As we continue the conversation on cleaning up our elections, we look for ways to curb spending and to end super PACs. In a new piece posted today via US News, our Legal Director, Ron Fein examines the cracks in the legal foundation that gave way to super PACs. Fein also provides an analysis on their background, their true implications, and a lesser-known case (SpeechNow v. FEC) that may be beginning of the end of super PACs. To read Ron Fein’s entire piece, click here.

Are we nearing the beginning of the end for super PACs? These political money machines, designed to work around campaign contribution limits and inject unlimited political money into our political campaigns, are more powerful now than ever. But we might be approaching a turning point. There are significant cracks in the legal foundation that created super PACs, and several converging developments in election law, constitutional law and even criminal law suggest the end may be in sight.

First, some background. Unlike traditional political action committees, which are subject to contribution limits, super PACs can tap unlimited corporate and individual contributions and then spend unlimited amounts of money on behalf of candidates. The only restriction is that super PACs cannot directly “coordinate” their “independent” political spending with the campaigns they support, and even this is shaky. Over the past three elections, super PACs have become increasingly brazen in pushing the limits of the rules against coordination.

On Monday, November 16, we are co-hosting a panel at Harvard Law School on SpeechNow v. FEC and ending super PACs. This discussion will be livestreamed from noon to 1:30p ET. To access the livestream, click here.