Note: This is an educational course, not legal advice.
Running for office costs money: for ads, staff and travel. Laws that limit raising or spending money for elections therefore affect political speech, the speech the First Amendment protects most. Congress and the states have tried to limit money to prevent corruption, and the Court has drawn lines that both sides of the debate argue about. You met the basics in Civics: campaign finance.
Why it works
Thirty-four years later, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010) held 5 to 4 that the government may not ban corporations and unions from spending their own money independently on election speech; it overruled Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce (1990) and part of McConnell v. FEC (2003). The case began with a nonprofit corporation's film about a presidential candidate. By 8 to 1, the Court upheld the disclaimer and disclosure rules. McCutcheon v. FEC (2014) struck down aggregate limits on how much one donor could give to all candidates combined. The debate. Supporters of these rulings say that the First Amendment protects political speech whoever pays for it, that independent spending does not corrupt candidates, and that limits favor incumbents and the media. Critics, including the Citizens United dissent (Justice Stevens), say that large spending gives some voices outsized influence, that corporations are not people in the same sense, and that the appearance of corruption harms public trust. Both views are held by serious scholars and judges.
| Rule | Buckley (1976) | Later |
|---|---|---|
| Limits on contributions to candidates | upheld | still valid; very low limits can fail (Randall v. Sorrell, 2006) |
| Limits on independent expenditures | struck down | Citizens United (2010) extended this to corporations and unions |
| Disclosure and disclaimers | mostly upheld | upheld in Citizens United |
Key idea
Buckley v. Valeo (1976) upheld contribution limits (anti-corruption interest) but struck down expenditure limits (direct limits on speech). Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010), 5 to 4, held corporations and unions may spend independently on elections; disclosure rules have mostly been upheld.
Worked example: Which line?
A state caps how much a person may give directly to a governor's campaign at 2,000 dollars, and separately caps how much a person may spend on her own independent ads supporting the governor at 5,000 dollars. Which cap is vulnerable?
- The cap on contributions to the campaign fits Buckley's holding: it serves the anti-corruption interest.
- The cap on independent spending limits the quantity of speech directly; Buckley struck such limits down.
Answer: The independent-spending cap.
Worked example: Disclosure
After Citizens United, may Congress require an ad paid for by a corporation to say who paid for it?
- Citizens United, by 8 to 1, upheld disclaimer and disclosure requirements.
- Disclosure burdens speech less and helps voters evaluate it.
Answer: Yes; disclaimers and disclosure were upheld.
Common mistake
Thinking Buckley treated contributions and expenditures the same. It distinguished them: contribution limits survive more easily because of the risk of corruption (a contribution goes to the candidate); limits on independent expenditures directly restrict speech and fell.