An increasingly important fraction of the United States Supreme Court — the “originalists” — believes it should interpret the Constitution in the way its Framers would have interpreted it.

We believe that we can show that such an approach must reject any constitutional protection for super PACs.

In Citizens United, the Supreme Court held that corporations (and unions and rich people generally) can spend unlimited amounts of money supporting or opposing a political candidate — just as long as they do it “independently” of the candidate’s campaign.

Based on that decision, a lower court held that if the First Amendment meant you could spend unlimited amounts independently, it must also mean you can give unlimited amounts to an independent political action committee.

That decision created the super PAC. And that decision — we believe we can show — is not consistent with the Constitution, at least as an originalist would read it.

Working with citizens in Alaska — where state law gives citizens the right to demand election law be enforced — we want to take this question to the Supreme Court: What would the Framers have said about super PACs? If we can get even just one originalist to agree with us that the Framers would have hated super PACs as much as we do, then with the other four justices who have already indicated they oppose super PACs, we could end super PACs once and for all.