You can watch William Brangham’s report here, also featuring Jerry Goldfeder and Jessica Roth:

Politico:

Super PACs keep pushing the boundaries of campaign finance law this cycle.

They’re using novel financial arrangements, like taking “bridge funding” in the form of undisclosed de facto loans from major donors or receiving ad revenue from a candidate’s podcast. They’re also continuing to take advantage of long standing loopholes in anti-coordination guidelines.

The willingness to push the boundaries suggests that U.S. politics has entered the Wild West campaign financing system that many observers predicted would come in the wake of the court’s weakening campaign finance laws.

It comes as super PACs are taking a more prominent role in campaigning. Total spending on independent expenditures so far this cycle is nearly 2.5 times what it was at this point in 2020. And because candidates are having more and more trouble with small-dollar fundraising, super PAC money could be even more important as the cycle continues.

“As long as super PACs remain relatively under regulated in the way that they have been, the consultants who work for them and for various campaigns are going to continue trying to push the envelope using them in creative ways,” said Saurav Ghosh, director for federal campaign finance reform at the nonprofit Campaign Legal Center. “Because there seems to be very little risk in pushing against the supposed legal limits.”

Ciara Torres-Spelliscy at Law & Crime.

Gabriel Foy-Sutherland and Saurav Ghosh have written this article for ELJ. Here is the abstract:

This article examines the campaign strategy known as “redboxing.” Redboxing refers to efforts by candidates and parties to bypass laws prohibiting them from coordinating campaign advertising with outside spending groups such as super PACs. This coordination takes place in plain sight—on official campaign websites and party “microsites”—with campaigns asking outside groups to fund specific campaign messages that target particular groups of voters on desired media channels. The instructions contained in a redbox typically employ coded or technical language intended to guide the resulting “independent” expenditures, and are often presented in a distinctive, red-bordered text box designed to be easily identifiable by super PAC operatives. Overall, we find that campaigns use redboxing for two purposes: to engage an allied outside group to amplify the campaign’s primary message to voters, or to delegate a given message to an allied group, often a negative or inflammatory attack on a political opponent. Complementing our legal analysis of this practice, we assess the prevalence of redboxing in the American political system, as well as the relationship between redboxing and independent expenditures in congressional races. Drawing on the first comprehensive dataset of redboxes in a single electoral cycle, we find that this strategy is far more widespread than previously understood. Over two hundred candidates for federal office employed redboxing during the 2022 electoral cycle, and these same candidates frequently benefitted from super PAC spending that was hundreds of times greater than candidates who did not redbox. We conclude by providing recommendations for legal reforms to bring redboxing under control, highlighting recent reform initiatives adopted in Philadelphia and Allegheny County, PA, to outline a workable rule that prohibits redboxing while not infringing on genuine, vital political speech.

Saul Levmore has posted this draft on SSRN. Here is the abstract:

The United States does not allow foreigners to influence U.S. elections by giving money to political parties or candidates, but many other countries do allow cross-border influencing. Indeed, the variety of policies among countries is remarkable. Some countries, like the United States, that forbid financial contributions from outside the country, do permit cross-border contributions across domestic borders, such as those of states and cities. Meanwhile, Canadians cannot contribute to the campaigns of U.S. political candidates, and cannot even (lawfully) influence the American political process by purchasing campaign t-shirts or bumper stickers. This prohibition is in place even though, like constituents of neighboring jurisdictions within the U.S., Canadians are greatly affected by U.S. policies

Grady Yuthok Short of the Brennan Center analyzes.

WNYC “Open to Debate” podcast:

In a high-stakes presidential election year, in partnership with the Newt and Jo Minow Debate Series at the Northwestern Pritzker School of Law, Open to Debate is taking a look at more than a decade of the Citizens United Supreme Court case. The 2010 landmark decision that ruled the free speech clause of the First Amendment prohibits the government from restricting independent expenditures for political communications by corporations, including nonprofits, labor unions, and other associations, changed the landscape of political spending in the U.S. This gave rise to Super PACS and an increase in election campaign spending. Since then, there have been questions about whether the decision has harmed our democratic process. Those who support the decision argue it upholds free speech, allowing diverse voices in the political arena, and broadens the range of discourse by enabling groups to freely express their views and support candidates or policies. Those against it argue that it allows a disproportionate influence from corporations and special interest groups, and leaves the voices of ordinary citizens overshadowed by the financial resources of a few, eroding the principles of equality and fair representation.  With this context, we debate the question: Has Citizens United Undermined Democracy?     This debate is presented in partnership with the Northwestern Pritzker School of Law as part of the Newt and Jo Minow Debate Series. It will be recorded live in person on Wednesday, February 21, 2024, at the Thorne Auditorium at Northwestern University Pritzker School of Law in Chicago, Illinois. Arguing Yes: Francesca Procaccini, Assistant Professor of Law at Vanderbilt University Law School; Ciara Torres-Spelliscy, Professor of Law at Stetson University   Arguing No: Floyd Abrams, Senior Counsel at Cahill Gordon & Reindel; Eric Wang, Partner at The Gober Group, pro bono Senior Fellow at the Institute for Free Speech

Politico reports.