The Price of a Hearing

To the People of the United States:

1. The pain point today

In the 2010 election cycle, super PACs spent about $64.9 million on independent expenditures, and about 80 of them were active.¹ Two years later, 455 were active and they spent about $606.8 million.¹ In the 2023-2024 cycle, independent expenditures reported to the Federal Election Commission totaled $4.4 billion. Super PACs made $2.7 billion of that, and they reported about $5.1 billion in receipts.² Super PAC spending grew roughly fortyfold in fourteen years.

The referee did not grow with the game. The Federal Election Commission has six seats, may hold no more than three commissioners of one party, and needs the votes of four commissioners to open an investigation or defend certain lawsuits.³ A commissioner’s resignation in spring 2025 left three seats filled, and the Commission reports that it has lacked a quorum since May 1, 2025.³ A second resignation in October 2025 left two. The President in 2026 sent two nominations in February; as of April 6, 2026, the Commission told a federal court they were still pending.⁴ Without a quorum, the agency charged with enforcing federal campaign finance law cannot open an enforcement matter on its own.

In No. 1, Faction, and the Fire Not to Be Quenched, I put the growth of super PAC money and the empty referee’s chair on the list of Washington’s warnings come due. This paper takes up that entry in full.

Citizens do not need these numbers to feel the problem. They feel it as a question about whose call gets returned. That is the real pain point: not that money is spent, but that a growing share of the people’s representatives depend on a small number of very large givers, and the people cannot always see who those givers are.

2. What they warned

The founders did not debate super PACs. They debated something older: whether the men who hold power will be bought, and whether the people who elect them will be crowded out.

Benjamin Franklin raised it in the first week of serious debate. On June 2, 1787, in a paper James Wilson read for him, Franklin told the Convention: “Sir, there are two passions which have a powerful influence on the affairs of men. These are ambition and avarice; the love of power, and the love of money.”✓ verified, Q1 He then described the trade that follows when the two meet: “there will always be a party for giving more to the rulers, that the rulers may be able in return to give more to them.”✓ verified, Q2

James Madison answered the fear with a promise about the House of Representatives. In The Federalist No. 57 (February 1788) he asked, “Who are to be the electors of the federal representatives? Not the rich, more than the poor.”✓ verified, Q3 And of the candidates: “No qualification of wealth, of birth, of religious faith, or of civil profession is permitted to fetter the judgement or disappoint the inclination of the people.”✓ verified, Q4 In No. 52 he set the standard the House must meet, “an immediate dependence on, and an intimate sympathy with, the people.”✓ verified, Q5 In No. 51 he admitted that the promise was not enough by itself: “A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions.”✓ verified, Q22

Madison did not pretend money would vanish from politics. In the same Federalist No. 10, whose definition of faction I set out in No. 1, he wrote that “the most common and durable source of factions has been the various and unequal distribution of property,“✓ verified, Q6 and that “The regulation of these various and interfering interests forms the principal task of modern legislation.”✓ verified, Q7 His answer was a large republic in which no single interest could easily dominate.

The opponents of the Constitution doubted that answer. Brutus, writing in New York on November 15, 1787, predicted: “According to the common course of human affairs, the natural aristocracy of the country will be elected. Wealth always creates influence.”✓ verified, Q8

The record also holds a view the modern reader may find uncomfortable, and it belongs here because it is honest. Gouverneur Morris told the Convention on July 2, 1787: “The Rich will strive to establish their dominion & enslave the rest. They always did. They always will.”✓ verified, Q9 His remedy was not to wall money out of power but to wall it in: “The proper security agst them is to form them into a separate interest.”✓ verified, Q10 Alexander Hamilton, in The Federalist No. 35, accepted that wealth and interest would find representation and called it natural: “We must therefore consider merchants as the natural representatives of all these classes of the community.”✓ verified, Q11 The founding generation did not agree on the cure. It agreed on the disease.

Two more warnings concern money from outside the country. Hamilton wrote in No. 68 of “the desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils.”✓ verified, Q12 George Washington’s Farewell Address of September 1796 put it as a charge to citizens: “Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence,” the jealousy of a free people must stay awake.✓ verified, Q13 And Thomas Jefferson, in a letter of November 12, 1816, hoped the country would “crush in it’s birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country.”✓ verified, Q14

3. How it came true

The country has tried to answer these warnings for more than a century, and both parties have written and broken the rules.

