Podcast Summary: “How to Knock Out Super PACs with Lawrence Lessig”

Podcast: On with Kara Swisher
Date: February 5, 2026
Host: Kara Swisher
Guest: Professor Lawrence Lessig, Harvard Law School

Episode Overview

This episode centers on Lawrence Lessig’s campaign to eliminate Super PACs from American politics, a fight he wages both through legal advocacy and public debate. The conversation spans the roots of U.S. political corruption, the evolution of tech leaders in politics, critical legal arguments against Super PACs, the nature of corruption, the wider implications for democracy, and Lessig’s skepticism about tech’s role in society.

Key Discussion Points & Insights

Lessig’s Path from Tech Policy to Fighting Corruption

• Turning Point:

  • Lessig describes a 2006 conversation with Aaron Swartz that catalyzed his move from tech policy (copyright, net neutrality) to tackling political corruption.
  • Quote:
    “He said, so why do you think you're ever going to make any progress on copyright or Internet policy so long as we have this deeply corrupted form of government?...There was no way to think about sensible policy here as long as money was so central.” (04:14 – 05:40)

• Shifting Power Structures:

  • Lessig notes early tech leaders once despised lobbying and special interests, but many now capitulate to moneyed politics.
  • Quote:
    “What they saw was that there was an enormous opportunity to profit from basically giving in to the system as it's evolved...they just see in the short term, this is the way to get along.” (08:05 – 09:09)

The Legal Attack on Super PACs: The Maine Case

• Case Overview:

  • Equal Citizens (Lessig’s group) pushed a Maine ballot initiative to ban Super PACs. The case Dinner Table Action, et al. v. William Schneider could set a national precedent.
  • Lessig argues Citizens United only addressed independent spending, not contributions to committees (Super PACs), pointing out the real legal foundation is SpeechNow v. FEC.
  • Quote:
    “Super PACs are the ability to contribute unlimited contributions to the committees that will then spend the money. And they were created months after Citizens United by a lower federal court decision...” (10:37 – 13:09)

• Originalist Legal Argument:

  • The case seeks to convince the conservative Supreme Court justices (esp. “originalists”) there’s historic authority to limit contribution sizes—even to “independent” committees.
  • Quote:
    “If these originalists...really want to be serious about their originalism, then under the original meaning of the first amendment, there should be no doubt that a state...has the power to control the size of contributions to a committee.” (13:27 – 15:53)

• Potential Impact:

  • If successful, the ruling could sharply curtail Super PAC spending by 2028, thus majorly changing campaign finance before the next presidential race.

• Skepticism about the Court:

  • Swisher challenges the odds of victory given recent Supreme Court trends, but Lessig thinks the justices have strategic incentive to back the ban.
  • Quote:
    “I think that the point is, like, if it's recognized as not a partisan issue, but just a thing where people are just so disgusted with this money, what's in it for the court? ...on the other hand, if the court ruled in our favor, you know, the country would be like, whoa, this is amazing.” (16:39 – 17:44)

On Transparency vs. Regulation: Expert Question Segment

Timestamps: 18:44 – 21:51

• Question (Ellie Honig, CNN):
  Should we just have no limits with full, real-time transparency instead?
• Lessig’s response:
  Transparency alone is a “total disaster” and would not fix the underlying issue, as the pool of influential donors would shrink and concentrate even further.
  • Quote:
    “People imagine that transparency solves everything. Transparency solves nothing...the number of relevant contributors increasingly shrinks. So you have a smaller, smaller number of people who are calling the shots.” (19:21 – 20:49)

Broader Democratic Crises: Voting Rights, Gerrymandering, and Trump

• Voting Rights Act Under Threat:

  • Lessig critiques Supreme Court moves against the Voting Rights Act, arguing Congress has clear constitutional authority to maintain protections.
  • Quote:
    “This is a disaster that is again, without any basis in the Constitution because we have an express constitutional amendment that is giving to Congress the power to address this problem...you have a court that increasingly arrogates to itself the power to second guess Congress's judgment.” (30:27 – 31:27)

• Gerrymandering:

  • Congress could eliminate federal gerrymanders if it chose; current rules incentivize both parties to game the system.
  • Quote:
    “Gerrymandering is terrible, and we should end it...You can still be arguing, and you should be arguing to change the rules to the right rules, and the right rules would end this gerrymandering.” (32:46 – 33:46)

• Trump, Election Manipulation, and Local Control:

  • Lessig describes strategy of intimidating jurisdictions and election officials and the collapse of checks & balances.
  • Quote:
    “It's this extortionist kind of mod boss like pattern...And that's what he did to media organizations, cbs, abc, Amazon, Meta, all of these companies that basically realized even if, though he had no basis for his claims working on to cave into him because it's cheaper than fighting.” (35:16 – 36:02)
  • When institutions aren't effective, the courts are “all we've got left.” (36:04 – 37:32)

Tech Leaders, Institutional Corruption & Epstein

• Taking “Dirty” Money:

  • Lessig discusses the dangers of institutions accepting money from criminals like Epstein, the moral calculus, and the risk of reputation laundering.
  • Quote:
    “You should not take money from somebody like that. Because if you're somebody who has been abused like this, and you discover that the building you're in is funded by an abuser. That is a wrong, that is a harm that nobody should minimize.” (41:22 – 42:12)

• Tech Billionaires and Influence:

  • They steer research, shape priorities, and wield outsized influence without proper transparency, corroding trust.

The Populist Backlash—Are Billionaires Finally Unpopular?

