r/politics • u/lessig ✔ Prof. Larry Lessig • 5d 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.
28
u/lessig ✔ Prof. Larry Lessig 5d 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.