Back in 2010, the Supreme Court held in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission that Congress cannot limit expenditures in political campaigns as long as the spender, who might be an individual or an organization, including a corporation or union, is not affiliated with or acting in concert with the candidate or political party. The Court held that such “independent” expenditures are not campaign donations, which can be regulated. These “independent expenditure-only committees” are better known today as Super PACs. Super PACs may raise unlimited sums of money from corporations, unions, associations and individuals, then spend unlimited sums to overtly advocate for or against political candidates. Unlike traditional PACs, Super PACs are prohibited from donating money directly to political candidates.

While Super PACs were originally thought of as an unfair vehicle for the Republican Party Democrats have somersaulted onto the Super PAC bandwagon. In fact, Democratic Super PAC contributions outstripped Republican contributions by roughly $65 million in 2014, according to the figures compiled by the Sunlight Foundation’s Real-Time Federal Campaign Finance tracker.

And just yesterday a new and controversial face has become band leader. As reported by the New York Times:

Hillary Rodham Clinton will begin personally courting donors for a “super PAC” supporting her candidacy, the first time a Democratic presidential candidate has fully embraced these independent groups that can accept unlimited checks from big donors and are already playing a major role in the 2016 race.

Clinton’s new stance on Super PACs has not gone unnoticed. While not directly attempting to discredit Clinton, Sen. Bernie Sanders, another Democratic presidential prospect, has stated he would not make use of a Super PAC due to his belief that the American political system gives outsize influence to millionaires and billionaires. Sanders went on to say:

“Let me say it this way: If elected president, I will have a litmus test in terms of my nominee to be a Supreme Court justice, and that nominee will say that we are going to overturn this disastrous Supreme Court decision on Citizens United.”

A new Supreme Court Justice? Lets us make a suggestion: Judge Richard A. Posner.

In the Becker-Posner Blog, the Great Judge Posner acknowledged why some candidates may benefit from Super PACs: new entrant candidates may have an informational disadvantage against opponents belonging to a well-known “political dynasty” (think the Bush or Clinton or Kennedy dynasties). However, he goes on to argue that given the emergence of new media in the Internet era. The Internet greatly reduces the expense of disseminating information and that nowadays most people are getting political information from social media, blogs, tweets, and other modes of communication. Therefore, the Super PACs need not be relied on in order to help candidates.

However, Posner’s real beef with Super PACs is that it “is difficult to see what practical difference there is between super PAC donations and direct campaign donations, from a corruption standpoint.” He calls the Supreme Court naive for reasoning in Citizens United that the risk of corruption would be slight if the donor was not contributing to a candidate or a political party, but merely expressing his political preferences through an independent organization such as a Super PAC—an organization neither controlled by nor even coordinating with a candidate or political party.

He concludes that:

It thus is difficult to see what practical difference there is between super PAC donations and direct campaign donations, from a corruption standpoint. A super PAC is a valuable weapon for a campaign . . . the donors to it are known; and it is unclear why they should expect less quid pro quo from their favored candidate if he’s successful than a direct donor to the candidate’s campaign would be.

Since United Citizen and Posner’s blog post, he has not had any opportunity to address Super PACs in the legal realm. However his words cannot go unnoticed. As one commentator has noted “It’s not that Posner’s comments will sway votes, after all he’s not exactly a celebrity. But the people paying attention to him will shape the direction of the law for decades to come. And if a leading conservative thinker has lost respect for the GOP, that’s worth noticing.”

This may mean that Posner himself and any Republican Party members he may have influenced, have been pushed towards Democratic Party lines as the party has traditionally been against Super PACs. However, Clinton’s new-found support for Super PACs clearly clashes with Posner’s view. It seems now that Posner and his followers cannot support either party.