BUCKLEY V. VALEO (1976)

In Buckley v. Valeo, the Supreme Court held that limiting expenditures on a political campaign is an unconstitutional violation of the First Amendment’s protection of free speech. At issue were amendments to the Federal Election Campaign Finance Act, which sought to regulate spending and fundraising. Under this law, donors were limited to contributing up to $1,000 to a single candidate per each federal political race. The law also limited the amount a candidate could spend on her own campaign, requiring reporting on any contributions above this threshold.

In a per curiam decision, eight justices ruled that restrictions of independent expenditures are unconstitutional, as are limits on a candidate’s spending. The Court reasoned that permitting such practices would not necessarily lead to corruption—what Congress intended to prevent in passing the Federal Election Campaign Finance Act—so the government interest was not strong enough to justify curbing free speech.

The Court upheld restrictions on individual contributions to candidates, however, ruling that they don’t violate the First Amendment because they are designed to prevent the quid pro quo exchange of political campaign donations for favors, which would be anathema to the integrity of the democratic process.