Advisory Opinions – “The Illusion of Campaign Finance Reform”

Podcast: Advisory Opinions – The Dispatch
Hosts: Sarah Isgur and David French
Date: December 11, 2025

Episode Overview

This episode tackles the complexity and “illusory” nature of campaign finance reform in the United States. Sarah Isgur and David French discuss the history and current landscape of campaign finance law, including Supreme Court arguments and the ramifications for political parties, candidates, and democracy itself. Along the way, the hosts break down recent Supreme Court oral arguments (Olivier v. City of Brandon and NRSC v. FEC), the enduring access-to-justice crisis, and the practical and philosophical failures of American campaign finance regulation. The conversation is detailed, vibrant, and leavened with real-world experience and their signature, wry tone.

Key Segments & Discussions

1. Revisiting Slaughter and Access to Justice

[01:50–06:01]

• Sarah and David reflect briefly on the Supreme Court’s “Slaughter” argument, with a listener email sparking a broader discussion on the vast difference in care and deliberation between Supreme Court proceedings and mass-production justice at the trial court level.
• The email highlights the imbalance in attention and resources between appellate and lower courts:

  “Even when I don’t like the outcome of a case. A lot of very smart people have collectively spent hundreds, thousands of hours contributing to the process. … But the system just does not lend itself to most cases getting even a sliver of the thoughtful consideration and deliberation that goes into decisions and arguments at the Supreme Court.”
  — Listener Email [02:08]

• The hosts underscore the persistent access-to-justice problem, especially in civil legal areas (e.g., family law) where many cannot afford representation:

  “There’s a huge category of legal services that are not criminal defense or personal injury… from kind of upper middle class to working class people just don’t have access to because it’s really expensive.”
  — David French [04:57]

• Sarah urges lawyers to consider pro bono family court representation, especially during the holidays.

2. GVR in Religious Vaccine Exemption Case

[06:01–09:43]

• Quick analysis of a Supreme Court “GVR” (grant, vacate, remand) in a 2nd Circuit case involving New York’s removal of religious exemptions to school vaccine mandates, which was prompted by a prior religious-liberty case, Mahmoud v. Taylor.
• The Court’s move signals openness to reconsidering strict scrutiny and religious exemptions in the vaccine mandate context, especially after a 2019 measles outbreak led to the law change.
• David wonders whether the case could become a rare instance where strict scrutiny is met for vaccine mandates:

  “…if there is going to be a situation where you have a compelling governmental interest, this is going to be a compelling governmental interest. I wonder about the means.”
  — David French [08:00]

3. Olivier v. City of Brandon: Street Preacher, Heck v. Humphrey, and First Amendment Litigation

[09:43–22:34]

• Recap and legal context for this unusual but representative Supreme Court case, where a street preacher (Olivier) seeks prospective injunctive relief after pleading no contest to violating a city ordinance restricting protest activities.
• Central legal question: Can a person who pled guilty or no contest (without appeal) later file a civil rights suit for injunctive relief against the same law, despite the rule from Heck v. Humphrey barring Section 1983 actions that would “imply the invalidity” of a criminal conviction?
• Sarah argues it is unfair for someone to lose all future opportunity to challenge an unconstitutional law simply because they didn’t contest their first ticket:

  “…you’ve lost. Let’s assume the law for a second does violate the First Amendment. You know, I think that’s the only way to really approach this case. Assume it violates the First Amendment. This guy just loses his First Amendment rights because he didn’t challenge it initially.”
  — Sarah Isgur [15:24]

• David brings up the practical difficulties defendants often face and the limits of habeas as a remedy.
• The hosts predict a likely 9–0 ruling making a clear distinction between past convictions (locked in a “box”) and future prospective conduct, allowing people like Olivier to challenge unconstitutional ordinances going forward:

  “Anything that happened in the past, including things that continue to this day are in the lockbox… Anything that could happen in the future, different box… So yes, you can bring a 1983 claim.”
  — Sarah Isgur [19:31]

• David:

  “…I think Olivier should win this case. … you know, I’m just. God has called me. You know, God’s called me to condemn whoreness. So I’m going to do this again. And this seems to be a situation really outside of that Heck context.” [21:00]

4. NRSC v. FEC: The Illusion of Campaign Finance Reform

[26:06–51:16]

A. Campaign Finance Law Refresher

[26:06–38:33]

• Sarah provides a fast-paced but comprehensive summary of the major Supreme Court precedents framing the current system:
  • Buckley v. Valeo (1976): Upholds limits on direct contributions (as anti-corruption) but strikes down limits on expenditures.
  • Colorado II (2001): Permits limits on coordinated expenditures between party and candidate.
  • McConnell v. FEC (2003): Upholds “soft money” limits, much maligned by Sarah.
  • Citizens United v. FEC (2010): Bars limits on independent corporate expenditures close to elections, but allows disclosure requirements.
  • SpeechNow.org v. FEC (2010): Opens door for super PACs by allowing unlimited contributions to independent expenditure groups.
  • McCutcheon v. FEC (2014): Strikes down aggregate individual limits for contributions to multiple candidates.
• The case at hand asks: Can a party coordinate spending with its own candidates, or do such limits serve any anti-corruption interest?
• The hosts point out the tension between preventing circumvention (of individual contribution limits) and recognizing that parties “can’t bribe their own candidates.”
• The case features an unusual dynamic, with JD Vance as plaintiff and a standing challenge based on whether he is “really” running for re-election.

