How to Knock Out Super PACs with Lawrence Lessig

February 5, 2026·1 hr 2 min·5 clips

Aaron Schwartz trapped Lawrence Lessig into abandoning copyright work to fight political corruption in 2006.

This episode features Kara Swisher interviewing Harvard law professor and activist Lawrence Lessig about his legal strategy to eliminate super PACs. Lessig, founder of Equal Citizens, argues unlimited political spending corrupts democracy by making politicians dependent on a tiny donor class. The conversation traces his shift from internet policy advocacy to focusing on campaign finance after a pivotal 2006 conversation with Aaron Swartz. Lessig details the lawsuit *Dinner Table Action v. Schneider*, which challenges Maine's law limiting contributions to independent political action committees. He clarifies that super PACs were created by the *SpeechNow v. FEC* ruling, not *Citizens United*. The case hinges on proving a risk of "quid pro quo corruption," evidenced by the indictment of Senator Robert Menendez for promising favors for super PAC donations. Lessig's legal team, led by Neal Katyal, argues Maine's law is constitutional under both *Citizens United* precedent and originalist interpretations of the First Amendment. A surprising claim is that ending super PACs could remove 80% of problematic money from elections while leaving *Citizens United* intact. Lessig asserts that only about 300 families currently control federal policy through donations, creating a "banana republic" system. He dismisses the idea that full transparency alone would solve corruption, arguing it would only reveal the problem without reducing the influence of wealth. Lessig believes Supreme Court Justices like Amy Coney Barrett or Neil Gorsuch might rule in his favor because public disgust with the system is a bipartisan issue. He notes Maine's anti-super PAC ballot initiative passed with 75% support, demonstrating broad consensus. Lessig contends that if his side wins in the First Circuit this spring, the Supreme Court could hear the case next term and potentially end super PACs by the 2028 election. He differentiates super PACs from billionaire independent spending, which he calls a less effective problem because it's visible and often backfires. The episode also covers related topics like gerrymandering, voting rights, and how tech leaders evolved from avoiding lobbyists to actively engaging in political extortion. Swisher and Lessig adopt a conversational yet urgent tone, blending legal education with political critique. The style is analytical, with Lessig explaining complex constitutional theories in accessible terms while Swisher challenges his optimism about the Supreme Court. This episode would appeal to listeners interested in campaign finance reform, constitutional law, and political strategy. Those seeking purely tech-focused commentary or who are skeptical of legal avenues for systemic change might find it less engaging.

As heard by us

A blunt look at the legal fight over super PAC contributions.

Lawrence Lessig gets a clear run at Kara Swisher's chair here, making the case that money in politics is not a side issue. His current push to get rid of super PACs, by challenging limits on contributions to them, gives the episode its sharpest edge.

Read the full review in PlayNext →

Why you'd press play

Want the money-in-politics fight explained by the guy spearheading the case against super PACs?

Read the full recommendation in PlayNext →

Listen to the show on

Apple Podcasts Spotify

Play clips from this episode More from On with Kara Swisher