15 Years of Super PACs
On March 26, 2010, the District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals decided SpeechNow.org v. Federal Election Commission (FEC), unanimously striking down a provision of the Federal Election Campaign Act that capped individual contributions to independent expenditure-only committees at $5,000.
I'm proud to have been the lead plaintiff in that case. While Citizens United v. FEC is a watershed political speech case in its own right, commentators often incorrectly give it credit—or blame—for Super PACs. The anniversary of SpeechNow seems an appropriate time to set that record straight.
Citizens United established that corporations and unions could make independent expenditures in political campaigns. However, SpeechNow recognized individuals' First Amendment right to pool their resources for independent political speech.
Why is SpeechNow still so important 15 years later? Super PACs have fundamentally delivered on their promise to expand political speech rights guaranteed by the First Amendment.
In Buckley v. Valeo (1976), the landmark Supreme Court decision on campaign finance, the Court ruled that an individual could independently spend unlimited amounts advocating for or against a candidate. The SpeechNow decision took the next logical step. The First Amendment protects the right of two, ten, or 10,000 or more citizens to pool resources to speak as much as they want about a candidate.
What could be more American than that? Those who share a belief form a group, contribute to it, and then use the funds to speak to our fellow citizens about who should govern our nation.
This enhanced freedom has had a substantial impact, making campaigns more informative and competitive.
First, as incumbents feared, election campaigns are more hotly contested than they've been for decades by a significant measure. In 2010, Republicans gained 63 seats, the most since 1948. Democrats gained 40 seats in 2018, topped just twice since 1974. In the Senate, Democrats lost nine seats, the most flipped seats since President Ronald Reagan won in 1980. Party control of the White House changed hands three times since 2016—the last time that happened in three straight elections was between 1888 and 1896.
Super PACs also benefit voters, who get more information about candidates from campaign spending. These new groups are a significant factor in the record spending on federal campaigns, which has more than doubled since 2008, with most of the gains in congressional races. However, the roughly $16 billion spent in the last election cycle is still less than how much we spent on potato chips.
All this spending helped drive turnout, which in 2020 was the highest in over 100 years, with the 2024 election a close second. I won't claim that correlation is causation, but the critics claim the ruling threatened democracy. Those dire warnings have proven wildly off-base.
Perhaps most crucially, SpeechNow recognized that meaningful political communication requires resources. In a nation of over 330 million people, spending money to reach voters is a prerequisite for effective political discourse. By removing artificial constraints on political groups, SpeechNow liberated and bolstered political speech.
Genuinely free political speech can yield powerful results. In 1967, opposition to the Vietnam War continued building. Fortunately, there were no limits on giving money to candidate campaign committees at the time, allowing a few wealthy, anti-war liberals to fund Eugene McCarthy's challenge to President Lyndon B. Johnson. They poured over $13 million in today's money into his campaign in New Hampshire, a massive sum for one state. McCarthy didn't win, but he shocked everyone by getting 42 percent of the vote, which drove LBJ out of the race and became a turning point in political opposition to the war.
In the New York Times v. Sullivan ruling, the Supreme Court noted our "profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open." Letting incumbent politicians have the power to limit how much we can spend our funds to criticize them is an affront to this commitment.
Fifteen years after SpeechNow, it's time to recognize its essential wisdom: limiting the money we citizens can spend on political speech means limiting our free speech rights.
The experience of the past 15 years has proven that more speech, not government limits on speech, best preserves our freedoms and American democracy.
