Facts of the Case
In the wake of the Watergate affair, Congress attempted to ferret out corruption in political campaigns by restricting financial contributions to candidates. Among other things, the law set limits on the amount of money an individual could contribute to a single campaign and it required reporting of contributions above a certain threshold amount. The Federal Election Commission was created to enforce the statute.
Questions
Did the limits placed on electoral expenditures by the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, and related provisions of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, violate the First Amendment's freedom of speech and association clauses?
Conclusions
-
In this complicated case, the Court arrived at two important conclusions. First, it held that restrictions on individual contributions to political campaigns and candidates did not violate the First Amendment since the limitations of the FECA enhance the "integrity of our system of representative democracy" by guarding against unscrupulous practices. Second, the Court found that governmental restriction of independent expenditures in campaigns, the limitation on expenditures by candidates from their own personal or family resources, and the limitation on total campaign expenditures did violate the First Amendment. Since these practices do not necessarily enhance the potential for corruption that individual contributions to candidates do, the Court found that restricting them did not serve a government interest great enough to warrant a curtailment on free speech and association.
Buckley v. Valeo [SCOTUSbrief]
Short video featuring Michael Dimino
In the wake of the Watergate scandal, Congress passed several amendments to the Federal Election...
Buckley v. Valeo Revisited
Free Speech & Election Law Practice Group Newsletter - Volume 3, Issue 3, Winter 2000
Remarks of Professor Joel M. Gora at the Federalist Society's September 1999 Conference Editor's Note:...
Drafting Buckley v. Valeo: The Court, Liberty and Politics
The Supreme Court’s decision in Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976)(per curiam) frustrates reformers...
SpeechNow.org and the Paradox of Buckley v. Valeo
The right to free speech, including the right to speak out about who should be...
Liberty Month Revisited: It's Buckley Not Citizens United that Created Massive Spending
This month we are sharing a selection of paired pieces from The Federalist Society's Liberty...
Docket Watch: Lair v. Mangan
Is the Supreme Court of the United States set to expand First Amendment protection for...
A Practitioner's View of Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee v. Federal Election Commission
Free Speech & Election Law Practice Group Newsletter - Volume 1, Issue 1, Fall 1996
The Supreme Court decision in Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee v. Federal Election Commission may...
The FEC's Assault on the First Amendment
Free Speech & Election Law Practice Group Newsletter - Volume 1, Issue 1, Fall 1996
The Federal Election Commission's well-publicized lawsuit against the Christian Coalition brings to light the 20-year...
Docket Watch: 1A Auto, Inc. v. Sullivan
Can a state ban employers–but not unions-from making political contributions?
Massachusetts law bans for-profit corporations and other business entities from contributing to political candidates and...
Open Questions in Lieu v. Federal Election Commission: Due Process, Adverseness, & Article III Standing
Federalist Society Review, Volume 21
Note from the Editor: The Federalist Society takes no positions on particular legal and public...
Michigan Issue Ad Ruling Reinforces Constitutional Protections
Free Speech & Election Law Practice Group Newsletter - Volume 2, Issue 3, Winter 1998
Will the "campaign reformers" ever learn? Time after time federal courts have struck down restrictions...
Bailey v. Maine Commission on Governmental Ethics: Another Step Toward the End of Political Privacy
Engage Volume 14, Issue 2 July 2013
Note from the Editor: This article discusses the Bailey v. Maine Commission on Governmental Ethics...
A Constitutional Campaign Finance Plan
Free Speech & Election Law Practice Group Newsletter - Volume 2, Issue 1, Spring 1998
Reprinted with permission of The Wall Street Journal © 1997 Dow Jones & Company, Inc....
Campaign Finance: What Role for the Parties?
Free Speech & Election Law Practice Group Newsletter - Volume 1, Issue 1, Fall 1996
Coming in the midst of a season of unprecedented political spending, the Supreme Court's Colorado...
Free Speech and the Christian Coalition Case
Free Speech & Election Law Practice Group Newsletter - Volume 3, Issue 2, Summer 1999
After an intensive investigation, extensive discovery, and lengthy briefing, on August 2nd, Judge Joyce Hens...
Defending First Principles and Missing a Golden Opportunity
Free Speech & Election Law Practice Group Newsletter - Volume 2, Issue 3, Winter 1998
In Toledo Area AFL-CIO v. Pizza, 154 F.3d 307 (6th Cir. 1998), the Sixth Circuit...
Buckley v. Valeo: Jim Buckley’s Finest Hour
Like so many, I was saddened to learn of the August 18 passing of James...
Deep Dive Episode 65 – Subdelegations of Rulemaking Power and the Appointments Clause
Regulatory Transparency Project and Administrative Law & Regulation Practice Group Teleforum
TeleforumA Landmark Decision Turns 40: A Conversation on Buckley v. Valeo
Brooklyn Law School Subotnick Center, 10th Floor 250 Joralemon St.Brooklyn, 11201