Congress banned corporate contributions to federal candidates in 1907. After the abuses of the 1972 presidential campaign, it amended the Federal Election Campaign Act in 1974 and created the Federal Election Commission. In Buckley v. Valeo (1976), the Supreme Court kept contribution limits and disclosure but struck limits on independent spending, holding that restricting some speech “to enhance the relative voice of others is wholly foreign to the First Amendment.”✓ verified, Q15

In the 1996 cycle, both national parties raised record sums of unregulated party money. A Senate committee investigated fundraising for the President’s 1996 re-election and the national committee of his party, including foreign-linked contributions later returned, and it also examined a foreign-backed loan guarantee to a policy group tied to the other national party.⁵ In 2002 a Republican senator and a Democratic senator led the passage of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, which banned that party money.

Then the structure changed. In Citizens United v. FEC (2010), the Court struck the ban on independent election spending by corporations and unions. The opinion of the Court, for five justices, said: “we now conclude that independent expenditures, including those made by corporations, do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption.”✓ verified, Q16 It added: “Ingratiation and access, in any event, are not corruption,“✓ verified, Q17 and “The appearance of influence or access, furthermore, will not cause the electorate to lose faith in our democracy.”✓ verified, Q18 The principal dissent answered for four: “A democracy cannot function effectively when its constituent members believe laws are being bought and sold.”✓ verified, Q19

Two months later, the D.C. Circuit held in SpeechNow.org v. FEC that groups making only independent expenditures could take unlimited contributions, and the super PAC was born.⁶ In McCutcheon v. FEC (2014), the Court struck the overall two-year cap on an individual’s contributions.⁷ Since 2012, the presidential nominees of both major parties have been backed by allied super PACs in every cycle. Neither party has disarmed, and neither has asked the other to go first.

The criminal record runs on as well. In 2021 a federal jury convicted two businessmen of illegally funneling foreign money into the 2018 midterm elections.⁸ In 2023 a former executive of a cryptocurrency exchange pleaded guilty to conspiring to make unlawful political contributions and to defraud the Federal Election Commission, part of a scheme of more than 300 contributions, totaling tens of millions of dollars, made in the names of straw donors or paid for with corporate funds.⁹ And the enforcement agency itself has lost its quorum under Presidents of both parties: for much of late 2019 through 2020, and again from May 2025.³¹⁰

4. The choke point

The problem is not that Americans spend money on politics. It is that four structural choke points now meet in one place.

First, the law’s central premise has thinned. Citizens United rested on independence: spending not coordinated with a candidate cannot buy the candidate. In practice, single-candidate super PACs are often run by the candidate’s former aides and fed by the candidate’s own fundraising appearances. Independence on paper is not independence in fact.

Second, disclosure has gaps. The Court upheld disclosure 8 to 1, and the opinion of the Court explained why it mattered: “This transparency enables the electorate to make informed decisions and give proper weight to different speakers and messages.”✓ verified, Q20 But money can pass through nonprofits and companies that do not report their own donors, so the name on the filing is not always the name behind the check.

Third, the referee is built to stall. A six-member commission split evenly between the parties, needing four votes to act, gives each party a veto over enforcement against itself. In my forthcoming No-America I call this Institutional Self-Preservation: a system that “resists correction.”✓ verified, S1 When the Commission also loses its quorum, the veto becomes total.

Fourth, the people who write the rules are the people the rules govern. Every incumbent in Congress was elected under the current system. That is not a charge of bad faith. It is a conflict of interest built into the job, and it explains why reform proposals tend to arrive from whichever party is out of power and fade when it returns. It is the problem I described in No. 1: every majority becomes a judge in its own cause. The remedy I proposed there, that changes to election law take effect only after the next general election has intervened, applies to campaign finance law with full force.

Together these produce what I have called Rule by Access. Access, I wrote, “does more than create inequality of opportunity. It creates inequality of accountability.”✓ verified, S2 A citizen’s letter and a major giver’s phone call are both legal. They are not equal.

5. The fix and the prevention

Each remedy below has a cost. A restoration that hides its costs is only a new kind of campaign.

