A promising new strategy to end super PACs and dark money in politics | Lawrence Lessig

In 2010, the Supreme Court opened the floodgates to money in politics with its decision in  Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission. The Court struck down longstanding federal restrictions on “independent” political spending by corporations and outside groups, ruling that such expenditures were protected “speech” under the First Amendment. Since then, according to the Brennan Center, super PACs have spent more than $10 billion on federal elections.For many campaign finance reform advocates, reversing Citizens United is the holy grail. Some nonprofits, for instance,have called for a constitutional amendment to overturn the Supreme Court’s decision—an effort Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders has endorsed as well.But with the passage of such an amendment is unlikely,, a group of prominent legal scholars is arguing for an alternative path. The Supreme Court could choose to end super PACs, they say,and without overturning Citizens United. Among these advocates is Lawrence Lessig, the Roy L. FurmanProfessor of Law and Leadership at Harvard Law School and the founder of Equal Citizens.org, a new nonprofit leading the legal campaign against super PACs. Lessig says a critical test willcome this spring, when the First Circuit Court of Appeals hears a case involving a voter initiative passed in Maine last fall to limit super PAC contributions. Super PACs have challenged the restrictions as unconstitutional—an argument that’slikely to end up in front of the Supreme Court. Hosts: Anne Kim and Garrett EppsGuest: Lawrence Lessig, Harvard Law SchoolChapters00:00 The Rise of Super PACs and Their Impact on Democracy06:35 Legal Challenges Against Super PACs: The Maine Initiative12:07 The Argument for Regulating Contributions to Super PACs17:37 The Role of Amicus Briefs and Evidence of Corruption22:37 Future Steps: Reviving Campaign Finance Reform28:48 Engaging Citizens in the Fight Against Super PACs