Campaign Spending Limits: Violating The First Constitution

In 1976, the United States Supreme Court ruled in Buckley v. Valeo that limiting campaign spending violated the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. The First Amendment provides that Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press. The Court determined that spending limits restrict the quantity of campaign speech by individuals, groups and candidates, and therefore violate the First Amendment. Since then, the Supreme Court's campaign finance jurisprudence has shifted, but the Buckley framework has generally been applied when determining whether a campaign finance limit violates the First Amendment.

Explore related products

Buying the Vote: A History of Campaign Finance Reform

$23.87 $51

The Campaign Finance Cases: Buckley, McConnell, Citizens United, and McCutcheon (Landmark Law Cases and American Society)

$20.67 $29.99

The Fallacy of Campaign Finance Reform

$29.17 $32

Citizens Divided: Campaign Finance Reform and the Constitution (The Tanner Lectures on Human Values)

$19.84 $32

Campaign Finance and Political Polarization: When Purists Prevail

$29.95

Campaign Finance Reform

$26.95

The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects freedom of speech and press

The First Amendment provides that "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press." This provision limits the government's power to restrict speech. The Supreme Court has interpreted the First Amendment to protect not only verbal and written expression but also symbolic speech, such as flag burning and wearing armbands. The Court has also held that the First Amendment protects the right to spend money to influence elections, as spending money on political expression is a form of speech.

In Buckley, the Court determined that limits on campaign contributions, which involve giving money to an entity, and expenditures, which involve spending money directly for electoral advocacy, implicate rights of political expression and association under the First Amendment. The Court concluded that contributions and expenditures facilitate speech and therefore cannot be regulated as mere conduct. The Court's decision in Buckley has been influential in shaping the law surrounding campaign finance and the First Amendment.

However, it is important to note that the Supreme Court's campaign finance jurisprudence has shifted over the years. While the basic Buckley framework has generally been applied, the Court has also issued decisions that have narrowed or expanded the scope of the First Amendment in the context of campaign finance. For example, in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the Court held that limits on independent spending by corporations and other outside groups equate to limiting their speech and thus violate the First Amendment. The Court's decision in Citizens United expanded the rights of corporations and outside groups to spend money on political expression.

Campaign spending limits violate the First Amendment by restricting the quantity of campaign speech

The Court held that limits on campaign contributions "served the government's interest in safeguarding the integrity of elections". However, it determined that spending limits "restrict the quantity of campaign speech by individuals, groups, and candidates", thus violating the First Amendment. The justices who decided Citizens United held that independent spending could not pose a substantial risk of corruption on the erroneous assumption that the money wouldn't be under the control of any single candidate or party.

Although the Supreme Court's campaign finance jurisprudence has shifted over the years, the basic Buckley framework has generally been applied when determining whether a campaign finance limit violates the First Amendment.

The Supreme Court's Buckley framework is used to determine if a campaign finance limit violates the First Amendment

The Court held that limits on campaign contributions "served the government's interest in safeguarding the integrity of elections". However, the Court determined that spending limits "restrict the quantity of campaign speech by individuals, groups and candidates", thus violating the First Amendment. The justices who decided Citizens United held that independent spending could not pose a substantial risk of corruption on the erroneous assumption that the money wouldn't be under the control of any single candidate or party.

Explore related products

Campaign Finance: What Everyone Needs to Know®

$12.77 $16.95

The New Campaign Finance Sourcebook

$31.83

Unfree Speech: The Folly of Campaign Finance Reform

$52.25 $55

Campaign Finance & American Democracy: What the Public Really Thinks and Why It Matters

$2.99 $32

Campaign Finance Reform and the Future of the Democratic Party

$28.99 $28.99

Money, Politics, and the First Amendment: Fifty Years of Supreme Court Decisions and Campaign Finance Reforms

$29.99

The Supreme Court ruled in 1976 that limits on campaign contributions and expenditures implicate First Amendment rights

In 1976, the Supreme Court ruled that limits on campaign contributions and expenditures implicate First Amendment rights. The case, known as Buckley v. Valeo, determined that limits on campaign contributions and expenditures violate the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. The First Amendment provides that "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press". This provision limits the government's power to restrict speech.

The Supreme Court held that limits on campaign contributions and expenditures restrict the quantity of campaign speech by individuals, groups, and candidates. They determined that contributions and expenditures facilitate speech and, therefore, cannot be regulated as mere conduct. The Court's decision was based on the idea that limits on independent spending from corporations and other outside groups equate to limiting their speech. This ruling built on a previous decision from 1971, which established contribution and spending limits for federal campaigns. The court held that these limits "served the government's interest in safeguarding the integrity of elections".

The Supreme Court's campaign finance jurisprudence has shifted over the years, but the basic Buckley framework has generally been applied when determining whether a campaign finance limit violates the First Amendment.

Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote that limits on independent spending from corporations violate the First Amendment

In 1976, the United States Supreme Court ruled in Buckley v. Valeo that political campaign spending limits violated the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides that “Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press”. In Buckley, the Court determined that limits on campaign contributions and expenditures implicate rights of political expression and association under the First Amendment. The Court concluded that they cannot be regulated as mere conduct.

Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for the narrow majority that limits on independent spending from corporations and other outside groups equate to limiting their speech and thus violate the First Amendment. Kennedy believed that spending money in elections is speech protected by the First Amendment and consistently voted to strike down campaign-finance laws. In Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the court held in 2010 that corporations have the right to spend unlimited sums in independent expenditures from corporate treasuries to have candidates elected or defeated. Kennedy's opinion for the majority also noted that because the First Amendment does not distinguish between media and other corporations, these restrictions would allow Congress to suppress political speech in newspapers, books, television, and blogs.

Frequently asked questions