|
| |
November 10
|
| |
1975
|
| |
January 30
|
| |
1976
|
| |
James L Buckley , et al v Francis R Valeo , Secretary of the United States Senate, et al
|
| |
424
|
| |
1
|
| |
96 S Ct 612 46 L Ed 2d 659 1976 US LEXIS 16 76-1 US Tax Cas (CCH) P9189
|
| |
As amended
|
| |
The Court upheld federal limits on campaign contributions and ruled that spending money to influence elections is a form of constitutionally protected free speech
|
| |
1975-1981
|
| |
yes
|
| |
Burger
|
| |
White
|
| |
Marshall
|
| |
Blackmun
|
| |
Rehnquist
|
'',
424 U.S. 1 (
1976 ), was a
Case in which the
Supreme Court Of The United States upheld federal limits on campaign contributions and ruled that spending money to influence elections is a form of constitutionally protected free speech. The court also stated candidates can give unlimited amounts of money to their own campaigns.
In 1974, over the veto of President Gerald R. Ford, the
Congress passed significant amendments to the
Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, creating the first comprehensive effort by the federal government to regulate campaign contributions and spending. The key parts of the amended law limited contributions to candidates for federal office (2
USC §441a), required the disclosure of political contributions (2 USC §434), provided for the public financing of
Presidential Election s (IRC Subtitle H), limited expenditures by candidates and associated committees, except for presidential candidates who accepted public funding (formerly 18 U.S.C. §608(c)(1)(C-F)), limited independent expenditures to $1000 (formerly 18 U.S.C. §608e); limited candidate expenditures from personal funds (formerly 18 U.S.C. §608a), and created and fixed the method of appointing members to the
Federal Election Commission (FEC) (formerly 2 U.S.C. §437c(a)(1)(A-C)). A
Lawsuit was filed in the
District Court For The D.C. , on
January 2 ,
1975 , by
Senator James L. Buckley of
New York , former Senator,
1968 Presidential Candidate Eugene McCarthy of
Minnesota , and others. The suit was filed against
Francis R. Valeo , the
Secretary Of The Senate and ''
Ex Officio '' member of the FEC who represented the
U.S. Federal Government . The court denied
Plaintiff s' request for
Declaratory and
Injunctive relief. Plaintiffs then appealed to the
Court Of Appeals .
The
Petitioner s sought for the
District Court to overturn the key provisions outlined above. They argued that the legislation was in violation of the
1st and
5th Amendment rights to
Freedom Of Expression and
Due Process , respectively.
In a lengthy
Per Curiam decision issued on January 30, 1976, the court sustained the Act's limits on individual contributions, as well as the disclosure and reporting provisions and the public financing scheme. However, the limitations on campaign expenditures, on independent expenditures by individuals and groups, and on expenditures by a candidate from his personal funds were found to be constitutionally infirm in that they placed severe restrictions on protected expression and association, yet lacked any compelling countervailing government interest necessary to sustain them.
The Court also held that the method for appointments to the Federal Election Commission was an unconstitutional violation of of the Constitution.
Although the decision upheld restrictions on the size of campaign contributions, because it failed struck down limits on expenditures some argue that this precedent allows those with great wealth to effectively drown out the speech average citizens. Among those criticizing the decision on this line was philosopher .)
On a somewhat different note, Justice
Byron White , in dissent, argued that the entire law should have been upheld, in deference to Congress's greater knowledge and expertise on the issue.
From the other side, some disagree vigorously with ''Buckley'' on the grounds that it sustained some limits on campaign contributions, which they argue are protected by the
First Amendment as free speech. This position was advanced by
Chief Justice Warren Burger in his
Dissent , who claimed that individual contributions and expenditures are protected speech acts. Justices
Clarence Thomas and
Antonin Scalia , argued for overturning ''Buckley'' on these grounds, but their position has not been adopted by the court. Despite criticism of Buckley from both sides, the case remains the starting point for judicial analysis of the constitutionality of campaign finance restrictions. See e.g. ''
McConnell V. FEC '', upholding the
Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 ("McCain-Feingold Bill"). This legislation included a prohibition on
Soft Money as well as limits on independent expenditures by private groups.