The post 15 Years of Super PACs appeared first on Reason.com.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
5 minutes ago
- The Hill
Senate Democrats call for probe into DOJ settlement over Hewlett Packard-Juniper merger
Several Senate Democrats are calling for an investigation into the Department of Justice's (DOJ) decision to settle a lawsuit blocking Hewlett Packard Enterprise's (HPE) $14 billion acquisition of Juniper Networks. Democratic Sens. Richard Blumenthal (Conn.), Cory Booker (N.J.), Elizabeth Warren (Mass.) and Amy Klobuchar (Minn.) raised concerns to the DOJ inspector general Friday about the circumstances surrounding the proposed settlement. Two top officials in the agency's antitrust division — Roger Alford, principal deputy assistant attorney general, and Bill Rinner, deputy assistant attorney general and head of merger enforcement — were recently fired for insubordination. The firings reportedly followed internal disagreements over merger policy, in which Attorney General Pam Bondi's chief of staff overruled the antitrust division's head, Gail Slater, to approve the HPE-Juniper settlement. 'In all, these events reflect a concerning pattern of behavior within the DOJ and point to possible politicization of the process by which the DOJ analyzes proposed mergers and acquisitions, as well as undertakes and resolves enforcement actions,' the senators wrote in a letter to acting DOJ Inspector General William Blier. 'We are concerned that, in addition to improper interference in the enforcement of our laws, the full extent and parties involved in this coercive campaign are not known and that other improper conduct could have occurred,' they continued. The Justice Department sued to block the merger between the nation's second- and third-largest wireless network providers in January, shortly after President Trump took office. The lawsuit marked a key point of continuity with the Biden administration, which had been preparing to challenge the merger. HPE and Juniper pushed back on the lawsuit at the time, arguing the DOJ's analysis was 'fundamentally flawed' and the merger would allow the companies to 'more effectively compete with global incumbents.' In late June, the agency announced a settlement, allowing the acquisition to go forward as long as HPE divests its division for small and medium businesses and licenses Juniper's software to independent competitors. Axios reported Wednesday that the U.S. intelligence community weighed in on the lawsuit, urging the DOJ to allow the merger to proceed to boost American companies competing with China's Huawei. The senators argued the settlement fails to address the issues raised in the DOJ's initial lawsuit, which suggested the merger would essentially result in a duopoly in the market between HPE-Juniper and Cisco. They also underscored HPE's reported decision to hire lobbyists with close ties to the Trump administration, as well as the subsequent firings of antitrust officials. The same four senators raised concerns to Hewlett Packard president and CEO Enrique Lores in a separate letter Friday about what they described as the company's 'hiring of political consultants in an apparent attempt to assert undue influence, if not coercion' to settle the DOJ lawsuit. 'HPE's hiring of these consultant close to the Trump family and White House creates the appearance that it sought to use outside political pressure and retaliation against the Antitrust Division to end its lawsuit and reporting suggests that the full scope of HPE's consultants or influence campaign has not been disclosed,' they wrote. They pressed the company for information about the consultants, the nature of their work and any discussions they had with the DOJ's antitrust division or members of the Trump family. HPE spokesperson Adam Bauer said in a statement that the company is confident the Juniper acquisition is 'in the public interest and will promote further competition' in the market. 'The transaction was appropriately approved with certain remedies by the U.S. Department of Justice, and it was unconditionally approved by 13 other antitrust regulators around the world,' Bauer added. 'We respect the role our regulators play in maintaining competitive markets and appreciate the professional and constructive way in which the DOJ engaged with us in approving the deal.'
San Francisco Chronicle
5 minutes ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Lawyer says he's not been allowed to see 5 immigrants deported by the US to a prison in Eswatini
MANZINI, Eswatini (AP) — Five immigrants deported by the United States to Eswatini in a secret deal last month had served their criminal sentences before they were sent to be held in a prison in the African country, a lawyer working on their cases said Friday. The Eswatini lawyer also said the men from Cuba, Jamaica, Laos, Yemen and Vietnam sent to southern Africa under President Donald Trump's third-country deportation program have been denied access to legal representation while being held in Eswatini's main maximum-security prison. The lawyer, Sibusiso Nhlabatsi, said he hasn't been allowed to see the men and that he filed court papers Thursday against the head of Eswatini's correctional services department and the country's attorney general, demanding access to them. He said he is representing them on behalf of lawyers in the U.S. and was prevented from seeing them by Eswatini prison officials on July 25. It's unlawful for the men, who have been in Eswatini for around two weeks, to be denied access to a lawyer, he added. The Eswatini government has said the men will be held in solitary confinement until they can be deported to their home countries, which could take up to a year. 'They have served their sentences,' Nhlabatsi told The Associated Press. 