The Supreme Court's Citizens United decision, now four years old, has remade the campaign finance landscape. Outside spending has soared, with outside entities and "dark money" exercising unprecedented influence over elections. Just a few months ago, in McCutcheon v. FEC, the Court went even further, invalidating the aggregate contribution limits on individual donors and endorsing an extremely narrow view of the type of corruption that can justify campaign finance regulation. Those who strive to provide a level playing field in U.S. elections face a hostile Supreme Court, which has taken aim both at strategies that seek to restrict the flow of big money and measures that provide grassroots candidates with additional resources to help them compete. Will the impact of McCutcheon be as significant as that of Citizens United? What can be done to move beyond the current jurisprudence? What should be the constitutional principle that supports regulation of the use of money in politics? Do advocates of regulation need to move beyond the corruption frame, and if so, what should replace it?
Thomas M. Hilbink, Senior Program Officer, U.S. Programs, Open Society Foundations
Adam Lioz, Counsel, Demos
Wendy Kaminer, Author, Lawyer, and Commentator
Robert C. Post, Dean and Sol & Lillian Goldman Professor of Law, Yale Law School
Ciara Torres-Spelliscy, Associate Professor, Stetson University College of Law
Robert Weissman, President, Public Citizen