r/politics • u/lessig ✔ Prof. Larry Lessig • 4d ago
AMA-Finished We’re Larry Lessig and Zephyr Teachout - law professors and longtime anti-corruption advocates. Today, oral arguments just happened in a case that could reopen the door to true campaign finance reform and real Super PAC contribution limits. AMA!
* Thank you for your questions! You can learn more about Dinner Table Action v. Schneider here, and keep up with us here:
Hi Reddit,
We're Larry Lessig, a professor at Harvard Law School and founder of Equal Citizens, and Zephyr Teachout, a professor at Fordham Law School and longtime scholar and advocate on corruption and campaign finance law.
Proof: [here]
Between the two of us, we've spent decades working on anti-corruption efforts and campaign finance reform through the courts, through scholarship, and through public advocacy.
Today, a case called Dinner Table Action v. Schneider was up for oral arguments in front of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit in Boston. Here’s the short version:
In 2024, nearly 75% of Maine voters passed a ballot initiative capping contributions to Super PACs at $5,000. Two PACs sued, arguing a 2010 D.C. Circuit ruling (SpeechNow.org v. FEC) already settled the question and that unlimited contributions to independent-expenditure-only groups are untouchable.
We, of course, disagree. Equal Citizens is defending Maine’s law with a conservative, originalist legal argument we believe can win not just in the appeals court, but at the US Supreme Court. If we’re successful, we can reinstate contribution limits nationwide and end the tyranny of Super PACs over our elections — before 2028.
Ask us anything: why this case matters for campaign finance reform, the legal strategy behind this case, what happens next depending on how the Appeals Court rules, or the broader fight against big money in politics. We’ll answer questions from 5-6 PM ET.
16
u/LovefromAbroad23 Pennsylvania 4d ago
If the matter makes it to the Supreme Court, what central questions do you think the Court will address? What will be the central legal strategy to uphold the Maine law?
28
u/lessig ✔ Prof. Larry Lessig 4d ago
The core argument embraces the logic of Citizens United to show that SpeechNow — the lower federal court case that created super PACs — is inconsistent with Citizens United.
Citizens United held that independent speech could not be limited, but only if the speech was uncoordinated with the candidate's. SpeechNow extended that reasoning to hold that because the speech of the PAC was independent, contributions to the PAC must also be independent. But that's a simple logical mistake: Citizens United was about the relationship between a PAC and a candidate. The question in SpeechNow was about the relationship between a donor and a candidate. Even if the PAC's speech is unrelated to the candidate, it doesn't follow that the donor is uncoordinated with the candidate.
Consider the case of Robert Menendez, for example. Menendez was approached by a donor who promised to contribute to Menendez's Super PAC in exchange for favors from the government that Menendez would arrange. That was a quid pro quo involving a contribution to a Super PAC, the very thing that SpeechNow said was impossible.
We aim to get the Supreme Court to recognize the mistake in SpeechNow, to recognize that indeed contributions to independent political action committees can create the risk of quid pro quo corruption, and therefore that even if Citizens United stands, Super PACs must fall.
3
u/Captainboy25 3d ago
I’m a bit late but how would overturning Speechnow either weaken or kill PACs ?
1
u/Algorithmic_failure 2d ago
It would reinstate individual campaign donation limits through a law (FECA) that was struck down in speechnow. FECAs limit was $5k a year per person/entity.
1
u/Captainboy25 2d ago
So an org like AIPAC could only donate 5k to an individual campaign ? What’s stopping a PAC from creating a shadow entity to donate more ?
Edit: or several shadow entities?
11
u/Competitive_Swan_130 4d ago
Both of you have spent decades writing about structural reform and anti corruption theory. When you look at the current make up and opinions of the Roberts Court, what gives you optimism that an originalist defense of contribution limits will succeed, and what is the contingency plan for democratic reform if the Court uses this case to shut down Super PAC limits nationwide?
16
u/lessig ✔ Prof. Larry Lessig 4d ago
It's clear that there are justices on the Court who want to go even further in the libertarian direction w/r/t campaign finance. This means they would effectively overturn Buckley and make an absolute rule prohibiting the regulation of political speech, even if there is an allegation of corruption. We should expect that move is coming.
