Latest news with #LawrenceLessig
Yahoo
a day ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
Another voter-backed Maine law regulating campaign finance halted, but the case is far from over
A Question 1 campaign sign in Portland. (Photo by Emma Davis/ Maine Morning Star) A federal court ruled on Tuesday that the law Maine voters passed in 2024 to set limits on so-called super PACs is unconstitutional — the second time within a few days that challenges to Maine's voter-backed campaign finance restrictions have prevailed. However, in this case, the ruling plays into the ultimate goal of those behind the law. Roughly 75%, or 600,000, Maine voters approved this law, which set a $5,000 limit on donations to political action committees that independently spend money to try to support or defeat candidates, commonly referred to as super PACs. It also requires the disclosure of all donors who contribute toward independent expenditures, regardless of amount. The ruling in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maine by U.S. Magistrate Judge Karen Frink Wolf concluded both constitute violations of the First Amendment. The lawsuit, which was filed by two PACs (Dinner Table Action, founded by state Rep. Laurel Libby (R-Auburn) and activist Alex Titcomb, and For Our Future, run by Titcomb) was an expected and welcomed part of the plan of those who introduced the referendum. Their hope is to eventually bring the question of the legality of such limits to the U.S. Supreme Court. While the plaintiffs view Tuesday's ruling as an outcome in their favor, those behind the referendum, notably legal scholar Lawrence Lessig who spearheaded it, still have an eye on that path. The state is now expected to appeal, and the ballot question committee also has the option to do so since the court granted them standing as interveners. Maine sued over new campaign finance law, but that was supporters' plan all along Charles Miller of the Institute for Free Speech, one of the plaintiff's two attorneys, told Maine Morning Star he believes this decision and another federal court decision on Friday that a law passed by Maine voters in 2023 prohibiting foreign government spending in elections is likely unconstitutional demonstrate that an appeal doesn't make sense. 'This, combined with the decision from the First Circuit last week, was very clear that the courts across the country recognize the importance of people being able to engage in election-related speech,' Miller said. While the two recent court decisions are topically related, Lessig, a professor at Harvard Law School, told Maine Morning Star they are distinct in key ways. And that no one should be surprised that the district court followed the decisions of all other courts so far. The district court's interpretation of the controversial, landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision on corporate contributions is wrong, Lessig argues, and constitutes the core question he and other supporters hope will now be addressed in the First Circuit Court of Appeals. The ban on foreign spending in elections deals with limiting the ability of certain entities to spend money in Maine elections. However, Tuesday's ruling doesn't involve limits on expenditures, only limits to the contributions to committees that make the expenditures. While this may seem like splitting hairs, it is the very distinction in the Supreme Court's philosophy that Lessig and others behind the Super PAC referendum say makes interpretations of Citizens United v. Federal Election Campaign Act to date flawed. 'Citizens United forecloses limits on contributions to independent expenditure groups,' Frink Wolf wrote in Tuesday's decision. Since Buckley v. Valeo in 1976, the Supreme Court has allowed contributions to be regulated when there is a risk of 'quid pro quo' corruption, essentially a favor for a favor. In the case of elections, if there is a risk someone could be making a donation to a candidate in exchange for a favor, then Congress can regulate that contribution. In 2010, the Supreme Court extended this reasoning to corporations and unions in Citizens United. Three months later, in v. FEC, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld that contributions to PACs cannot be regulated either, as long as the PAC is 'independent.' Other lower federal and state courts followed suit but the ruling was never reviewed by the Supreme Court. Lessig doesn't think the Supreme Court will change Citizens United, but he believes the question the Maine referendum raises — whether contributions to a committee that makes independent expenditures can be limited — is not answered in Citizens United. Under the logic of Citizens United, independent expenditures are uncoordinated and create no risk of quid pro quo corruption, but donations to a committee that makes independent expenditures may or may not be coordinated. Therefore, Lessig said, they create the risk of quid pro quo corruption and can be regulated by Congress. Lessig hopes the appeal will be swift so the First Circuit will have an opportunity to take up the question by the fall and issue a decision sometime in the spring. If the court decides in favor of the law, the issue could be in the Supreme Court by the fall of 2026. If the First Circuit rules otherwise, the path to the high court is less direct but still possible, Lessig said. 'The key thing is just stay tuned,' he said. 'I think 600,000 Mainers were correct.' SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
The Independent
16-06-2025
- Business
- The Independent
Trump launches Trump Mobile network with gold phones
The Trump Organization has announced the launch of Trump Mobile, a smartphone and mobile service aimed at "real Americans," positioning it as a competitor to Apple and Samsung. The gold-colored 'T1 Phone' will be available in August for $499, while the phone plan will cost $47.45 a month. Trump Jr. stated that Trump Mobile will prioritize American-based call centers and domestically manufactured phones, emphasizing a commitment to putting America first. Experts suggest the market is receptive to a new competitor due to the increasing cost of devices from established brands like Apple and Samsung. Critics, such as Harvard Law Professor Lawrence Lessig, argue that ventures like Trump Mobile highlight potential conflicts of interest and the use of the presidency to grow the Trump family's wealth.
