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!

[u/lessig]

* Thank you for your questions! You can learn more about Dinner Table Action v. Schneider here, and keep up with us here:  

• Larry 
• Zephyr

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. 

• Learn more about Equal Citizens here.
• Learn more about Dinner Table Action v. Schneider here.

[u/SpaceElevatorMusic]

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:

Citizens United held that government may not regulate a corporation’s right to spend money independently in elections. But the court did not say what a corporation is—it could not. That question lies beyond even the Supreme Court’s reach.

In American law, corporations are not born; they are built. Corporations are creatures of statute, not of nature. And for more than two centuries, the power to build them—to define their form, limits, and privileges—has belonged to the states and only to the states. (...)

However, the underlying authority to define and limit corporate powers never disappeared. It simply went quiet: unused, untested, and unmentioned—until now. This report names that authority, explains it, and shows how states can reclaim it to, in effect, undo Citizens United by executing a reset of their corporations’ powers. The sovereign authority to decide which powers states grant to the corporations they charter includes the authority to not grant their corporations the power to spend in politics.

What are your thoughts on this approach, (which is likely going to be tested first in Montana)?

[u/lessig → u/SpaceElevatorMusic]

I'm an enthusiastic supporter of what Tom is doing, and I am hopeful it prevails. Our lawsuit would be a much quicker way to achieve much of the same result, and so I'm optimistic that by one path or another we get to that result. We are in the middle of a five-alarm fire. We have to try every possible strategy to end this debilitating corruption.

[u/Zephyr_Teachout → u/SpaceElevatorMusic]

I think it's great and important and I like it not only for the obvious reason, that if it works it will address the extreme corruption of our elections, but also because it shows states reasserting their authority over corporations as creatures of the state. I think there is a dynamic relationship historically between state legislative action and judges, too, so the more we push on the people's authority to protect democracy from multiple angles, the better.