The Buckley v. Valeo Decision of 1976

The Buckley v. Valeo ruling of 1976 was a pivotal Supreme Court decision that shaped modern campaign finance law in the United States. The case emerged from challenges to the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) of 1971 and its 1974 amendments, which were passed in the wake of the Watergate scandal to address corruption and enhance transparency in federal elections. Congress had concluded, by overwhelming majority, a set of regulations to prevent corruption with the passage of the FECA Amendments. 

The Supreme Court’s decision in Buckley v. Valeo addressed the constitutionality of the Amendments, and a year after enactment, effectively overruled the will of Congress and the American people, with a ruling significantly weakening key aspects of the law including the spending limits. The ruling connected money with speech, allowing unlimited money in politics and removing restrictions on spending by outside groups.  

The case was one of the first major legal challenges to modern campaign finance laws. It addressed fundamental questions about the balance between regulating money in politics and protecting constitutional freedoms, setting the stage for decades of legal and political debate over campaign finance reform. 

In 1975, a group of plaintiffs, including Senator James L. Buckley (R-NY) and former Democratic presidential candidate Eugene McCarthy, filed a lawsuit in federal court. The plaintiffs argued that the FECA’s contribution and expenditure limits, along with the structure of the FEC, violated their constitutional rights, particularly free speech and equal protection. The key questions before the court were: 

1. Are limits on contributions to candidates constitutional? 

2. Can the government cap how much candidates spend on their own campaigns or overall campaign expenditures? 

3. Can individuals or groups be restricted from spending money independently to support or oppose candidates? 

4. Are provisions for public funding of presidential campaigns constitutional? 

5. Does the method of appointing FEC commissioners violate the separation of powers? 

The Court ruled that limits on contributions to candidates were constitutional because they served a compelling government interest in preventing actual corruption and the appearance of corruption in the political process. Contributions directly link donors to candidates, creating a potential for quid pro quo corruption. The Court found that limiting contributions did not overly burden free speech, as organizations and the donor class could buy politicians in other ways. 

The Court invalidated limits on candidates’ overall campaign expenditures and on personal spending from their own funds, as the limits were seen as a direct restriction on political expression and communication. Political spending was equated with political speech, as it enables candidates to disseminate their views to the public. Their rationale was, unlike contributions, independent expenditures posed less risk of corruption because they were not coordinated with candidates. The decision also changed the ways in which Congress appointed commissioners of the FEC and weakened spending and disclosure rules. 

Justice White led in opposition to the ruling with a strong dissent, stating that allowing unlimited political spending was a “mortal danger”, arguing that limits on expenditures were necessary to achieve the same anti-corruption goals that justified contribution limits. He expressed strong concerns that striking down expenditure limits undermined the broader purpose of the law; to ensure fairness in the electoral process and reduce the influence of wealth in politics. He believed that unlimited expenditures, even from a candidate’s personal funds, could create undue disparities between candidates and distort democratic competition. Justice White highlighted the importance of limiting the role of money in elections to create a level playing field, ensuring that candidates could compete based on their ideas rather than their financial resources. “ 

In a narrow decision, led by the new Justice Lewis Powell, the Court effectively decided to protect money and give those with it a distinct advantage in federal elections, concluding that preventing corruption was less important than the opinion of those with money. This decision set precedent for future campaign finance challenges and additional weakening of our anti-corruption laws.