In 2010, the Supreme Court docket opened the floodgates to cash in politics with its resolution in Residents United v. Federal Elections Fee.
The Court docket struck down longstanding federal restrictions on “impartial” political spending by firms and out of doors teams, ruling that such expenditures have been protected “speech” beneath the First Modification. Later that yr, the D.C. Circuit Court docket of Appeals prolonged the logic of Residents United to rule that contributions to “impartial” exterior teams and political motion committees couldn’t be restricted both. In SpeechNow.org v. Federal Elections Fee, the courtroom held that contribution limits additionally violate the First Modification.
These rulings paved the best way for the rise of tremendous PACs—exterior teams that obtain and spend limitless sums to affect nationwide politics. From 2010 to 2022, in response to the Brennan Heart, tremendous PACs spent $6.7 billion on federal elections, and in 2024, tremendous PAC spending topped $2.7 billion. A lot of this was so-called “darkish cash” not topic to federal disclosure necessities. Influential billionaires additionally dominate the listing of donors to those teams.
For a lot of marketing campaign finance reform advocates, reversing Residents United is the holy grail. The nonprofit group Public Citizen, as an example, has referred to as for a constitutional modification to overturn the Supreme Court docket’s resolution—an effort Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders has endorsed as nicely.
However with the success of such an modification unlikely—and the opportunity of a Supreme Court docket reversal unlikelier nonetheless—a bunch of distinguished authorized students is arguing for an alternate path. The Supreme Court docket may select to finish tremendous PACs, they are saying, and with out overturning Residents United. The important thing as an alternative is to reverse the DC Circuit’s ruling in SpeechNow, which critics say misapplied Residents United.
Amongst these advocates is Lawrence Lessig, the Roy L. Furman Professor of Legislation and Management at Harvard Legislation College and the founding father of Equal Residents.org, a brand new nonprofit main the authorized marketing campaign in opposition to tremendous PACs. Lessig says a important take a look at will come this spring, when the First Circuit Court docket of Appeals hears a case involving a voter initiative handed in Maine final fall to restrict tremendous PAC contributions. Tremendous PACs have assailed the restrictions as unconstitutional—an argument that’s prone to find yourself in entrance of the Supreme Court docket.
Lessig says his group will problem a key factual assumption underpinning the DC Circuit’s reasoning in SpeechNow—that contributions to “impartial” teams will not be vulnerable to corruption. Underneath Residents United, the Supreme Court docket dominated that the one permissible rationale for limiting marketing campaign spending is to stop “quid professional quo corruption”—out-and-out bribery. Lessig argues tremendous PACs do in truth promote that type of corruption and will due to this fact be regulated—with out violating the Court docket’s precedent in Residents United.
This transcript has been edited for size and readability. The complete interview is out there on Spotify, YouTube and iTunes.
***
Anne Kim: Earlier than we get into the specifics of the authorized case that your group helps to pursue, let’s set somewhat little bit of context. Why tremendous PACs? Most People have heard about darkish cash in politics, and we all know that tremendous PACs spend thousands and thousands on campaigns. However how have they turn out to be so uniquely corrosive to democracy that you just’ve made it a spotlight of your work?
Lawrence Lessig: I’ve really been engaged on the corrupting affect of cash for 18 years now, lengthy earlier than there have been tremendous PACs. And the explanation was my perception that this was a gateway subject: If we didn’t clear up this downside, we couldn’t clear up another major problem sensibly.
We’ve moved from a system the place there have been successfully thousands and thousands of individuals funding campaigns to a system the place it’s a pair hundred households which might be basically liable for the overwhelming majority of spending in politics. This implies a pair hundred households have monumental energy over what our authorities can do. That’s the foundation of the type of corruption that I feel we have now to discover a method to finish.
