LEGlegislature.maine.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(REPEALED)
SECTION HISTORY
PL 1985, c. 161, §6 (NEW). PL 1989, c. 504, §§19,31 (AMD). PL 1989, c. 833, §§9,10,21 (AMD). IB 1995, c. 1, §14 (RPR). PL 1995, c. 483, §§12,13 (AMD). PL 2001, c. 465, §1 (AMD). PL 2003, c. 448, §2 (RP).
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5 cases, 1999–2011 · leading case: Daggett v. Webster, 74 F. Supp. 2d 53 (D. Me. 1999).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Daggett v. Webster, 74 F. Supp. 2d 53 (D. Me. 1999). · cites it 4× “1, as amended and codified at 21-A M.R.S.A. § 1019 (West Supp.1998). The plaintiffs attack these provisions as violating the First Amendment rights of both privately funded candidates and citizens or groups who want to make independent expenditures.”
Volle v. Webster, 69 F. Supp. 2d 171 (D. Me. 1999). · cites it 2× “See 21-A M.R.S.A. § 1019. 9 Under that statute, Maine has developed a simple form for such a disclosure.”
Cushing v. McKee, 738 F. Supp. 2d 146 (D. Me. 2010). · cites it 3× “) Plaintiff Respect Maine PAC, of which Representative Cushing is the Chairman, is a non-profit political action committee organized in the State of Maine for the purpose of making independent expenditures, as defined by 21-A M.R.S.A. § 1019 — B(1)(B), in support of or in…”
Daggett v. Comm'n on Governmental Ethics & Election Practices, 205 F.3d 445 (5th Cir. 2000). · cites it 2× “Reporting Requirements The Daggett appellants, and notably not the Stearns appellants, challenge the twenty-plus-year-old requirement that independent expenditures aggregating more than $50 for a single election be reported, see 21-A M.R.S.A. § 1019. They contend that the…”
Nat'l Org. for Marr v. Walter McKee, No. 11-1196 (1st Cir. Aug. 11, 2011). “Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 21-A, § 1019- B(1)(B), (3).”
Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 21-A, § 1019(2): 1 case
Daggett v. Webster, 74 F. Supp. 2d 53 (D. Me. 1999). “1, as amended and codified at 21-A M.R.S.A. § 1019 (West Supp.1998). The plaintiffs attack these provisions as violating the First Amendment rights of both privately funded candidates and citizens or groups who want to make independent expenditures.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.