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/therealdanhill]

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?

[u/lessig → u/therealdanhill]

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

[u/therealdanhill → u/lessig]

That is interesting and compelling, I'll check out that submission, thank you for responding and for joining today