ON-Lion Letter

On January 30, 1976, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down Buckley v. Valeo, still its most-important decision at the intersection of campaign finance and the First Amendment.  The Court brought forth a per curiam opinion that invalidated significant parts of the 1974 amendments to the Federal Election Campaign Act.  The Buckley Court denied Congress the power to limit campaign spending.  But not completely.  The same Court decided Congress could restrict contributions to candidates to prevent quid pro quo corruption or "the appearance of corruption."  Giving citizens an "equal voice" in elections, however, could not justify suppressing speech.

Buckley v. Valeo pleased few.  Free-speech advocates lamented the limits on spending imposed through contribution limits.  Later, they would criticize the ever-broadening concept of corruption used to justify ever more restrictions on speech.  Advocates of regulation thought money had little to do with speech, but a lot to do with inequality.  Political realists thought unlimited spending funded by limited contributions would eventually prove unworkable.

Yet Buckley did not fall.  It remains a vital precedent that restrains and empowers Congress.  But should Buckley be considered a First Amendment failure?  Or did it embrace inevitable compromises that were both worse and better than everyone desired?  How does Buckley affect the law and American politics and campaigning today?  Does the decision have a future?

In January, the Center for Competitive Politics (CCP) and the Cato Institute co-sponsored an event in Washington, D.C., on "The Past and Future of Buckley v. Valeo."  It is viewable on C-SPAN's website, in Parts 1, 2, and 3.

The Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation in Milwaukee substantially supports CCP and Cato projects.

Actions: E-mail | Permalink |