Another Way, by Lawrence Lessig
Jul 22, 2026 · 1 hr 11 min · 11 segments
For more information about the case, Dinner Table Action v. Schneider, visit: https://equalcitizens.us/against\_superpacs/ Become a Patreon…
Jonathan GienappGuest
Larry LessigHost
That's being litigated right now, and it is to be heard in the First Circuit Court of Appeals at the end of July.
Now, one of the core arguments that is being made in this case, really for the first time ever in a campaign finance case, is an argument grounded in a theory called originalism.
Originalism is the theory that conservatives have brought to the interpretation of the Constitution.
I clerked for Justice Scalia way back in the day, uh, and he-- I was his token liberal clerk in the days when he had token liberal clerks.
Um, but Justice Scalia is perhaps the most prominent and famous originalist, and he began a movement which now claims six justices on the Supreme Court who say that their job in interpreting the Constitution is to interpret it according to the original meaning of the Constitution.
Well, what is that? When we think about the First Amendment, what's the original meaning of the First Amendment? Because the most striking fact about the core case that created campaign finance jurisprudence, the case called Buckley versus Valeo, decided in January nineteen seventy-six, is that that case doesn't even deign to explain what the original meaning of the Constitution was.
Instead, that case comes from a time when the Court didn't feel constrained to link their opinions to the original meaning of the Constitution.
And in our time, the question we're going to talk to Jonathan Gienapp about is whether the original meaning of the First Amendment would give the people of Maine or Congress of the United States the freedom to limit the size of contributions to independent political action committees.
Read the full transcript.
Create an account to read the whole episode, search across every transcript, and follow the shows you care about.
That's being litigated right now, and it is to be heard in the First Circuit Court of Appeals at the end of July.
Now, one of the core arguments that is being made in this case, really for the first time ever in a campaign finance case, is an argument grounded in a theory called originalism.
Originalism is the theory that conservatives have brought to the interpretation of the Constitution.
I clerked for Justice Scalia way back in the day, uh, and he-- I was his token liberal clerk in the days when he had token liberal clerks.
Um, but Justice Scalia is perhaps the most prominent and famous originalist, and he began a movement which now claims six justices on the Supreme Court who say that their job in interpreting the Constitution is to interpret it according to the original meaning of the Constitution.
Well, what is that? When we think about the First Amendment, what's the original meaning of the First Amendment? Because the most striking fact about the core case that created campaign finance jurisprudence, the case called Buckley versus Valeo, decided in January nineteen seventy-six, is that that case doesn't even deign to explain what the original meaning of the Constitution was.
Instead, that case comes from a time when the Court didn't feel constrained to link their opinions to the original meaning of the Constitution.
And in our time, the question we're going to talk to Jonathan Gienapp about is whether the original meaning of the First Amendment would give the people of Maine or Congress of the United States the freedom to limit the size of contributions to independent political action committees.