Keep the referee on the field. In No. 1 I asked that the Commission be filled and that the Senate face a deadline for acting on its vacancies. A backstop should come with that. Congress could provide that if the Commission lacks a quorum for 90 days, statutory deadlines pause and complainants may go to court directly, building on the existing path for complainants when the Commission fails to act.¹¹ Trade-off: private suits can be filed by partisans for advantage, so the courts would need fee-shifting and dismissal tools for frivolous complaints.

Disclose the original source. Require any group spending above a set threshold in a federal election to report the original source of the money, through every pass-through entity. This builds on the disclosure the Court has upheld. Trade-off: donors to unpopular causes can face retaliation, which the Court has recognized in cases from NAACP v. Alabama (1958) to Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Bonta (2021). A high threshold protects the small donor while exposing the large one.

Make independence real. Treat a super PAC as coordinated when it is run by a candidate’s recent senior staff or raises money through the candidate’s personal appearances. Trade-off: some of these rules touch the freedom to associate, and drafting must be narrow.

Close the foreign doors. Foreign nationals are already barred from spending in American elections. Congress could close remaining paths through domestic subsidiaries and nonprofits. Trade-off: compliance costs for lawful businesses with foreign owners.

Raise the floor instead of only lowering the ceiling. Small-donor matching and voucher programs, already tried in some cities and states, add voices rather than silencing any. Trade-off: public money ends up supporting candidates some taxpayers oppose.

What a citizen can do this year. Read the filings; FEC data on every federal candidate and committee is public. Ask every candidate, of either party, two questions in writing: will you name your largest outside backers, and will you support original-source disclosure even if it hurts your side? Then apply my Twelve-Word Standard to the answer: “if it would be wrong for them, it is wrong for us.”✓ verified, S3 A citizen who excuses his own party’s super PAC has already lost the argument against the other one.

6. The strongest objection, and the answer

The strongest objection is that money spent on politics is speech, and that limits on it protect incumbents. Both halves deserve respect. Spending on a message is how a message reaches an audience. And the fourth choke point above concedes the second half: incumbents writing the rules for their own challengers is a real danger, and the founders saw it.

The answer is that this paper does not ask the government to silence anyone. It asks for the conditions the Court itself assumed. The opinion of the Court said that “prompt disclosure of expenditures can provide shareholders and citizens with the information needed to hold corporations and elected officials accountable for their positions and supporters.”✓ verified, Q21 The ruling’s logic depends on two things: spending that is truly independent, and disclosure that is truly prompt and complete. Where pass-through money hides the source and a deadlocked commission cannot enforce the rules, the premise has failed, not the principle. Restoring the premise does not overrule the case. It completes it.

7. Questions for the Candlelight

1. Franklin feared “a party for giving more to the rulers.” Who in your district gives the most, and how would you find out?
2. Madison promised a House dependent on the people. Whose dependence does your representative’s fundraising show?
3. Is a super PAC run by a candidate’s former campaign manager independent? What test would you use if the candidate were from the other party?
4. Should the identity of a $500 donor be treated the same as that of a $5 million donor? Where would you draw the line, and why?
5. If the enforcement agency cannot meet, who should enforce the law, and how would you keep that enforcer from becoming a partisan weapon?
6. Morris thought wealth would rule unless it was walled in. Madison thought a large republic would dilute it. Who has been more right, and what is your evidence?

