Buckley v. Valeo
"Buckley v. Valeo" was a landmark 1976 Supreme Court case that upheld limits on campaign contributions but struck down limits on campaign spending. The case also established the principle that spending money on political campaigns is a form of protected free speech under the First Amendment. This decision has had a significant impact on campaign finance laws and regulations in the United States.
5 Key excerpts on "Buckley v. Valeo"
eBook - ePubThe 25 Issues that Shape American Politics
Debates, Differences, and Divisions
- Michael Kryzanek, Ann K. Karreth(Authors)
- 2017(Publication Date)
- Routledge(Publisher)
...In 1976 in a landmark decision on campaign finance (Buckley v. Valeo), the Supreme Court struck down the section of the 1972 Federal Election Campaign Law that sought to place a limit on the personal contributions that individuals running for office could spend on their campaign. The Court also struck down sections of the 1972 law that set limits on overall spending and on contributions by private groups. In the decision, the Court invoked the First Amendment stating, “The candidate, no less than any other person, has a First Amendment right to engage in the discussion of public issues and vigorously and tirelessly to advocate his own election.” The use of the First Amendment free speech argument as a basis for campaign contributions gave Congress the opportunity to avoid sweeping financial reform or moving to comprehensive public financing of elections. Spending one’s own money or permitting individuals, corporations, or other entities to write campaign checks was seen as part of the constitutional protection of free speech, since providing money to candidates was another form of political expression. 4 While the Buckley decision weakened the 1972 law considerably, for a time it did place some limits on individual contributions, especially from major donors. Quickly, though, loopholes in the law were found that allowed money to be given to political parties, rather than to candidates. This so-called “soft money” became the avenue for huge contributions from wealthy donors and continued the process of unrelenting spending on federal campaigns...
eBook - ePubCampaigns and Elections American Style
The Changing Landscape of Political Campaigns
- Candice J. Nelson, James A. Thurber, Candice J. Nelson, James A. Thurber, David A Dulio(Authors)
- 2018(Publication Date)
- Routledge(Publisher)
...According to Ortiz, Simply put, the Court believed that a candidate could become beholden to a contributor but not to someone who merely expended monies on his or her behalf. If expenditures could not indebt a candidate to a voter, they could never give rise to even the appearance of corruption. 15 Buckley was significant largely because it established a long-standing set of boundaries for which contribution, spending, and disclosure mechanisms were constitutionally valid. From a policy perspective, Buckley continues to influence which options realistically can be pursued—namely that, although contributions can be limited and reasonable disclosure can be required, spending generally cannot be limited. The distinction between “express advocacy,” which explicitly calls for election or defeat of a candidate (especially in political advertising), and “issue advocacy,” which at least ostensibly concerns policy issues rather than electoral outcomes, also took root in Buckley. All these topics would become major issues of debate for the next 40 years, ultimately building to the 2010 Citizens United decision. The court’s interpretation of constitutionally permissible limits on contributions but to permit no such limits on independent spending, is perhaps the most fundamental factor shaping the campaign environment of the past half-century. Citizens United provided new opportunities for noncandidate groups to spend money affecting elections, but Buckley enabled independent spending in the first place. Outside Money and Outside Advertising as Emerging Policy Concerns After Buckley, Congress occasionally made narrow amendments to FECA, but the law remained largely untouched for almost 30 years. It would be a mistake, however, to believe that nothing happened in campaign finance law and policy between 1976 and 2002 (when BCRA was enacted) or 2010 (when Citizens United was decided)...