Time Magazine
24-04-2025
- Business
- Time Magazine
OpenAI Wants to Go For-Profit. Experts Say Regulators Should Step In
In the latest development in an ongoing struggle over OpenAI's future direction—and potentially the future of artificial intelligence itself—dozens of prominent figures are urging the Attorneys General of California and Delaware to block OpenAI's controversial plan to convert from its unique nonprofit-controlled structure to a for-profit company. In a letter made public April 23, signatories including 'AI Godfather' Geoffrey Hinton, Harvard legal professor Lawrence Lessig, and several former OpenAI researchers argue the move represents a fundamental betrayal of OpenAI's founding mission. 'The proposed restructuring would eliminate essential safeguards, effectively handing control of, and profits from, what could be the most powerful technology ever created to a for-profit entity with legal duties to prioritize shareholder returns,' the letter's authors write. It lands as OpenAI faces immense pressure from the other side: failing to implement the restructure by the end of the year could cost the company $20 billion and hamstring future fundraising. OpenAI was founded in 2015 as a non-profit, with its stated mission being to ensure that artificial general intelligence (AGI) 'benefits all of humanity" rather than advancing "the private gain of any person." AGI, which OpenAI defines as systems outperforming humans at most economically valuable work, was seen as potentially world-changing but also carrying clear risks, especially if controlled solely by a for-profit company. By 2019, believing they'd need to attract outside investment to build AGI, OpenAI's leadership created a 'capped-profit' subsidiary controlled by the original nonprofit—a hybrid that has allowed the firm to take on over $60 billion in capital over the years to become one of the most valuable startups in history. CEO Sam Altman himself testified to Congress in 2023 that this structure "ensures it remains focused on [its] long-term mission." Then, in December, OpenAI proposed dismantling that unique arrangement, morphing its capped-profit arm into a public benefit corporation, which would take control of OpenAI's operations and business. The original nonprofit, while relinquishing direct control, would become—through owning a significant equity in the new company—a massively endowed foundation; it would hire its own leadership to fund and pursue separate charitable work in fields such as science and education. OpenAI says the new arrangement would enable them to 'raise the necessary capital with conventional terms like others in this space.' Indeed, the need for such terms appears already baked into recent deals: investors from OpenAI's most recent $40 billion fundraising round, finalized in March, can withdraw half that amount if OpenAI doesn't restructure by the end of this year. 'Our Board has been very clear: our nonprofit will be strengthened and any changes to our existing structure would be in service of ensuring the broader public can benefit from AI. Our for-profit will be a public benefit corporation, similar to several other AI labs like Anthropic - where some of these former employees now work - and xAI, except that they do not support a nonprofit,' an OpenAI spokesperson told TIME via email. 'This structure will continue to ensure that as the for-profit succeeds and grows, so too does the nonprofit, enabling us to achieve the mission.' Under the restructure, board members would still legally have to consider OpenAI's founding mission—albeit it would be downgraded, having to be weighed against profits. 'The nonprofit has the authority to basically shut down the company if it thinks it's deviating from [OpenAI's] mission. Think of it as an off-switch,' Stuart Russell tells TIME. Russell is one of the letter's signatories and a UC Berkeley computer science professor, who co-authored the field's standard textbook. 'Basically, they're proposing to disable that off-switch,' he says. That OpenAI's competitors are for-profit is besides the point, says Sunny Gandhi, vice president of political affairs at youth-led advocacy group Encode Justice and one of the letter's signatories. 'It's sort of like asking a conservation nonprofit why they can't convert to a logging company just because there are other logging companies out there,' he says. 