{"id":41896,"date":"2026-02-24T07:15:00","date_gmt":"2026-02-24T15:15:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.lifeandnews.com\/articles\/?p=41896"},"modified":"2026-03-06T12:41:08","modified_gmt":"2026-03-06T20:41:08","slug":"50-years-ago-the-supreme-court-broke-campaign-finance-regulation","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.lifeandnews.com\/articles\/50-years-ago-the-supreme-court-broke-campaign-finance-regulation\/","title":{"rendered":"50 years ago, the Supreme Court broke campaign finance&nbsp;regulation"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/theconversation.com\/profiles\/john-j-martin-1505978\">John J. Martin<\/a>, <em><a href=\"https:\/\/theconversation.com\/institutions\/quinnipiac-university-2032\">Quinnipiac University<\/a><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>In 2024, spending on federal elections totaled <a href=\"https:\/\/www.opensecrets.org\/elections-overview\/cost-of-election\">almost US$15 billion<\/a> in the United States. The United Kingdom, in contrast, spent <a href=\"https:\/\/www.electoralcommission.org.uk\/media-centre\/general-election-spending-hits-record-high\">approximately $129 million<\/a> on its 2024 parliamentary elections \u2013 less than 1% of 2024 U.S. spending \u2013 despite having a population one-fifth the size of the U.S.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Indeed, most other democratic countries <a href=\"https:\/\/www.statista.com\/chart\/5371\/the-mammoth-cost-of-us-elections-in-context\/\">spend only a fraction<\/a> of what the U.S. does on their respective elections.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Why do U.S. elections cost so much?<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Many people may attribute the blame to <a href=\"https:\/\/www.brennancenter.org\/our-work\/research-reports\/citizens-united-explained\">Citizens United v. FEC<\/a>, the 2010 U.S. Supreme Court case that struck down corporate spending limits in elections.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Yet the source runs much deeper, to a case that marked its 50th anniversary in early 2026: <a href=\"https:\/\/tile.loc.gov\/storage-services\/service\/ll\/usrep\/usrep424\/usrep424001\/usrep424001.pdf\">Buckley v. Valeo<\/a>, a landmark case that established the modern framework for U.S. campaign finance regulation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-embed is-type-wp-embed is-provider-datawrapper wp-block-embed-datawrapper\"><div class=\"wp-block-embed__wrapper\">\n<iframe class=\"wp-embedded-content\" sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" title=\"Total cost of federal elections, 1998-2024\" src=\"https:\/\/datawrapper.dwcdn.net\/QXK5y\/3\/#?secret=2jVgqDGvQ2\" data-secret=\"2jVgqDGvQ2\" scrolling=\"no\" frameborder=\"0\" height=\"454\"><\/iframe>\n<\/div><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<h2>Big money\u2019s political influence<\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>For most of U.S. history, political spending was <a href=\"https:\/\/kansaspress.ku.edu\/9780700614035\/\">an unregulated practice<\/a>. In turn, big-moneyed interests wielded major influence over elections without any legal impediments.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>In the early 20th century, however, Congress began implementing small measures to rein in unfettered campaign finance. In 1907, for instance, Congress passed the <a href=\"https:\/\/firstamendment.mtsu.edu\/article\/tillman-act-of-1907\/\">Tillman Act<\/a>, which banned corporations from donating directly to candidates. By 1971, Congress had implemented the modern <a href=\"https:\/\/www.congress.gov\/bill\/92nd-congress\/senate-bill\/382\/text\">Federal Election Campaign Act<\/a>, or FECA, which initially just included disclosure and disclaimer requirements for candidates.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Nevertheless, following the Watergate scandal \u2013 which included <a href=\"https:\/\/www.nytimes.com\/1973\/10\/07\/archives\/watergate-hearings-phase-2-the-tricks-were-dirty-but-inept.html\">bags of cash and campaign dirty tricks<\/a> \u2013 Congress enacted the more comprehensive 1974 <a href=\"https:\/\/www.congress.gov\/bill\/93rd-congress\/senate-bill\/3044\">FECA Amendments<\/a> to more effectively restrain big money in American politics.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The FECA Amendments instituted, among other things, dollar limits on the amount of money individuals and political committees could contribute to federal candidates. Similarly, it limited the amount of money individuals could independently expend to support the election or defeat of a federal candidate.