Garrett Epps: If I’m understanding, a brilliant PAC is a PAC that will get contributions after which spends them independently, whereas a PAC can provide cash to candidates. And proper now, tremendous PACs could make limitless impartial expenditures and obtain limitless contributions and never disclose.
Lawrence Lessig: That’s proper. However let’s be very cautious concerning the “not disclose.” Garrett, you’ve written extensively about this, but it surely’s a distinction that most individuals miss. If I give one million {dollars} to a brilliant PAC, they must file that Larry Lessig gave one million {dollars} to the tremendous PAC. That may be reported.
But when I arrange a company, “People for a Higher America,” after which I obtain one million {dollars} from any person to assist that group, we don’t need to report who’s really contributed to that group beneath present tax legislation. When that group provides its cash to the tremendous PAC, the tremendous PAC reviews that People for a Higher America has given them one million {dollars}, however we don’t know really the place that cash got here from.
That’s the “darkish cash” automobile that has turn out to be dominant within the context of tremendous PACs proper now.
Anne Kim: So let’s begin strolling via the authorized case that you just’re constructing to convey down this edifice round tremendous PACs. The story begins with a poll initiative in Maine to restrict contributions to PACs. It was referred to as “Query 1,” and it handed overwhelmingly in 2024. Are you able to inform us somewhat bit extra about that effort and what the referendum got down to do?
Lawrence Lessig: Let me take it a step earlier than that. After Residents United, which mentioned you’ll be able to spend limitless quantities of cash as a result of there’s no threat of quid professional quo corruption, the DC Circuit [in Speech Now] mentioned you’ll be able to due to this fact contribute limitless quantities of cash as a result of it equally can’t create a threat of corruption.
That on the floor sounds prefer it might be true. However 5 years after that call, my favourite senator, Robert Menendez, demonstrated the logical error in that place as a result of he was indicted in 2015. The indictment mentioned he engaged in quid professional quo corruption, and the “quid” was a contribution to Menendez’s tremendous PAC. So the factor the DC Circuit mentioned couldn’t occur plainly occurred.
Round this time, a former colleague of mine, Al Alschuler, started writing articles saying that Residents United doesn’t imply tremendous PACs are constitutionally protected. After which Larry Tribe, Al Alschuler, Norm Eisen and Richard Painter wrote a bit in 2018 the place they laid this out in a really highly effective means.
At that time, I used to be attempting to tee up challenges to tremendous PACs grounded in “originalism.” And right here, my second favourite Senator, Josh Hawley, is the hero, as a result of Hawley in 2023 launched a invoice to overturn Residents United. He mentioned, as each originalist is aware of, that the unique which means of the First Modification would by no means have restricted Congress’s energy to manage how firms spend their cash.
So I’ve been pushing to revive laws of tremendous PACs on the idea of originalism. However this excellent group referred to as Free Speech for Individuals had been pushing Tribe’s and Alschuler’s and Painter’s and Eisen’s argument within the DC Circuit, which didn’t give them even the distinction of an opinion however simply ignored it.
So then Free Speech for Individuals and Equal Residents tried to get a poll initiative in Massachusetts, however the Massachusetts Lawyer Common mentioned it violated free speech and blocked it. Once I instructed this story at a dinner in Maine, some key activists mentioned, “Why don’t we simply do it in Maine?” My group then dedicated to getting it on the poll and raised the cash to do it.
Once I gathered signatures on Election Day 2023, in a small city referred to as Hollis, Maine, the primary man to come back as much as me mentioned, “I’m right here gathering signatures to get Donald Trump on the poll. What are you right here for?” I confirmed him my initiative, and he mentioned, “Hell, yeah!” He signed it and mentioned, “I’m going to get everyone who indicators my petition to come back over and signal your initiative.” And he did. All these Trumpers came visiting and signed my initiative as a result of in Maine, as in many of the nation, individuals take a look at the system and say, “That is insane. We don’t need these tremendous PACs, these billionaires, dumping their cash in our elections.”