'If a person has committed a crime and they have served a sentence, why are you then keeping them in a prison?' Nhlabatsi said the men have not been able to communicate with their families or receive visitors since arriving in Eswatini, although prison officials said they were in the process of setting up devices to allow them to speak with their families. He alleged their ongoing detention could have legal implications for Eswatini, a small country bordering South Africa and one of the world's last absolute monarchies, ruled by a king accused of cracking down on dissent. The Trump administration has come under scrutiny for its choice of African countries to strike deportation deals with. It deported eight immigrants described as violent criminals to South Sudan in early July in an operation that was halted by a legal challenge in the U.S. The eight were held for weeks in a converted shipping container at an American military base in nearby Djibouti while the case was decided. A Supreme Court ruling eventually cleared the way for them to be sent to South Sudan. Both South Sudan, which is in danger of tipping into civil war, and Eswatini have poor rights records and governments accused of being repressive. Critics say the deportees, who the administration says were in the U.S. illegally, will likely be denied due process in those countries. The five sent to Eswatini were also described by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security as serious criminals. Their convictions included murder and child rape, the department said in social media posts, calling them 'uniquely barbaric." The department, which did not say if they had completed their sentences, did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Friday. An Eswatini government spokesman also declined to comment on Nhlabatsi's allegations, saying it was now a matter for the courts. Nhlabatsi said the deportees are being held at the Matsapha Correctional Complex near the administrative capital, Mbabane, the same prison said to hold pro-democracy activists on trumped up charges. The government has declined to say where the five men are being held, citing security concerns. Eswatini's statement about the five men ultimately being deported to their home countries appears to contradict claims by the U.S. that their home countries refused to take the men back. ___
New York Post
5 minutes ago
- New York Post
Former Trump DOJ lawyer Jeffrey Clark faces possible DC disbarment over 2020 election claims
WASHINGTON — A Washington, DC, legal board moved Thursday to disbar a former Department of Justice lawyer in the first Trump administration for pressuring states to probe alleged voting irregularities and consider appointing new electors who could reverse the results of the 2020 election. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) regulatory czar Jeffrey Clark will be suspended from practicing law for 30 days — and banned entirely unless the DC Court of Appeals strikes down the ruling. 'Lawyers cannot advocate for any outcome based on false statements and they certainly cannot urge others to do so,' the DC Bar's Board of Professional Responsibility stated. Advertisement 4 Office of Management and Budget regulatory czar Jeffrey Clark will be suspended from practicing law for 30 days — and banned entirely unless the DC Court of Appeals strikes down the ruling. AP Clark 'persistently and energetically sought to do just that on an important national issue,' the board wrote in their ruling. 'He should be disbarred as a consequence and to send a message to the rest of the Bar and to the public that this behavior will not be tolerated.' 'Yesterday, I received disappointing news from a 100% politicized DC Bar process,' Clark posted on his X in response. 'But I also received an outpouring of support from a host of my friends in the law, many thoughtful legal and political commentators, but most importantly, from thousands of ordinary Americans like you. I am very grateful for that. Advertisement 'And even though a major part of my identity is under assault — a law license the son of a truck driver who never graduated from high school managed to achieve though birthed to parents who could not themselves fully afford my fancy education — I am and remain surprisingly calm,' he added. 4 'I know I did the right thing in 2020 and 2021 during the first President Trump Administration and wouldn't be able to look at myself in the mirror if I had not proceeded to internally raise the election questions I did,' Clark said. AFP via Getty Images 'I know I did the right thing in 2020 and 2021 during the first President Trump Administration and wouldn't be able to look at myself in the mirror if I had not proceeded to internally raise the election questions I did.' In 2021, Democrats in Congress pointed to evidence that Clark, a former assistant attorney general in the DOJ's Civil Division, had 'attempted to involve the Department of Justice in efforts to interrupt the peaceful transfer of power' and urged special state legislative sessions to 'evaluate' possible election fraud. Advertisement Trump had considered appointing Clark as acting attorney general in between his electoral loss to Joe Biden and the certification of the 2020 count by Congress on Jan. 6, 2021. 4 Former AG Bill Barr had resigned in December 2020 after announcing there was no widespread fraud in the election. REUTERS Former AG Bill Barr had resigned in December 2020 after announcing there was no widespread fraud in the election. Other Trump attorneys have faced disbarment, including John Eastman, the author of a memo claiming then-Vice President Mike Pence had the authority to reject vote counts from swing states; and former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani. Advertisement Clark serves as the acting head of OMB's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. It's unclear how the suspension would affect his ability to undertake the role. 4 Clark serves as Trump's acting head of OMB's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, but it's unclear how the suspension would affect his ability to undertake the role. Bloomberg via Getty Images James Burnham, a lawyer who recently left the Department of Government Efficiency to start an AI policy group, called the decision 'an outrageous weaponization of the bar ethics process' and warned it 'could be turned against any lawyer serving in government at any time. All steps must be taken to push back.' Burnham and Clark 'worked closely' together in the first and second Trump administrations, the ex-DOGE official noted. The Post reached out to Clark's lawyer for comment.
