The strategy of this corruption was perfected in 2024 by crypto super PACs: take out a couple of prominent opponents, support a couple of rising supporters, and recruit, if you can, a presidential candidate to support your view. The crypto super PACs leveraged that strategy to flip crypto policy in America in one election cycle from imperfect but sensible to essentially lawless. Now, with that strategy, AI super PACs are standing up hundreds of millions of dollars, intending to block the regulation of AI. If things stay as they are, then just as AI approaches the level of capability that many fear poses existential risks to humanity, we will have disabled our government from doing anything about it.
But I would argue that Bernie is mistaken. Citizens United did not create super PACs. Super PACs were created by a lower federal court decision, SpeechNow v. FEC, which applied what it believed were the principles of Citizens United to create the super PAC. This lower court decision is to blame for super PACs. What’s more, it is plainly incorrect—though it took a few years before we got the case that would make its mistake crystal clear.
In Citizens United, the Supreme Court decided that if a corporation spends its money independently of a political candidate, then there is, "by definition," no risk of quid pro quo—this for that—corruption. And because the only basis the Supreme Court had recognized for limiting political speech was the risk of quid pro quo corruption, it followed as a matter of logic that there could be no basis for limiting the size of such independent expenditures.
But the Court’s logic was correct, if you understand precisely what Justice Kennedy was saying. If the expenditure is independent, then there is no risk of a quid pro quo. Or put differently, if there is a quid pro quo, then the expenditures are obviously not independent. The point Justice Kennedy was making was a logical claim, not a claim about what happens in the real world. In the real world, if somebody makes an independent expenditure that is not actually independent, then the law deems that expenditure an illegal contribution, and the entity making that expenditure is liable for criminal prosecution. But in the land of logic, which is where the Supreme Court was operating when it made its decision in Citizens United, an “independent” expenditure does not create the risk of a quid pro quo—because it is “independent.”
Three months after Citizens United, the DC Circuit extended the Supreme Court’s logic: if, the court held, the expenditures of a PAC are independent, then a contribution to that PAC must also be independent. Or, put more directly, if the expenditure is independent, then the D.C. Circuit held that there could be no quid pro quo involved in a contribution to the committee that made that expenditure.
Expenditures by an independent political action committee are deemed independent only if they are not "coordinated." “Coordinated” is a legal term. The law specifies the restrictions that, if respected, render an expenditure independent.
An independent political action committee can police its employees to make sure they do not coordinate with a campaign. But when it receives a contribution to support its work, it has no way to know whether or how the donor has coordinated with a candidate. No rules ban, or constitutionally could ban, the coordination between a candidate and his supporters. Any such rule would be a plain violation of the free association rights that politicians must have with anybody who might support them. Thus, a logical break between a donation and the possibility of a quid pro quo could not exist, even if, following the Supreme Court, a logical break between an expenditure and a quid pro quo plainly could.
In 2015, Menendez was indicted for quid pro quo corruption. He was charged with a bribe: in exchange for his promising favors from the government, a rich Florida businessman promised to contribute hundreds of thousands of dollars to Menendez's super PAC. There it was: a quid pro quo involving a contribution to a super PAC, the very thing the D.C. Circuit said could not happen, happened. (Indeed, lawyers for Menendez had the chutzpah to ask the court to dismiss the indictment, arguing that the thing he was indicted for, the D.C. Circuit said could not happen.)
The case that created super PACs was never appealed to the Supreme Court. Soon after it, a number of other circuit courts followed its reasoning. They too held that contributions to independent political action committees could create no risk of quid pro quo corruption. With that principle established, super PACs took off. And as The New York Times calculated, the percentage of money in our federal election system coming from billionaires has thus multiplied, constituting .3% in 2010, and 19% in 2024, a 63-fold increase in just 14 years.
The people of Maine have given the Supreme Court the chance to correct this error. In November 2024, 74.9% of the voters in Maine, the largest number of people to vote for any candidate or any initiative in the history of Maine, passed an initiative that banned super PACs. Two super PACs immediately challenged that initiative, and following the decision of other courts, the District Court in Maine struck the initiative down.
I would argue that everything in the Supreme Court's jurisprudence over the last 50 years about campaign finance suggests they do. Again and again, the Supreme Court has affirmed that if a contribution creates the risk of corruption, that contribution can be limited. No one can doubt that the contributions now flowing into super PACs pose a risk of quid pro quo corruption. And thus, if the First Circuit acts quickly enough, there is a chance to uphold the initiative and give the Supreme Court in its next term the chance to resolve it.
I believe that if the Supreme Court applies its jurisprudence consistently, that means that by 2028, we could live in a democracy without super PACs. Bernie Sanders will have been proven wrong. Super PACs will be over, even though Citizens United will not have been overturned. But I'm pretty sure he'll be okay with that.
Hence then, the article about we don t need to end citizens united to rein in super pacs was published today ( ) and is available on Time ( Middle East ) The editorial team at PressBee has edited and verified it, and it may have been modified, fully republished, or quoted. You can read and follow the updates of this news or article from its original source.
Read More Details
Finally We wish PressBee provided you with enough information of ( We Don’t Need to End Citizens United to Rein in Super PACs )
Also on site :