Maine has seen it lots with international cash coming in preventing vitality points. [Rep.] Jared Golden additionally had a really robust battle when he was elected as a result of a bunch of hedge fund guys from Chicago got here in and spent thousands and thousands on his marketing campaign. So it was a really ripe subject in Maine.
Once we gained on Election Day 2024 with 75 p.c of the vote, extra individuals voted for our initiative than have voted for something ever within the historical past of Maine. It demonstrated that this isn’t a partisan query. It’s a reasonably easy, apparent level that People don’t need a democracy managed by the tiniest few who can spend billions to run the elections.
However inside a month, it was challenged by two tremendous PACs backed by Leonard Leo, who’s the largest conservative tremendous PAC man in America as we speak. The district courtroom allowed us to intervene, and we recruited [former Acting US Solicitor General] Neal Katyal to be the lawyer.
Neal succeeded in dropping the case in district courtroom in the very best means. In each different case the place federal courts have upheld tremendous PACs, they’ve mentioned there’s no threat of corruption with a contribution to an impartial political motion committee. And since there’s no threat, there’s no official authorities curiosity to control.
Within the Maine district courtroom, the district courtroom choose mentioned in fact there’s a threat of quid professional quo corruption with a contribution to a brilliant PAC. However then she crafted an entire new concept of the First Modification to say that despite the fact that there’s a threat of corruption, there’s nothing the state can do about it. Effectively, that’s the most excessive opinion ever within the historical past of federal jurisprudence about this subject and tees it up completely for the First Circuit, which has by no means thought-about the query earlier than.
We’ll be within the First Circuit within the spring, and I feel the courtroom will get it proper. And meaning we can be within the Supreme Court docket as a result of that can create an unavoidable break up [with the DC Circuit].
Within the Supreme Court docket, the argument we’ll make is that we’re not asking to overturn Residents United however to agree that there’s a threat of corruption from contributions to tremendous PACs and that’s why we must be allowed to control it. The Court docket has by no means mentioned that within the face of corruption, there’s nothing the federal government can do.
After which the extra step is to herald the originalist argument—that you need to be allowed to control these contributions as a result of beneath the unique which means of the First Modification, there’s little doubt that the states or Congress would have the liberty to control to keep away from this type of corruption.
Anne Kim: One of many issues that you’ve executed with this case is to amass an unimaginable assortment of amicus briefs filed on behalf of Maine residents—individuals on the Brennan Heart, the Heart for American Progress, a group of billionaires headed by Mark Cuban…
Lawrence Lessig: These 9 briefs are wonderful. And in case you go to our web site, you’ll be able to obtain the PDF of these 9 briefs. You can even get it on Amazon, a Kindle, and likewise a print e-book. They’re extraordinary to learn as a result of these are a few of the finest legal professionals within the nation. And the variety of views, together with the Mark Cuban and 4 different billionaires perspective, is sort of wonderful to learn.
You don’t need to really feel sorry for billionaires, however you’ll be able to perceive how something they are saying will get demeaned as a result of everyone thinks the one cause anyone listens to this man is as a result of he’s a billionaire. Effectively, perhaps they’ve good concepts impartial of being billionaires, they usually don’t need their concepts to be polluted by the idea that the one cause they’re going to be heard is as a result of they’ve cash.
Anne Kim: Let’s assume the best-case state of affairs, and the Supreme Court docket guidelines in your favor. This doesn’t imply that tremendous PACs go away in a single day. What do you wish to have occur as the following step, assuming that the Supreme Court docket does permit the regulation of contributions to those entities?
Lawrence Lessig: The dream is that the Supreme Court docket would revive the prevailing federal legislation struck down by the D.C. Circuit. So similar to after Dobbs, when all these anti-abortion legal guidelines got here again to life, all these limitations on contributions to political motion committees would additionally spring again to life.
