The Case That Could End Super PACs - ft. Larry Lessig
Summary
Harvard Law Professor Larry Lessig argues that Super PACs stem from the lower court's SpeechNow decision, not the Supreme Court's Citizens United ruling, making them legally vulnerable. He contends that while Citizens United permits independent expenditures, it allows regulation of coordinated contributions, a failure currently exploited by a broken FEC. Lessig discusses a pending First Circuit appeal in Maine that could limit Super PAC contributions, potentially transforming the 2028 election. The episode also explores how money in politics creates "dependence corruption" and sycophancy, a…
Topics discussed
Introduction: Misunderstanding Citizens United and the SpeechNow error
Defining Super PACs and the distinction between contributions and expenditures
Defining corruption: Bribery vs. dependence on the 1%
The psychological impact of fundraising on political candidates
Rebutting the claim that money has no effect on policy
The chilling effect of Super PACs on legislative action
The rise of billionaire funding in political spending
The legal mechanism for coordination and the Menendez case
The failure of the FEC to police coordination
Trump's admission of control over Super PACs
The Maine ballot initiative and originalist arguments
AI risks and the need for government regulatory freedom
Proposed AI safety regulations: Liability, insurance, and whistleblowing
Removing corrupting dependence vs. achieving equality
Legal strategy and timeline for the Supreme Court appeal
Closing thoughts on legal mistakes and asking the right questions
Listen ad-free on Castria