In the 1976 U.S. Supreme Court decision Buckley v. Valeo, the court ruled on the constitutionality of key provisions of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1974 (FECA). The high court upheld the constitutionality of the limits on individual contributions to federal campaigns and candidates. The high court also upheld the requirement that candidates disclose the amount of campaign contributions and the names of contributors. The high court, however, found that the First Amendment prohibited Congress from limiting the size of independent political expenditures and also precluded limits on personal spending by candidates in general elections (except in presidential elections when candidates agree to accept public funding).
The decision had significant impact on political campaigns because it permitted interest groups to run their own independent campaign ads in opposition to presidential candidates, leading to the formation and multiplication of political action committees (PACs) and other political groups that acted independently (though often with the silent approval) of the actual political candidates. During the Campaign of 1988, for example, an independent group, the National Security Political Action Committee, produced and funded the airing of the instantly controversial and now infamous Willie Horton ad. During the Campaign of 2004, an independent group called the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth produced and paid to air the Swift Boat ads that criticized Democratic nominee John Kerry’s service record in the Vietnam War; the ad campaign became known as swift boating. Similarly, the independent group MoveOn funded numerous television and print ads attacking President George W. Bush during this campaign. In the Campaign of 2008, the American Issues Project spent over $2 million to produce and broadcast the Bill Ayers ads, alleging that Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama had a close relationship with a former radical associated with the Weather Underground, a violent antiwar group that had bombed government buildings in protest of the Vietnam War. Decades later, in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010), the U.S. Supreme Court held that the First Amendment prohibited Congress from limiting involvement of a nonprofit corporation in a political campaign. The decision meant that independent groups now could raise unlimited funds and could use those funds to directly advocate for or against the election of a candidate for federal office. During the 2012 presidential campaign, the most active and well-funded independent super PACs were Restore Our Future and American Crossroads, in support of Republican nominee Mitt Romney, and Priorities USA Action, supporting President Obama’s reelection efforts. These and other groups were not officially linked to either candidate’s campaign, but they did fund activities and advertisements in pursuit of their respective election. In the early phase of the campaign for 2016, the number of super PACs has continued to proliferate, often beginning their fund-raising and expenditure efforts well in advance of a candidate’s official announcement. While these events have happened long after the Buckley decision and in part as a consequence of later cases and developments, many constitutional scholars credit Buckley v. Valeo for laying the foundation for the Citizens United decision.
See also Campaign Finance Reform
Banks, Christopher P., and John Clifford Green. Superintending Democracy: The Courts and the Political Process. Akron, OH: University of Akron Press, 2001.
“Congressional Campaign Finance: History, Facts, and Controversy.” Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly, 1992.
MoveOn.Org. 2004 MoveOn PAC Action Archive. http://pol.moveon.org/archive. Accessed September 22, 2015.