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Almost immediately, a number of politicians and other parties <a href=\"https:\/\/www.fec.gov\/legal-resources\/court-cases\/buckley-v-valeo\">filed suit<\/a> \u2013 including U.S. Sen. James Buckley, a New York conservative; former U.S. senator and 1968 presidential candidate Eugene McCarthy, a Minnesota Democrat; and the New York Civil Liberties Union \u2013 to challenge the amendments\u2019 constitutionality.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>They argued that the new laws restricted First Amendment freedoms of political speech and expression. Their argument was straightforward: If I can\u2019t spend as much as I want to support a candidate, I am unable to fully express my political views. The lawsuit ultimately ended up before the U.S. Supreme Court.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>On Jan. 30, 1976, the Supreme Court <a href=\"https:\/\/tile.loc.gov\/storage-services\/service\/ll\/usrep\/usrep424\/usrep424001\/usrep424001.pdf\">issued its opinion<\/a>. One of the lengthiest in U.S. history \u2013 294 pages in total \u2013 the opinion took an axe to the FECA and effectively reduced federal campaign finance law to a patchwork of laws and rules resembling regulatory Swiss cheese.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>In doing so, the court laid the groundwork for the development of the modern campaign finance system in the U.S.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2>Money is speech<\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>What did Buckley v. Valeo do?<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>For one, the court declared that limits on political contributions and expenditures, in fact, affect First Amendment interests. The court found limits on contributions to indirectly impact donors\u2019 right of expression, the idea being that a contribution to a candidate acts as an expression of support for them.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Contribution limits can furthermore directly infringe on candidates\u2019 speech rights if they are so low as to prevent the candidate from effectively campaigning, the court decided.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The court, meanwhile, found limits on political expenditures, such as spending money on a TV ad, to impose an even more direct constraint on speech rights. In the court\u2019s words, such limits reduce \u201cthe quantity of expression by restricting the number of issues discussed, the depth of their exploration, and the size of the audience reached.\u201d With this, the court embraced what its critics have dubbed the \u201c<a href=\"https:\/\/www.pbs.org\/newshour\/politics\/former-justice-stevens-campaign-money-isnt-speech\">money is speech<\/a>\u201d principle.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>So whenever a law constrains political speech, the government <a href=\"https:\/\/firstamendment.mtsu.edu\/article\/compelling-state-interest\/\">must justify it<\/a> via a \u201ccompelling\u201d state interest. Thus came the court\u2019s second major move via the Buckley decision: narrowly defining the government\u2019s interest in regulating money in politics.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Specifically, the court recognized only one compelling state interest in restricting political spending: preventing quid pro quo corruption \u2013 the exchange of money for political favors. With this, the court outright rejected that the government had a serious, broader interest in promoting political equality, <a href=\"https:\/\/www.google.com\/books\/edition\/Buying_the_Vote\/7ljBAwAAQBAJ?hl=en&amp;gbpv=1&amp;dq=BUYING+THE+VOTE:A+HISTORY+OF+CAMPAIGN+FINANCE+REFORM&amp;pg=PA143\">one of the driving forces<\/a> behind the passage of the 1974 FECA Amendments.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Applying this framework, the court upheld federal limits on contributions to candidates because directly giving money to politicians carries a risk of quid pro quo.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>In contrast, the court invalidated FECA\u2019s limits on independently made political expenditures \u2013 expenditures made on a candidate\u2019s behalf but not in coordination with the candidate. In the court\u2019s view, if somebody spends money to support a candidate without coordinating with that candidate, no corruption concern exists \u2013 <a href=\"https:\/\/campaignlegal.org\/update\/voters-need-know-what-redboxing-and-how-it-undermines-democracy\">an assumption that remains widely disputed<\/a>. Thus, Congress had no compelling interest to limit political advocacy via expenditures.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-image\"><img src=\"https:\/\/images.theconversation.com\/files\/719446\/original\/file-20260219-62-st28ng.jpg?ixlib=rb-4.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;fit=clip\" alt=\"A man in a sports jacket and tie, gives thumbs up as he stands behind a lectern featuring microphones.