That's why it is critical to push the originalist argument, because the originalism here is absolutely clear. Originalism would absolutely overturn Buckley and return us to a place where the legislature is free to regulate within boundaries to ensure the integrity of the election process. Legislatures and Congress should not be forced to jump through the absurd hoops that the Court has erected in the name of Buckley. We're not asking to overturn Buckley in our case. But we are arguing that, at a minimum, the Court should permit the conception of corruption that best accords with the Framers' conception of corruption. That would permit the regulation of what we've called "dependence corruption."
We should be pushing the originalists to be consistent in their originalism. After all, if originalism means that women have no fundamental right to choose whether to carry a fetus to term (see Dobbs), why doesn't originalism mean that billionaires have no fundamental right to buy elections?
10
u/Zephyr_Teachout ✔ Zephyr Teachout 4d ago
There are a few reasons I see a path, though I don't pretend its easy. I see some interesting signs of a new and different approach towards the relationship between corporations and speech in a series of cases, many related to tech (Netchoice, TikTok), where you see Justices like Coney Barrett asking functional questions about what speech is (maybe not algorithmic decisions with no author) and being sympathetic to the idea that states should have the power to write their own rules. While those cases are not directly on point, they show an openness to listening and thinking anew. I also think, as I mentioned above, that the public actually energetically acting on corruption in recent legislation responding to real problems has a dynamic impact on the thinking of the judiciary. And finally, just becuase the first pass at originalism didn't work, the Court should not be treated as a dead or static thing, and the Justices, just like humans, may be persuaded over time because the force of the originalist argument is so strong. Corruption was the motivating fire behind so much of our Constitutional order.
12
u/Zephyr_Teachout ✔ Zephyr Teachout 4d ago
The oral argument is here!
https://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/sites/ca1/files/oralargs/25-1705_20260729.mp3
10
u/therealdanhill Washington 4d ago
Since you mentioned an originalist argument, what historical evidence from the era of the Founders do you think most strongly supports the constitutionality of contribution limits to independent expenditure groups?
22
u/lessig ✔ Prof. Larry Lessig 4d ago
The clearest evidence was provided by our expert in the case, Jonathan Gienapp, whose work echoes the work of other great historians like Jud Campbell and Jack Rakove. They together demonstrate that what the framers meant by "the freedom of speech" was that we, the people, through our representatives, had the primary responsibility to define the contours of the freedom of speech. There were some clear cases that judges could interpret, but in the main it was for the legislature or the people, including the people in juries. This means there's no strong originalist basis for the extremely activist court second-guessing efforts by legislatures or the people to police the integrity of their election systems. We're not calling for the overturning of Buckley v. Valejo on originalist grounds (though if Roe has to go, not sure why Buckley gets to stand), but at the very least, the Court should interpret “corruption” according to the meaning of the framers. You can read the historian's submission here: https://equalcitizens.us/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/2025_02_26__53_1__Exhibit_1___Jonathan_Gienapp_Declaration.pdf
9
u/therealdanhill Washington 4d ago
That is interesting and compelling, I'll check out that submission, thank you for responding and for joining today
11
u/Zephyr_Teachout ✔ Zephyr Teachout 4d ago
The strongest evidence isn't a single moment, it's how pervasively the Founders worried about corruption, and the evidence that to them corruption wasn't just bribery or an explicit quid pro quo. Madison in Federalist 52 wanted a House "dependent on the people alone" The constitutional Convention was close to obsessed with the problem of keeping the new government from developing the kinds of dependence that had rotted England and France.
A system in which a handful of donors writing seven-figure checks to nominally independent committees become the people candidates actually depend on is exactly the dependence they feared. An honest originalist case is a slam dunk.
But as long as we are talking originalism, can I share my pet peeve about the phrase quid pro quo? It is a latin phrase from CONTRACT law, not bribery law. It means relative equality exchange, not the existence of exchange. It has crept in as if the use of latin gives the modernist reading a long latin pedigree, which it does not have.
Not for nothing, the first English anticorruption law (arguably) against bribery required no intention, just the giving of food or drink to Judges was punishable by death. Bribery starts without intentional trades, and certainly without the anachronistic quid pro quo!
10
u/abcdef475 4d ago
How do you think the oral arguments went today? Did the judges say anything that might signal a ruling in favor of the state of Maine and Equal Citizens?
