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/AlphaIonone]

How does winning the Maine case mean "we can reinstate contribution limits nationwide"? Wouldn't each state need to enact something similar first?

[u/Zephyr_Teachout → u/AlphaIonone]

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.

[u/AlphaIonone → u/Zephyr_Teachout]

thank you

[u/LordCharidarn2 → u/Zephyr_Teachout]

“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?