Business Insider recently published a new oped by FSFP Legal Director Ron Fein, FSFP President John Bonifaz, and FSFP Board Chair and Senior Legal Advisor Ben Clements on the Alaska court case that could end super PACs and reshape our democracy.

The Alaska case hinges on a simple question: is this practice corrupt? Under Supreme Court precedent, the public can limit the size of political contributions to prevent corruption. Most Americans understand on a gut level why a single mega-donor’s ability to write an unlimited check to a super PAC looks rotten. But some courts have said that corruption only exists where there’s a “quid pro quo” — essentially, a bribe.

Lessig’s case asks the Alaska court — and potentially the US Supreme Court — to recognize a different type of corruption. His argument relies on originalism, an interpretive technique that examines how ordinary people would have understood the Constitution back when it was first proposed. In support of his originalist argument, Lessig marshals impressive evidence that the framers’ generation had a deep and capacious understanding of political corruption.

Read the entire piece here.