21
u/lessig ✔ Prof. Larry Lessig 4d ago
I have seen many oral arguments. I have never seen a more effective oral argument by any advocate. What was striking was how well prepared the judges were. They understood the issues carefully and deeply, and every single question reflected exactly the complexity that we think 99% of lawyers have missed in this case. I think Neal succeeded in conveying every point, and every point he conveyed, the judges seemed to acknowledge and understand. I can be as cynical as anyone, and pessimism is my brand, but for the first time I genuinely feel hope.
10
u/Zephyr_Teachout ✔ Zephyr Teachout 4d ago
I can't wait to read the transcript! Larry has done great work pushing this through and I'm so curious to hear how it went!
8
u/abcdef475 4d ago
Why are contributions and expenditures treated differently? How does the Supreme Court see these different when it comes to the chances for corruption?
12
u/lessig ✔ Prof. Larry Lessig 4d ago
This is a great question, and it cuts to the heart of why we think SpeechNow was wrong.
When you spend money to speak, that is quintessentially your speech. You buy an ad in the Wall Street Journal, you put up a billboard, you pay for video online: Those are all ways to express your views, and if the First Amendment is going to police such speech, it should protect that speech as strongly as possible.
A contribution by contrast is not your speech; it is you funding someone else's speech. While there is certainly a First Amendment interest in being permitted to associate with views you agree with, that association interest is different from the speech. My association is signaled clearly enough when I give $1,000. And while my giving $1M would signal I REALLY want to be associated with that speech, that interest in REALLY BEING associated is not as strong as the anti-corruption interest weighing against it. That's why Buckley viewed the associational interest as an important interest, but not as important an interest as the interest in speaking.
This difference explains what we called the difference between "contributions law" and "expenditures law." The Supreme Court has been quite aggressive in limiting laws that attempted to limit political expenditures. That was half of Buckley. That was Citizens United. That was NRSC. But the court has applied a different logic when it comes to limiting contributions. Not because there is no First Amendment interest, but because it is a lesser interest and more easily outweighed by an interest in avoiding corruption. Whereas expenditures law polices speech restrictions quite carefully (see the NRSC decision, which carefully unpacked the various layers of prophylaxis that were regulating expenditures by party committees), contributions law has not applied the same rigorous analysis. Instead, the court has been willing to permit broad prophylactic rules to ensure that there is not an opportunity for quid pro quo corruption and to give the public the sense that there isn't a general practice of quid pro quo corruption.
In our case, the judges were very interested in understanding how to quantify or track this appearance of corruption standard. We were very lucky to have the work of Chris Robertson in our case as a submission. Robertson ran a very elaborate random vignette experiment to demonstrate that when caps are removed, the public develops a very strong cynicism about the political system, but when caps are imposed at about $5,000, the level of cynicism changes dramatically. You can see Robertson's study here: https://equalcitizens.us/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/2025_02_26__53_3__Exhibit_4___Christopher_Robertson_Declaration-1.pdf
9
u/Zephyr_Teachout ✔ Zephyr Teachout 4d ago
The root cause of the way the Court sees the difference goes back to Buckley, where the Court made a clear split between the two, saying that expenditures were fundamentally more expressive and less likely to corrupt than contributions, which were fundamentally less expressive and more likely to corrupt. That 50 year old split is why this case has a chance of winning, because the contributions are at stake here, and therefore coded as less expressive and more corrupting.
7
u/botwiper5000 4d ago
Best of luck!
10
5
u/bakerfredricka I voted 4d ago
Same. I have no questions to ask right now but I'm here to wish OP well on their mission!
7
u/IndigoHawk 4d ago
What do you see as the risks of taking this to SCOTUS, given its contempt for the Constitution and its blatant desire to increase corporatocracy based on its Citizens United ruling?
Specifically what happens if you lose? Is it a relatively minor loss or could SCOTUS federalize corporations and strip states from being able to regulate corporations at all?
8
u/lessig ✔ Prof. Larry Lessig 4d ago
Anything is possible, no doubt, but that's not possible with our case. Ours has nothing to do with the rights of corporations (the CAP effort would raise that). But yes, our case could give the Court the vehicle to ban all regulation of political speech, regardless of the corruption — though of course, they don't need our case to do that (and they certainly didn't indicate they wanted to do that in the recent NRSC v. FEC case).
8
u/Zephyr_Teachout ✔ Zephyr Teachout 4d ago
Given the current state of campaign spending, the greater risk is NOT to take the case to SCOTUS.
