Ramtin Arablui and Randa Abdelfattah

Starting in the late 1970s, the Indiana attorney represented a number of conservative groups, and that led him to fighting for how they used their money to get their messages out.

And in the 2000s, he had become the go-to guy for campaign finance cases.

For Jim Bob, the more speech, the better.

Meaning the more ads telling you what a candidate believes or what others believe about them, the better.

His arguments boil down to four points.

This is Henrik Schatzinger.

Professor of political science at Reppin College in Wisconsin.

And he has a book coming out called Super PACs in the City.

His first argument is that ordinary people should be able to pool money in groups to really compete.

So he frames the decision or the case as one that will level the playing field.

So in other words, if a super rich person wanted to run for office, under the law, they could spend whatever money they wanted to run ads.

Bob argued that regular people would be forced to pool their money together to equal one rich person's buying power.

So groups of people, including corporations, unions or political action committees, should be able to do just that.

His second argument is that the campaign finance laws are really about protecting incumbents.

Incumbents had name recognition in war chests.

Challengers often relied on smaller donations.

His third point, he argues that the laws are so complex and confusing that they can become a deterrent for people to run for office.

And the last argument he makes is about civic courage.

He argues that you should not need a lawyer and a stomach for harassment to really support the cause.

He casts enforcement as intimidation.