Campaigns cost money: ads, staff, travel. After the Watergate scandal, Congress strengthened the rules. Today's rules come from laws and from Supreme Court cases about the First Amendment, the same freedom of speech you studied.
| Law or case | Year | What it did |
|---|---|---|
| Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) | 1971; amended 1974 | Required disclosure of contributions; the 1974 amendments set limits and created the Federal Election Commission (FEC) |
| Buckley v. Valeo | 1976 | Limits on contributions to candidates are allowed; limits on candidates' own spending and on independent expenditures are not: spending money to communicate is protected speech |
| Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (McCain-Feingold) | 2002 | Banned national parties' unlimited "soft money" and limited some corporate and union-funded ads before elections |
| Citizens United v. FEC | 2010, 5–4 | The government may not ban independent election spending by corporations and unions |
| Super PACs | after 2010 | Groups that may raise and spend unlimited amounts, but only independently: they may not give to or coordinate with candidates |
Why it works
The debate turns on two values. Supporters of limits say large sums can buy influence, or look as if they do, and drown out ordinary voters; the Court has accepted preventing corruption and its appearance as a reason for contribution limits. Opponents say political speech costs money, and limiting spending limits speech; the government should not decide how much speech is too much. Disclosure has drawn wider support: most donations to candidates and parties must be reported, so voters can see who gives. Contribution limits still apply: for 2025 and 2026, an individual may give a federal candidate up to 3,500 dollars per election (primary and general count separately), an amount the FEC adjusts for inflation.
Key idea
Federal law limits and requires disclosure of contributions (FECA, 1971; BCRA, 2002). Buckley v. Valeo (1976) treated spending as protected speech; Citizens United (2010) held government may not limit independent spending by corporations and unions, which led to super PACs. Direct contributions to candidates are still limited.
Worked example: Allowed?
After Citizens United, may a corporation give 1 million dollars directly to a Senate candidate's campaign?
- Citizens United concerned independent spending, not contributions to candidates.
- Direct corporate contributions to federal candidates remain banned, and individual gifts are capped.
Answer: No.
Worked example: Independent or coordinated?
A super PAC plans its ads together with a candidate's campaign manager. Is that allowed?
- Super PACs may spend without limit only if they act independently.
- Coordinating with the campaign breaks that rule.
Answer: No; super PACs may not coordinate with candidates.
Common mistake
Thinking Citizens United allows unlimited donations directly to candidates. Direct contributions are still limited; the ruling concerned independent spending. Check: is the money given to the candidate, or spent separately?