Last week's controversial Supreme Court ruling on campaign finance law has come under heavy fire from critics, who say the court has cast aside decades of efforts to neutralize the influence of special interest money in American politics. The ruling could render the campaign finance laws of 24 states unconstitutional. But some observers believe the decision may actually bolster a part of Maine's law that's under legal challenge.

Last week's ruling in Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission essentially throws out restrictions that had prohibited corporations or unions from buying ads supporting or criticizing a particular federal candidate. It also removes restrictions that apply to spending in the weeks just before a primary or general election.

Maine's laws don't apply any such spending restrictions to these groups, and so was not directly affected. Except, says Jonathan Wayne of the Maine Ethics Commission, for one possible area of state election law.

"What the court decided is that if corporations or labor unions want to spend money independently of candidates to influence their elections, they can, but they have to file disclosure statements with the federal government, stating that they spent "x" numbers of dollars on "x" date in support or against the candidates," he says.

And, says Wayne, that might actually provide some legal support for Maine's law, which requires that certain campaign spending reports be filed in the weeks before an election. "The Maine election law requires independent groups that are spending money in the 35 days before the general election to file reports if they mention candidates, and there's a Maine Clean Elections Candidate in the race. So that's one of the statutes that NOM is challenging."

NOM is the National Organization for Marriage, a Washington D.C.-based group that was a major funder behind the campaign to overturn Maine's same sex-marriage law this past November. NOM has so far refused to file spending reports with the Ethics Commission, but according to the PAC, Stand for Marriage Maine, it received nearly two-thirds of its funding -- more than $1.9 million -- from NOM.

NOM, meanwhile, filed suit in federal court, challenging the constitutionality of Maine's election laws governing ballot questions. That complaint was expanded last month, to include a challenge of the state requirements governing candidate elections. "And NOM is saying that even though it wants to run these kinds of communications out to voters, it does not want to -- and it shouldn't have to -- file independent expenditure reports," Wayne says.

But Wayne believes that last week's Supreme Court ruling could strengthen the state's case in defending its disclosure requirements. Attorneys for the state of Maine declined to comment, citing the pending litagation. But a spokesman for NOM says last week's Citizens United decision does not hurt NOM's challenge in Maine.

"Well, I don't see how you could make a case that it would bolster Maine's case at all -- I wouldn't understand the logic by which someone would argue that," says Brian Brown, Executive Director of the National Organization for Marriage.

"The issue in Maine is that Maine's disclosure requirements are far too broad and vague, and clearly don't comply with the United States Supreme Court's ruling making clear that if you have a disclosure requirement, it has to be very clear what type of contribution would be disclosed and it would have to be a designated contribution and that is not clear in Maine law and that's the reason why we're very confident that it will be found unconstitutional," Brown says.

NOM meanwhile has petitioned the State Ethics Commission to suspend its investigation of the group until the federal courts have settled the constitutional challenge of Maine's laws. The Commission is expected to take up the request at its next meeting on Thursday.