calvinsloan

Hi Prof Lessig,

Quick question about solutions...

In Connecticut – a small state with a robust grant-based public financing program – there have been instances where publicly financed candidates have lost elections because for-profit corporations have expended large sums on independent expenditure campaigns, targeting those candidates for pursuing commonsense reforms. Undoubtedly, at the federal level where the “money game” is exponentially greater, if public financing were adopted that trend would worsen.

With states and Congress lacking the constitutional authority to enact expenditure limits, or at the least limits on contributions made to outside spending entities, how can candidates participating in public financing programs compete with privately financed campaigns and/or outside spenders?

I'm not a lawyer, nonetheless a law professor, but I think the Court already determined the constitutionality of limits to superPACs or any non-coordinated spending entity by upholding the DC Circuit's ruling in "Speech Now v. FEC." Contribution limits to such entities are unconstitutional... which I think really lowers that 10% chance down substantially to 0-1%.

Which leaves the question: how can publicly financed candidates compete with candidates funded by big donors and/or backed by for-profit, big interest outside spenders?

(I ask this respectfully.)