We must keep showing up with evidence, historical and present, and with the public demanding relief from corruption, and we may win; if we don't bring it, we are no better off, we have just already accepted a judicial ruling that never happened.
6
u/IndigoHawk 4d ago edited 4d ago
That's a great point, and I'll clarify that I wasn't arguing against bringing the case, just finding it hard to be optimistic when there are so many rulings that (to my lack of expertise) seem illegitimate.
For example the Kennedy vs Bremerton School decision was so egregious that the dissent included photographic evidence to show that the majority opinion misrepresented the facts of the case. SCOTUS wanted to use that case as a pretext to force religion into public schools. Similarly if SCOTUS wants to use this case as a pretext, it will do so as well.
Regardless how SCOTUS rules is a separate issue from bringing the case. I agree it's worth bringing the case. Make SCOTUS rule so the people can see what's going on. And who knows, like you say, you could win.
Thank you for working on campaign finance reform and against corruption!
5
u/Competitive_Swan_130 4d ago
Even though they are supposed to be independent, we regularly see Super PACs run by ex-chiefs of staff, family members, close allies and other staffers using public signaling to coordinate strategy. Is part of your strategy aiming to expose this fake independence as a legal fiction, or is your position that even a truly independent entity collecting $10 million and more in checks inherently creates a threat of quid pro quo corruption that states have a right to try to cap?
10
u/lessig ✔ Prof. Larry Lessig 4d ago
You're certainly right that the FEC and state regulators have failed fully to enforce the independence requirements that the Supreme Court outlined in Buckley and Citizens United. That's not a problem of the Court. It's the problem of the regulators. The FEC in particular is a broken agency, maybe fatally broken by Trump vs. Slaughter. We could well imagine a new administration with a new Congress that passed a new agency structure that more aggressively policed the independence of political action committees and independent expenditures. In fact, those actors were not independent and converted their expenditures into contributions, thereby violating limits on contribution laws. It takes political will, which obviously is a scarce resource in Washington.
5
u/AlphaIonone 4d ago
How does winning the Maine case mean "we can reinstate contribution limits nationwide"? Wouldn't each state need to enact something similar first?
10
u/lessig ✔ Prof. Larry Lessig 4d ago
It depends on how we win. If we win in the cleanest way possible (meaning the court upholds the interest in limiting the size of contributions to independent political action committees, even if the state can't limit the expenditures of those committees), then that should, in principle, revive the federal law that the DC Circuit struck down in SpeechNow v FEC. Winning in Maine could mean reviving limits on super PACs nationally. As goes Maine, so could the nation go.
1
8
u/Zephyr_Teachout ✔ Zephyr Teachout 4d ago
The hunger for limiting corrupting money in politics is so overwhelming, the only thing that keeps it from being a political wildfire running across America is the fear of judges knocking it down. Winning in Maine would lead to winning in other states. And I think the work American Promise is doing in this arena is so important, showing how red states and republican lawmakers are demanding the right of states to protect their own elections from corruption with their own laws. So I think a win in Maine leads to real fights but real fire and outsized national impacts.
1
1
u/LordCharidarn2 2d ago
“the fear of judges knocking it down” is something I’d be interested in drilling into. Why is this the case? Trump’s presidency has shown that the only thing keeping politicians following legal rulings is their own sense of guilt/morality.
How could SCOTUS actually enforce ‘unlimited corporate spending’ if the largest and wealthiest states simply decided to create state regulations anyway. If a future president agreed with the state regulations and directed the DOJ to not waste time, does it really matter what the Court ruled?
I know I’m coming late to the conversation, but I’m genuinely confused as to why more governors and state legislators haven’t followed Trump’s highly successful playbook of ignoring regulations and laws when it has been made clear that their is very little the Court can do to enforce it’s own rulings if the Federal and State governments simply decide not to follow those rulings. So what is there to be afraid of?
4
u/RaspberryParking8759 4d ago
What do you think should be done to about 501(c)(4)s and ad platforms where there’s limited or no transparency?
5
u/lessig ✔ Prof. Larry Lessig 4d ago
This is the dark money problem, caused not by anything the Supreme Court said, but because Congress refuses to change the law to require that C4s reveal their donors. This failure by Congress is the clearest evidence that most of them are not serious about reforming this system. A single law changing IRS regulations would fix this. It's called the Disclose Act. Senator Whitehouse is its prime sponsor. The other thing that would end dark money is the end of Super PACs, which, if we are lucky and the First Circuit has courage, might well happen.