'I think that it would be great if xAI and Anthropic were also nonprofit, but they're not,' he adds. If OpenAI wants to prioritize competitiveness over its original mission, Gandhi says 'that's the problem that their original structure was trying to prevent.' The open letter's targeting of the Attorneys General Rob Bonta of California and Kathy Jennings of Delaware is strategic. In March, Elon Musk lost his bid for an immediate preliminary injunction that would block OpenAI's conversion, but the decision turned largely on Musk's questionable legal standing —or interest in the case—not the conversion's inherent legality. The judge indicated Musk's argument that the for-profit shift breaches OpenAI's charitable charter is worthy of further consideration, expediting the trial to this fall. Unlike Musk, however, California and Delare's Attorneys General have a clear legal interest in the case. California's Attorney General Rob Bota's office is reportedly already investigating OpenAI's plans, and Delaware Attorney General Kathy Jennings has previously signalled she intends to scrutinize any restructuring. Neither responded to TIME's request for comment on the letter specifically. But how they act may set a precedent, signaling whether corporate governance structures designed to preserve a company's ideals can withstand the financial gravity of the AI gold rush, or will ultimately buckle under its weight.
Axios
30-03-2025
- Politics
- Axios
Harvard Law professors blast Trump crackdown in open letter
At least 94 professors at Harvard Law School signed a letter to students condemning the Trump administration's "severe" challenge to the rule of law and legal profession. Why it matters: That's more than three-quarters of the elite school's active faculty, and the latest sign that some lawyers are pushing back on what are widely viewed as unprecedented attacks on the profession. Zoom in:"[W]e are all acutely concerned that severe challenges to the rule of law are taking place," write the professors, including all of the school's deputy deans, as well as a few prominent names like Lawrence Lessig and Laurence Tribe. Interim dean John Goldberg did not sign. What they're saying: "It's a lot of people with a lot of strong opinions about a lot of things," Sharon Block, a professor of labor law and one of the signatories, told Axios, emphasizing that the professors signed the letter in a personal capacity — and aren't speaking for the school. It's addressed to students because they are scared, and to show professors share their concerns, she said. "A lot of the people who signed this letter are not big 'open letter' people," Benjamin M. Eidelson, another signatory, wrote in a statement to the Harvard Crimson. State of play: Other big names in the legal world have also spoken out against the administration's recent spate of executive orders, seen as retaliation against firms who've represented Trump opponents. The orders generally bar those firms from working for the federal government, and revoke security clearances. At least three prominent firms have filed suit against the White House. One, WilmerHale, is represented by conservative Supreme Court litigator Paul Clement. "If lawyers and law firms won't stand up for the rule of law, who will?" asks prominent litigator John Keker and his fellow senior partners at Keker, Van Nest, in an op-ed for the New York Times on Sunday. Where it stands: Over the past week, two pillars of Big Law, Paul Weiss and Skadden Arps, cut deals with the administration. Rather than file lawsuits or protest, they agreed to spend tens of millions on pro bono work. Zoom out: The letter from the law school professors is more mild than a similar missive from nearly 2,000 Big Law associates. But those younger lawyers signed anonymously. The law school professors never actually name the president. Instead, they list actions the White House has taken that they say threaten the rule of law, including: Singling "out lawyers and law firms for retribution"; Threatening firms "for their lawyers' pro bono work or prior government service"; Punishing "people for lawfully speaking out on matters of public concern." Between the lines: With Republicans in control of Congress, the main pushback on the Trump administration has been coming from the courts. But Trump has been pushing hard there — calling for judges to be impeached if they issue orders that disagree with the administration. Already, Biden-era officials and nonprofits told the Wall Street Journal they've had trouble finding lawyers to defend them.