There’s a path right here that by 2028, we may finish federal tremendous PACs. And wherever there’s a state legislation that restricted the dimensions of contributions, that might come again to life as nicely. Now, there are 100 methods through which the Court docket may keep away from this, and there’s going to be a variety of push to get them to keep away from this. I’m assured we’re proper on the legislation, however I’m not precisely assured about how we may win.
The not-perfect state of affairs is that we win in upholding Maine, however then there’s bought to be a military of different litigation and activism to attempt to revive these legal guidelines across the nation.
And I feel that can occur.
We did a ballot means again initially of my work on this and located that 96 p.c of People thought it vital to cut back the affect of cash in politics, however 91 p.c didn’t assume it was doable. That’s the politics of resignation: All of us want we may fly like Superman, however we don’t leap off of tall buildings as a result of we’re fairly assured we will’t.
However the level is, if impulsively you see a transparent path to an actual victory, there’ll be an unlimited quantity of vitality that can rise up and attempt to do one thing about it. I feel successful in Maine could be sufficient to revive a very vital motion that had been principally suppressed by tremendous PACs, which is the motion to vary the best way campaigns are funded and to drive in the direction of citizen-funded elections.
Take into consideration the New York mayoral election. [Zohran Mamdani] was a celebrity candidate, clearly. He’s a Barack Obama-level celebrity candidate. However he additionally was capable of be credibly impartial. He may credibly say, “I’m not beholden to any billionaire, and I don’t need any tremendous PAC cash.”
However the one cause he may try this was that New York has public funding for mayoral elections. That’s the following stage: to revive the motion to vary the best way we fund elections in order that we don’t have a world the place members of Congress and candidates for Congress spend 30 to 70 p.c of their time elevating cash.
Anne Kim: If individuals are listening to this and wish to become involved, what can they do? Inform us about Equal Residents.
Lawrence Lessig: So equalcitizens.us is the location the place you’ll be able to signal as much as be taught concerning the case.
I feel 90 p.c of that is to vary the standard knowledge about this case. Ninety eight p.c of the legal professionals I talked to about this instantly mentioned, “Look, there’s no probability in hell.” Certainly, Neal Katyal, who was a good friend of mine, averted my requires months.
Lastly he took a name and he mentioned, “Larry, look, it’s a loser. I don’t wish to have something to do with it. I don’t assume I’ve an opportunity of successful.” And I mentioned, “Neal, simply let me have one lunch. So I went to Washington and he took me to the worst restaurant in Washington and midway via the lunch, he mentioned, “My God, I feel you’re proper. I feel I can win this case.”
So the purpose is it takes lots to get individuals to the place the place they perceive why that is proper on the legislation. And I feel that’s critically vital as a result of if the Court docket goes in opposition to us, that may be a massively vital sign of simply how corrupted the Court docket has turn out to be.
I really like Bernie Sanders, however he goes round on a regular basis saying tremendous PACs are a devastation to American democracy, which is true. After which he says, so due to this fact we have now to overturn Residents United, which is fake!
If you happen to assume the one means for us to win is to overturn Residents United, then when the Supreme Court docket doesn’t overturn Residents United—which it isn’t going to do—you may assume, nicely, the Court docket hasn’t reversed one among its opinions. Possibly I don’t just like the opinion, but it surely’s not a horrible factor if the Court docket doesn’t reverse its personal precedent.
However this may be a lot worse than that. If we don’t win within the Supreme Court docket, it’s not that they didn’t reverse their precedent, it’s that they modified their precedent. It’s that they principally mentioned there’s no potential for the individuals or their representatives to manage corruption within the political system. And that may be a devastating conclusion from the Court docket.
We’ve bought to get individuals to see how vital it’s to present the Court docket an opportunity to do the best factor. And in the event that they do the best factor, congratulate and reward them for doing the best factor as a result of their legislation, their rules, and their selections imply that Maine ought to have the best to dam tremendous PACs in Maine.
Associated