Source notes

1. Congressional Research Service, “Super PACs in Federal Elections: Overview and Issues for Congress,” R42042 (2016-09-16), https://www.everycrsreport.com/reports/R42042.html
2. Federal Election Commission, “Statistical Summary of 24-Month Campaign Activity of the 2023-2024 Election Cycle” (2025-04-23), https://www.fec.gov/updates/statistical-summary-of-24-month-campaign-activity-of-the-2023-2024-election-cycle
3. Federal Election Commission, “Notice of Lack of Quorum,” Senate Majority PAC v. FEC, No. 26-336 (D.D.C.) (2026-04-06), https://www.fec.gov/resources/cms-content/documents/fec-notice-of-lack-of-quorum-26-336-04-06-2026.pdf ; four-vote requirement and party balance at 52 U.S.C. 30106 and 30109; project brief 03 (2026-09-29).
4. Same as note 3 (nominations announced 2026-02-11; pending as of 2026-04-06).
5. U.S. Senate, Committee on Governmental Affairs, “Investigation of Illegal or Improper Activities in Connection with 1996 Federal Election Campaigns,” S. Rept. 105-167 (1998-03-10), https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/CRPT-105srpt167 : vol. 1 (the Democratic National Committee returned approximately $3 million in illegal and inappropriate contributions) and ch. 29, “Allegations Relating to the National Policy Forum” (a loan to the RNC-founded National Policy Forum guaranteed with foreign money through a Hong Kong businessman).
6. Federal Election Commission, “SpeechNow.org v. FEC” case summary, https://www.fec.gov/legal-resources/court-cases/speechnoworg-v-fec/ ; FEC Advisory Opinion 2010-11.
7. Legal Information Institute, McCutcheon v. FEC, 572 U.S. 185 (2014), https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/12-536
8. U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of New York, “Statement Of U.S. Attorney Damian Williams On Guilty Verdicts Against Lev Parnas And Andrey Kukushkin” (2021-10-22), https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/pr/statement-us-attorney-damian-williams-guilty-verdicts-against-lev-parnas-and-andrey
9. U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of New York, “Statement Of U.S. Attorney Damian Williams On The Guilty Plea Of Ryan Salame, Former CEO Of FTX” (2023-09-07), https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/pr/statement-us-attorney-damian-williams-guilty-plea-ryan-salame-former-ceo-ftx ; and “Former FTX Executive Ryan Salame Sentenced To 90 Months In Prison” (2024-05-28), https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/pr/former-ftx-executive-ryan-salame-sentenced-90-months-prison (more than 300 unlawful contributions, totaling tens of millions of dollars).
10. Federal Election Commission, “FEC remains open for business, despite lack of quorum” (2019-09-11; working without a quorum from 2019-09-01), https://www.fec.gov/updates/fec-remains-open-business-despite-lack-quorum/ ; “James E. Trainor III sworn in as Commissioner” (2020-06-05; quorum reconstituted), https://www.fec.gov/updates/james-e-trainor-iii-sworn-commissioner/ ; “Shana Broussard, Sean Cooksey, Allen Dickerson sworn in as Commissioners” (2020-12-18; returning a quorum to the agency), https://www.fec.gov/updates/shana-broussard-sean-cooksey-allen-dickerson-sworn-commissioners/
11. 52 U.S.C. 30109(a)(8) (complainant’s petition when the Commission fails to act).

Founding and court quotations are cited by Q-number to the verification table below. Notes marked S quote my own forthcoming book, No-America; line numbers refer to the Reading Edition v1.2 manuscript.

• S1. Shawn Cosner, No-America (forthcoming), Reading Edition v1.2, line 548: “Institutional Self-Preservation resists correction.”
• S2. Same, line 284: “Rule by Access therefore does more than create inequality of opportunity. It creates inequality of accountability.”
• S3. Same, line 114: “if it would be wrong for them, it is wrong for us.”

Cross-references in this paper are to No. 1, Faction, and the Fire Not to Be Quenched (super PAC growth and the Commission’s lost quorum in its Part 3; Madison’s definition of faction in its Part 2; the judge-in-his-own-cause problem, the delayed-effect rule for election law and the call to restore the referees in its Parts 4 and 5).

Quotation verification

Every quotation from a founder, thinker, court or the Constitution was checked with the Founders engine quote check (engine/quotecheck.py, check(), with the OCR line-break fallback) against the cited passage, on the Spark, CPU only, on 2026-10-06, and re-run after the revision pass of the same day. Passage ids refer to ~/projects/founders.

| S1 | Shawn Cosner, No-America (forthcoming), Ch. III | “Institutional Self-Preservation resists correction.” | manuscript line 548 | VERIFIED | | S2 | Same | “does more than create inequality…” | manuscript line 284 | VERIFIED | | S3 | Same, Ch. I (the Twelve-Word Standard) | “if it would be wrong for them…” | manuscript line 114 | VERIFIED |

Result of the re-run: 26 of 26 quotation instances in the body passed (founding, court and Constitution quotations plus my own three), 0 failed. My own quotations (S1 to S3) were checked by the same function against the manuscript lines cited.

Dropped or not used: Cato’s Letters (Trenchard and Gordon) on corruption. The corpus copy is rough OCR of the 1720s long-s typeface (“Magiftrates”, “publick”), so no passage could be quoted verbatim in readable modern form without reproducing OCR errors.