\"\/><figcaption>Conservative James L. Buckley, whose name is on the crucial Supreme Court case Buckley v. Valeo, claims victory in the 1970 race for Senate from New York. <a href=\"https:\/\/www.gettyimages.com\/detail\/news-photo\/new-york-ny-conservative-james-l-buckley-gives-the-thumbs-news-photo\/515993300?adppopup=true\">Bettman\/Getty Images<\/a><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<h2>Unlimited sums<\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>While a product of 1970s lawmaking, the Buckley decision has played a major role in shaping modern U.S. politics. Its impact on how lawmakers can \u2013 and cannot \u2013 regulate money in politics endures today.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The most pronounced effect of Buckley has been the proliferation of spending <a href=\"https:\/\/www.opensecrets.org\/outside-spending\">by outside groups<\/a> making those independent expenditures.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Buckley\u2019s invalidation of independent-expenditure limits applied only to limits on individuals. But the Supreme Court has since extended Buckley\u2019s logic to spending by organizations. In Citizens United in 2010, <a href=\"https:\/\/tile.loc.gov\/storage-services\/service\/ll\/usrep\/usrep558\/usrep558310\/usrep558310.pdf\">the court held<\/a> that the government had no compelling interest in limiting independent expenditures made by entities such as corporations, unions or political action committees \u2013 PACs \u2013 that do not coordinate with candidates, known today as super PACs.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Shortly following the Citizens United decision, a federal appellate court <a href=\"https:\/\/www.fec.gov\/resources\/legal-resources\/litigation\/speechnow_ac_opinion.pdf\">applied Citizens United<\/a> to strike down limits on contributions to super PACs, the idea being they could not engage in corruption if they were not coordinating with candidates.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Donors were now free to give unlimited sums of money to super PACs, which were free to spend unlimited sums of money to influence elections. Each passing election since then has seen untold super PAC spending, peaking at <a href=\"https:\/\/www.opensecrets.org\/outside-spending?type=A&amp;filter=S\">over $2.6 billion<\/a> in 2024.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2>Enter dark money<\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>Super PACs are only one part of the modern political landscape, though.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Following Citizens United, donors realized that if they were to donate money to a super PAC, federal law <a href=\"https:\/\/www.fec.gov\/help-candidates-and-committees\/guides\/?tab=political-action-committees\">would mandate<\/a> the disclosure of that donation. Yet, federal law contained a loophole: <a href=\"https:\/\/campaignlegal.org\/update\/secret-election-spending-proliferates-through-shell-companies\">shell companies<\/a> \u2013 companies formed purely to preserve the anonymity of their makers \u2013 and <a href=\"https:\/\/www.irs.gov\/charities-non-profits\/other-non-profits\/social-welfare-organizations\">501(c)(4) nonprofits<\/a> could donate money to super PACs without having to disclose who their money came from. Collectively, these became known as \u201cdark money\u201d groups.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Wealthy donors thus started giving money to these dark money groups as a vehicle to fund super PACs without detection. These groups have become a major force in election spending, accounting for <a href=\"https:\/\/www.brennancenter.org\/our-work\/research-reports\/dark-money-hit-record-high-19-billion-2024-federal-races\">an estimated $1.9 billion<\/a> in 2024.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The Buckley decision has also led to the proliferation of self-funded candidates. The Supreme Court held that the government cannot limit self-funding because the risk of quid pro quo is nonexistent \u2013 <a href=\"https:\/\/ssrn.com\/abstract=4211506\">again, a disputed assumption<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>U.S. campaigns now feature multimillionaires and billionaires propelling themselves into electoral contention each election cycle simply by virtue of having a well-funded bank account. In 2024, <a href=\"https:\/\/www.opensecrets.org\/elections-overview\/top-self-funders?cycle=2024\">65 federal candidates<\/a> spent at least $1 million of their own dollars on their campaign.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2>Small limits, big spending<\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>One area that still remains open to regulation post-Buckley is contributions to candidates, political parties or PACs.