eBook - ePubAmerican Government
Political Development and Institutional Change
- Cal Jillson(Author)
- 2019(Publication Date)
- Routledge(Publisher)
...Valeo, declared provisions of the 1974 FECA amendments limiting the amounts that candidates could contribute to their own campaigns to be unconstitutional limitations on free speech. The court also held that political action committees (PACs) and other groups, as long as they did not coordinate their activities with a candidate’s campaign, could spend as much as they wanted on campaign activities. In 1979, Congress passed amendments to FECA permitting political parties to raise unlimited amounts of money for party building, voter registration, and voter turnout activities. These unrestricted funds were referred to as soft money. During the 1990s, these and other holes in the campaign finance system allowed a flood of barely regulated money into presidential elections and spawned a movement for additional reform. In 1992 and 1996, Ross Perot drew on his extensive personal fortune to finance presidential campaigns, and in 1996 Steve Forbes did the same. Meanwhile, the presence of unregulated soft money in presidential campaigns burgeoned from $86 million in 1992, to $262 million in 1996, to $495 million in 2000. To many, the FECA system seemed broken (see Figure 8.3). Buckley v. Valeo (1976) This decision declared provisions of the 1974 Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) limiting the amount that a candidate could contribute to his or her campaign to be an unconstitutional limitation on free speech. soft money Amendments to the FECA passed in 1979 allowed unlimited contribution to political parties for party building, voter registration, and voter turnout. AP Photo/Sipa USA Presidential candidates frequently campaign surrounded by their family because it is thought to soften and humanize them...
eBook - ePubContested Words
Legal Restrictions on Freedom of Speech in Liberal Democracies
- Ian Cram(Author)
- 2016(Publication Date)
- Routledge(Publisher)
...In Buckley v Valeo, the US Supreme Court stated that: The concept that the government may restrict the speech of some elements of our society in order to enhance the relative voice of others is wholly foreign to the First Amendment. 69 69 424 US 1, 48–9 (1976). As Sunstein has pointed out, economic inequalities are not the only factors which hinder citizens’ participation in political debate. A lack of education may also have this effect but even where educational inequalities were not present, economic inequalities would continue to limit opportunities for poorer speakers and deny audiences access to their opinions. See C Sunstein, ‘Political Equality and Unintended Consequences’ (1994) 94 Colum L Rev 1390. Expenditure limits, for example, could even give rise to the suspicion of favouritism on the part of the state towards less affluent groups’ political messages, and hostility to those emanating from the economically powerful. As such, this looks to be little different from viewpoint-based regulation of expression and, as such, presumptively unconstitutional. Soft Money and Issue Advertising – The Road to the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act 2002 Congress has long sought to tackle the reality and perception of corruption in political life...
eBook - ePubWhen Freedom Speaks
The Boundaries and the Boundlessness of Our First Amendment Right
- Lynn Greenky(Author)
- 2022(Publication Date)
- Brandeis University Press(Publisher)
...However, following Citizens United, the Supreme Court expanded contribution options by lifting the aggregate limit a donor could spend supporting multiple candidates. In McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission 14 the court held that limiting the aggregate amount of contributions in a two-year political cycle is unconstitutional. In that case, Shaun McCutcheon donated a total of $33,088 to sixteen different federal candidates. He wanted to donate money to an additional twelve candidates, but if he did so, he would outspend aggregate contribution limits and run afoul of the FECA as amended by the BCRA. The aggregate limit, he argued, unconstitutionally restricted speech. The Supreme Court agreed and held that aggregate limits on contributions did not advance the anticorruption rationale underlying campaign finance laws. The decision did not affect base limits on contributions from individuals to candidates; those remained restricted to avoid any appearance of undue influence paid for by political contributions directly to a candidate. Now, an individual can donate an amount up to the FEC ’s limits to any number of candidates running for federal office. 15 The result is that if a person wants to push the agenda of one political party, that individual can support every candidate running on that party’s ticket, surely amplifying the donor’s voice. In both Citizens United and McCutcheon, the court insisted that the amplification of some voices over the voices of others is constitutionally permissible. The First Amendment does not support an argument in favor of equalizing the participants’ voices in political debate. EXPENDITURES There is an undeniable relationship between contributions and expenditures in the political sphere. Politicians, political parties, and PAC s that are subject to contribution limits are not, for the most part, subject to restrictions on their express advocacy expenditures...
