* Vielen Dank für Ihre Fragen! Erfahren Sie mehr über Dinner Table Action gegen Schneider Hierund bleiben Sie hier auf dem Laufenden:
Hallo Reddit,
Wir sind Larry Lessig, Professor an der Harvard Law School und Gründer von Equal Citizens, und Zephyr Teachout, Professor an der Fordham Law School und langjähriger Wissenschaftler und Anwalt für Korruption und Wahlkampffinanzierungsrecht.
Nachweisen: [here]
Wir beide haben jahrzehntelang an der Korruptionsbekämpfung und der Reform der Wahlkampffinanzierung vor Gericht, durch Wissenschaft und durch öffentliche Interessenvertretung gearbeitet.
Heute wurde ein Fall angerufen Dinner Table Action gegen Schneider stand zur mündlichen Verhandlung vor dem US-Berufungsgericht für den ersten Bezirk in Boston an. Hier ist die Kurzversion:
Im Jahr 2024 verabschiedeten fast 75 % der Wähler in Maine eine Wahlinitiative, die die Beiträge zu Super PACs auf 5.000 US-Dollar begrenzt. Zwei PACs reichten Klage ein und beriefen sich auf ein DC-Circuit-Urteil aus dem Jahr 2010 (SpeechNow.org gegen FEC) hat die Frage bereits geklärt und dass unbegrenzte Beiträge an Gruppen, die nur unabhängige Ausgaben tätigen, unantastbar sind.
Wir sind natürlich anderer Meinung. Equal Citizens verteidigt das Gesetz von Maine mit einem konservativen, originellen Rechtsargument, von dem wir glauben, dass es nicht nur vor dem Berufungsgericht, sondern auch vor dem Obersten Gerichtshof der USA gewinnen kann. Wenn wir Erfolg haben, können wir die Beitragsgrenzen landesweit wieder einführen und die Tyrannei der Super PACs über unsere Wahlen beenden – noch vor 2028.
Fragen Sie uns: Warum dieser Fall für die Reform der Wahlkampffinanzierung wichtig ist, welche rechtliche Strategie hinter diesem Fall steckt, was als nächstes passiert, je nachdem, wie das Berufungsgericht entscheidet, oder der allgemeinere Kampf gegen das große Geld in der Politik. Wir beantworten Fragen von 17:00 bis 18:00 Uhr ET.
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!
byu/lessig inpolitics
19 Kommentare
If the matter makes it to the Supreme Court, what central questions do you think the Court will address? What will be the central legal strategy to uphold the Maine law?
Best of luck!
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?
How does winning the Maine case mean „we can reinstate contribution limits nationwide“? Wouldn’t each state need to enact something similar first?
What do you think should be done to about 501(c)(4)s and ad platforms where there’s limited or no transparency?
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](https://www.americanprogress.org/article/the-corporate-power-reset-that-makes-citizens-united-irrelevant/). 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)?
How do you think the oral arguments went today? Did the judges say anything that might signal a ruling in favor of the state of Maine and Equal Citizens?
Both of you have spent decades writing about structural reform and anti corruption theory. When you look at the current make up and opinions of the Roberts Court, what gives you optimism that an originalist defense of contribution limits will succeed, and what is the contingency plan for democratic reform if the Court uses this case to shut down Super PAC limits nationwide?
Even though they are supposed to be independent, we regularly see Super PACs run by ex-chiefs of staff, family members, close allies and other staffers using public signaling to coordinate strategy. Is part of your strategy aiming to expose this fake independence as a legal fiction, or is your position that even a truly independent entity collecting $10 million and more in checks inherently creates a threat of quid pro quo corruption that states have a right to try to cap?
I never understood how „spending“ is considered „free“. The court says spending on campaign advertising is „free“ speech. But not only can I or the average voter not afford to spend/buy a campaign commercial because prices are driven higher, but the limited time for commercials runs out.
What do you see as the risks of taking this to SCOTUS, given its contempt for the Constitution and its blatant desire to increase corporatocracy based on its Citizens United ruling?
Specifically what happens if you lose? Is it a relatively minor loss or could SCOTUS federalize corporations and strip states from being able to regulate corporations at all?
Why are contributions and expenditures treated differently? How does the Supreme Court see these different when it comes to the chances for corruption?
Post-NRSC the biggest pipe is now party coordinated spending, and litigation can’t touch it. If Maine wins, doesn’t the marginal dollar just move to parties and (c)(4)s that disclose less than SuperPACs do? Is there a version where you win the case and disclosure gets worse?
Slow food movement aside: how do we translate the value of freedom of speech in the digital era?
I get the sense I might not get a response since I’ve arrived a bit late, but I was wondering if Zephyr has any interest in trying again for office with the movement that has happened in New York?
I may have missed the question window, but maybe you’re still around u/lessig or u/Zephyr_Teachout.
I like the argument, especially given that SCOTUS has, in the past, upheld restrictions on speech that don’t appear directly within the text of the First Amendment like time, place, manner. But doesn’t your reliance on the originalist argument assume good faith on the part of certain justices?
Thanks for doing the AMA and for the effort on behalf of our democracy, regardless.
The oral argument is here!
[https://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/sites/ca1/files/oralargs/25-1705_20260729.mp3](https://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/sites/ca1/files/oralargs/25-1705_20260729.mp3)
If you win this case, then states need to individually pass laws regulating PACs? Is there anything that would prevent a PAC from one state advertising in another?
If you win this, how would your reasoning prevent this caselaw from being used to starve media outlets who speak on political matters? Most of these contribution limits are less than what a major news network would charge for a nationwide TV ad or a major newspaper for full page newspaper advertisement. If you establish a rule limiting contributions to a corporation that speaks on political matters, wouldn’t that also apply to newspapers, magazines, TV stations and even large Internet streamers?