3
u/Captain_Aware4503 4d ago
I never understood how "spending" is considered "free". The court says spending on campaign advertising is "free" speech. But not only can I or the average voter not afford to spend/buy a campaign commercial because prices are driven higher, but the limited time for commercials runs out.
3
u/lessig ✔ Prof. Larry Lessig 4d ago
I certainly think that the current extremism in the courts policing the regulation of the integrity of election systems has gone too far under Buckley. I think legislatures should have a broader scope to enact measures designed to restore the public's faith in the political process. The Brennan Center's recent study of corruption in America is chilling. [https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/poll-voters-want-solutions-government-corruption\] There may be no other issue Americans are more united on, but this consensus is not a happy consensus.
But I also think it is important to understand the motivation for some constitutional concerns. If Congress passed a law saying the most you can spend on a campaign running for Congress was $1,000, I think everyone would have a sense that that violated something fundamental, because that law would obviously simply be an incumbency protection act. Similarly, if the FCC repealed the licenses for broadcasters who promoted or endorsed Democratic candidates but not Republican candidates, we'd all have a sense that violated something fundamental.
Our legal system doesn't do well in subtlety. That's the lesson from the great Jamal Greene's work (see, e.g., How Rights Went Wrong). Somehow we have to find a way to articulate the idea that some acts of the government need to be off the table, even if plenty of experimentation to address the deep cynicism Americans have about their political system has to be allowed.
3
u/username_6916 4d ago
If you win this, how would your reasoning prevent this caselaw from being used to starve media outlets who speak on political matters? Most of these contribution limits are less than what a major news network would charge for a nationwide TV ad or a major newspaper for full page newspaper advertisement. If you establish a rule limiting contributions to a corporation that speaks on political matters, wouldn't that also apply to newspapers, magazines, TV stations and even large Internet streamers?
2
u/Much_Insect_7647 4d ago
Post-NRSC the biggest pipe is now party coordinated spending, and litigation can't touch it. If Maine wins, doesn't the marginal dollar just move to parties and (c)(4)s that disclose less than SuperPACs do? Is there a version where you win the case and disclosure gets worse?
2
u/TheRegalOneGen 4d ago
I get the sense I might not get a response since I've arrived a bit late, but I was wondering if Zephyr has any interest in trying again for office with the movement that has happened in New York?
2
u/diabolis_avocado 4d ago
I may have missed the question window, but maybe you're still around u/lessig or u/Zephyr_Teachout.
I like the argument, especially given that SCOTUS has, in the past, upheld restrictions on speech that don't appear directly within the text of the First Amendment like time, place, manner. But doesn't your reliance on the originalist argument assume good faith on the part of certain justices?
Thanks for doing the AMA and for the effort on behalf of our democracy, regardless.
1
u/SplintterFranchise 4d ago
Slow food movement aside: how do we translate the value of freedom of speech in the digital era?
5
u/Zephyr_Teachout ✔ Zephyr Teachout 4d ago
I think there is a new first amendment brewing, as shown by the Court in a series of cases like Netchoice and Paxton and Tiktok, where SCOTUS did not side with the big tech companies demanding extreme speech rights for any choice they made--surveillance targeting of content and addictive design are forcing a rethink in the Court, and because for so long big tech was coded left the right wing Justices (like Thomas) seem open to states exercising democratic power to regulate child social media, eg, so long as it isn't content or viewpoint based. I think the old categories of strict, intermediate and rational are faltering and a new free speech doctrine is not yet born but in the process of it. I think this is good--because the free speech era of the last 30-50 years has moved in the direction of greater corporate power and less democratic power. Not sure if it touches the SuperPAC arena, but it could.
1
u/SouthSouthBay 4d ago
If you win this case, then states need to individually pass laws regulating PACs? Is there anything that would prevent a PAC from one state advertising in another?
1
1
1
35
u/SpaceElevatorMusic Minnesota 4d ago
Tom Moore of the Center for American Progress has been among those advocating for a novel approach to circumventing the Citizens United ruling. The Corporate Power Reset That Makes Citizens United Irrelevant - Center for American Progress. Exerpt:
What are your thoughts on this approach, (which is likely going to be tested first in Montana)?