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Thus, contribution limits exist <a href=\"https:\/\/www.fec.gov\/help-candidates-and-committees\/candidate-taking-receipts\/contribution-limits\/\">federally<\/a> and <a href=\"https:\/\/documents.ncsl.org\/wwwncsl\/Elections\/State-Limits-on-Contributions-to-Candidates-2025-2026.pdf\">in most states<\/a> in some form.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Still, the government\u2019s authority to cap contributions is not infinite. The Supreme Court <a href=\"https:\/\/tile.loc.gov\/storage-services\/service\/ll\/usrep\/usrep548\/usrep548230\/usrep548230.pdf\">has occasionally struck down<\/a> certain states\u2019 limits when they are deemed \u201ctoo low.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The court, moreover, <a href=\"https:\/\/www.fec.gov\/resources\/legal-resources\/litigation\/mccutcheon_sc_opinion.pdf\">invalidated in 2014<\/a> an aggregate limit on the amount a donor could contribute overall to candidates per election, reasoning that Buckley\u2019s anti-corruption rationale could apply only to direct, one-to-one exchanges. Wealthy donors were thus free to donate to hundreds of candidates in an election cycle.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>In 2025, the court <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scotusblog.com\/cases\/case-files\/national-republican-senatorial-committee-v-federal-election-commission\/\">heard a challenge<\/a> to a federal law limiting how much political parties can spend in coordination with their nominees. Intended to prevent individuals from using parties as a means of circumventing individual-to-candidate contribution limits, the law has been <a href=\"https:\/\/tile.loc.gov\/storage-services\/service\/ll\/usrep\/usrep533\/usrep533431\/usrep533431.pdf\">on shaky ground<\/a> for decades.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The court will issue a ruling on that challenge in the coming months. Whether the law is upheld or struck down, Buckley is guaranteed to play a major role in the decision.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/theconversation.com\/profiles\/john-j-martin-1505978\">John J. Martin<\/a>, Assistant Professor of Law, <em><a href=\"https:\/\/theconversation.com\/institutions\/quinnipiac-university-2032\">Quinnipiac University<\/a><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>This article is republished from <a href=\"https:\/\/theconversation.com\">The Conversation<\/a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href=\"https:\/\/theconversation.com\/50-years-ago-the-supreme-court-broke-campaign-finance-regulation-274939\">original article<\/a>.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>John J. Martin, Quinnipiac University In 2024, spending on federal elections totaled almost US$15 billion in the United States. The United Kingdom, in contrast, spent approximately $129 million on its 2024 parliamentary elections \u2013 less than 1% of 2024 U.S. spending \u2013 despite having a population one-fifth the size of the U.S. Indeed, most other [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":56,"featured_media":41897,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[5,46,295,10,25,296,4,38],"tags":[2184,4439,244,4581,885,891,886,860,2183,17484,3050,17485,4830,1076,1797,475,1666],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.lifeandnews.com\/articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/41896"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.lifeandnews.com\/articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.lifeandnews.com\/articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.lifeandnews.com\/articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/56"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.lifeandnews.com\/articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=41896"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/www.lifeandnews.com\/articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/41896\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":41986,"href":"https:\/\/www.lifeandnews.com\/articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/41896\/revisions\/41986"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.lifeandnews.com\/articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/41897"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.lifeandnews.com\/articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=41896"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.lifeandnews.com\/articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=41896"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.lifeandnews.com\/articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=41896"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}