• Populism & the New Elites:
  • For backlash to succeed, Democrats must credibly channel anti-elite sentiment—a challenge as Trump and tech billionaires co-opt populist rhetoric.
  • Quote:
    “You thought Donald Trump was gonna change that corruption for you. Look what happened. The guy's $4 billion richer because of that corruption, because of that elite. Those tech firms are sucking up to him and giving him everything he wants.” (48:37 – 50:12)

AI, Social Media, and Democracy’s “Gash in the Hull”

Timestamps: 51:30 – 57:54

• AI's Threat:

  • Lessig warns against ignoring current harms of engagement-driven algorithms, not just hypothetical future AI risk.
  • Quote:
    “Old AI...is the present threat...has turned us into people that can't even hear each other, ignorant people who hate each other.” (51:47 – 53:15)
  • He suggests radical legislative ideas like an “engagement tax” to destroy the current predatory business model.

• Open Source AI & Transparency:

  • While owning his open-source advocacy roots, Lessig now warns there is a threshold beyond which open AI models become too risky if left completely unregulated. (54:18 – 55:33)

• Citizen Assemblies as Democratic Innovation:

  • Lessig champions large, randomly-selected groups (“big juries”) deliberating national issues to break gridlock and elite control.
  • Quote:
    “Citizen assemblies, if done right, random representative groups of people who are brought together...can produce solutions that our government can't.” (57:25 – 58:57)

What If We Don’t Fix Campaign Finance, Voting, and AI?

• Dire Prediction:
  • If money in politics, voting rights, and tech's negative influence aren’t addressed, U.S. democracy will collapse.
  • Quote:
    “I think if we don't fix these problems, it ends...The world that we imagine ourselves contributing to, like the values that I think we imagined standing for, have begun to collapse, and we don't have a mechanism to pull it back together if we don't solve these core corruptions. Now, I think we should be simple about it. Let's start with the money. Like, that is the core.” (60:16 – 61:57)

Notable Quotes & Timestamps

• Aaron Swartz’s challenge to Lessig:
  “What about as a citizen? Is it your field as a citizen?” (04:14)

• On institutional corruption:
  “It’s not illegal corruption that is the problem. It’s legal corruption.” (06:45)

• On tech leaders’ capitulation:
  “What they saw was there was an enormous opportunity to profit from basically giving in to the system as it’s evolved.” (08:05)

• On campaign finance legal loopholes:
  “Super PACs are the ability to contribute unlimited contributions to the committees that will then spend the money. And they were created months after Citizens United by a lower federal court decision…” (10:37)

• On transparency and donations:
  “Transparency solves nothing. What it does is convince people that it is a corrupt system.” (19:21)

• On money in academia and nonprofits:
  “The real problem are these institutions that, like, put these people into a position where they do this and then they hide and they say that we have nothing to do with it very much…like Congress.” (41:21)

• On AI and democracy:
  “Old AI...is the present threat...That present threat has turned us into people that can’t even hear each other, ignorant people who hate each other.” (51:47)

• On citizen assemblies and democracy:
  “Citizen assemblies, if done right, random representative groups of people who are brought together...can produce solutions that our government can’t.” (57:25)

• On the urgency to act:
  “If you love your country, like if you love your child, you will do anything you can, regardless of the odds. And that’s what we should be doing right now.” (61:57)

Major Segments & Timestamps

• [03:34] – Introduction, Lessig’s career arc
• [09:35] – The Maine Super PAC lawsuit explained
• [13:27] – The originalist legal argument & implications
• [16:19] – Predictions for the Supreme Court
• [18:44] – Ellie Honig’s expert question on campaign finance transparency
• [30:02] – Supreme Court’s other election law cases (Voting Rights & Gerrymandering)
• [35:13] – Trump and the abuse of local/state election functions
• [39:28] – Tech billionaires, Epstein, and institutional ethics
• [48:37] – Populism, demographics, and exposure of elite corruption
• [51:30] – AI’s harms, regulation, and Lessig’s new skepticism
• [55:33] – Citizen assemblies as the future of participatory democracy
• [60:16] – What’s at stake if Super PACs and corruption remain unchecked

Memorable Moments

• Lessig’s frank discussion about being called to action by Aaron Swartz (04:14)
• Deep dive into the legal misunderstanding about Citizens United and Super PACs (10:37)
• Skeptical optimism that the Supreme Court could see “no upside” in further enabling corruption (16:39)
• Lessig’s vulnerability in revisiting his response to sexual abuse, MIT and the Epstein scandal (42:11)
• Blunt assessment of transparency in campaign finance as insufficient (19:21)
• Vivid metaphor of AI-driven social media as the “gash in the hull” of the democratic Titanic (53:50)

Takeaways

• The sustained dominance of Super PACs is a legal, not merely political, failing.
• Addressing corruption starts with limiting the outsized influence of money in politics, not just “dark money,” but legal forms enabled by courts.
• Lessig insists that broader campaign finance regulation—grounded even in conservative legal theory—is achievable and urgent, and could fundamentally alter the 2028 election.
• Fixing democracy will require changes from Super PACs to redistricting to campaign finance, but also a new public ethic against being “dependent on the few.”
• Lastly, both tech’s abuse of power (AI, billionaires) and failed institutional accountability are now interconnected with the fate of American democracy itself.

For listeners and readers: This episode combines cutting legal argument, policy insight, and personal history to chart a path—however steep—out of America’s campaign finance morass, rooting a policy debate in both historical precedent and moral urgency.