The Supreme Court and Campaign Spending

Campaign spending is obviously one of the most contentious aspects of the US political process, and we often hear of proposals to limit expenditures as a way of leveling the playing field or promoting more moderate campaigns. Although we are used to discussing campaign finance laws proposed in or passed by Congress, the Supreme Court, in its role as interpreter of the US Constitution, plays a major role in regulating campaign finance. One of the United States Supreme Court’s most important cases deals with exactly that. The case is Buckley v. Valeo (1976), and it remains essential to understanding campaign finance laws today. The case involved aspects of Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (FECA), which had, among other things, limited both campaign donations made to candidates and candidates’ expenditure of their own money. I’ll spare you the legalese details, but in the end the Court ruled several provisions of FECA unconstitutional violations of the First Amendent’s protection of free speech. In its attempts to regulate election spending, the Congress had improperly infringed on the right to free expression.

1. The Court upheld limitations on campaign contributions. According to the Court, these limitations protect against “the reality of appearance of improper influence stemming from the dependence of candidates on large campaign contributions.” Although the Court remained uncomfortable regulating contributions, it felt that the government had an overriding interest in ”safeguarding the integrity of the elctoral process without directly impinging upon the rights of individual citizens and candidates to engage in political debate and discussion.”
2. The Court struck down limitations on total campaign spending. Although some people claimed that equalizing spending would create fairer elections, the Court explained that different campaigns often cost different sums, and a total spending cap could actually hurt less well-known candidates, who have to spend more to catch up to candidates with better name recognition. Finding that there is no overriding government interest in limiting campaign spending, the Court said it was a violation of the First Amendment.
3. The Court also ruled limiting candidates’ use of personal funds to be an unconstitutional violation of the First Amendment. Personal spending restrictions unnecessarily infringe upon a person’s right to spend his or her own money to engage in political debate.

In Buckly v. Valeo, the Court also ruled in favor of campaign donation disclosure rules and various other aspects of FECA. As the 2008 election cycle continues campaign donations will probably reach a record $1 billion. As we hear of more proposals to limit campaign spending and certain types of campaign speech, it is important to remember Buckley v. Valeo, and the Court’s reminder that the First Amendment plays a major role in political campaigns.