B. Critique of Technocratic Campaign Finance Regulation

[38:33–42:27]

• David attacks the underlying philosophy of campaign finance law:

  “Every time we walk through the history of campaign finance reform, it feels like this is what happens when you get the illusion that you can technocratically manage human nature, especially human nature and human behavior around expression.”
  — David French [38:33]

• Argues the system has worsened billionaire and big-donor influence and weakened political parties—despite the mountains of legal doctrine and “prophylactic” rules.

C. Real World Consequences and the Modern Campaign Finance Mess

[43:28–51:16]

• Sarah and David agree that no one in actual politics likes super PACs (except those running them), and that the system has crippled parties and magnified unintended consequences, such as:
  • Outsized role of small dollar fundraising, incentivized by rules aimed at “incumbent protection.”
  • Unaccountable, inefficient, and sometimes counterproductive super PAC interference in campaigns.
  • Death of party power, which once held candidates accountable and maintained legislative and policy platforms.

    “It was an incumbent protection racket that then had the exact opposite effect… just like Jeff Goldblum taught us in Jurassic Park, money finds a way.”
    — Sarah Isgur [43:28]

  • Kavanaugh’s pragmatic “real life” comment in oral argument:

    “…the combination of campaign finance laws and this court’s decisions over the years together have reduced the power of political parties as compared to the outside groups with negative effects on our constitutional democracy.”
    — Justice Kavanaugh, quoted by Sarah [48:06]

• Sarah predicts the Court will strike down party-candidate coordination limits due to lack of anti-bribery rationale, but acknowledges legitimate concerns about the slow chipping away of all campaign regulation.
• Both hosts lament Congress’s continuing refusal to revisit and reform the system, despite obvious and chronic breakdowns.

5. Primary Voters, Grifter Tactics, and Modern Electoral Manipulation

[55:13–63:37]

• “Grifter Sarah” fielding: The NRSC’s strategy of boosting “unelectable” opponents, mirroring earlier Democratic efforts to push MAGA-style candidates in Republican primaries:

  “Not only do the party committees focus on candidate recruitment for their side, they focus on opponent recruitment on the other side.”
  — Sarah Isgur [56:17]

• This includes robocalls, polls, and buzz-building to influence opponent selection. Both Sarah and David agree it’s effective—and mutually corrosive—escalating partisan warfare.
• David’s key point:

  “We really have to focus on who’s really responsible for this problem. … It’s primary voters. God save us from primary voters right now…” [61:49]

• Commentary on how disengaged majorities have left the most radicalized, activist voters in control of party direction.

6. Notable Hypotheticals and Class Discussion

[65:43–68:39]

• David shares a colorful hypothetical (set at a college party) for his students on the constitutionality of “Christian nation” proposals, sparking creative student responses and demonstrating how contemporary legal questions can be rendered vibrant—and fun.

Notable Quotes

• On campaign finance futility:

  “Money always finds a way, that money finds a way to influence politics. And so it’s like playing constant whack-a-mole.”
  — David French [38:33]

• On the dysfunction of Congress:

  “Think how many things that are tearing America apart for which there are compromises available that Congress just won’t do jack or squat.”
  — David French [51:16]

• On the “book banning” implications of pre-Citizens United law:

  “How is it not the most egregious First Amendment violation that you’re not allowed to criticize someone because they’re running for office and it’s within 90 days of the general election… That’s insane to me.”
  — Sarah Isgur [43:28]

Key Timestamps

• 01:50–06:01 – Slaughter recap and access to justice discussion
• 06:01–09:43 – GVR and religious vaccine exemption
• 09:43–22:34 – Olivier v. City of Brandon, First Amendment litigation for street preachers, Heck v. Humphrey
• 26:06–38:33 – History of campaign finance law, Buckley to Citizens United, case set-up
• 38:33–43:28 – Campaign finance as technocratic futility; the “illusion” revealed
• 43:28–51:16 – Systemic consequences of current law; super PACs, party power, and money's path
• 55:13–63:37 – Party “opponent recruitment,” Grifter Sarah, primaries, NRSC v. Paxton/Crockett
• 65:43–68:39 – Lord Protector Cromwell privacy hypo (religious freedom and constitutional limits)

Tone & Takeaways

The episode moves briskly, filled with wry humor, candor, and lived professional experience. Both hosts express deep frustration with technocratic attempts to regulate money in politics, lament Congress’s abdication, and urge listeners to understand that rules built without recognition that “money finds a way” are doomed—often with perverse consequences. The discussion is accessible to non-lawyers, but does not shy from nuance or technical points; their mutual respect for nuance and compromise is apparent, as is their general pessimism about near-term solutions. The lasting message: campaign finance reform, as constructed by law and defended in Court, may be more illusory than real—calling into question the premise of much of American political regulation.