Buckley Valeo Pros And Cons

Buckley V. Valeo was a landmark case in political funding and donations. It has great precedents as what is legally defined as donations, and contribution compared to expenditures. Buckley V. Valeo was argued over the last few months of 1975 and into January of 1976 where the decision was made on the 30th . The final decision, there must be some reasonable limit on campaign contributions however it is unconstitutional to hold expenditure limits. To further understand this reason Americans must know the legal definitions of these words. A contribution is the use of money to support a candidate which must be fairly regulated in the eyes of the United States government. An expenditure is the use of money to support a political belief. Putting

limits on that is clearly impeding on the first amendment since it is denying the right to support your beliefs. The two parties that argued was mainly U.S Senator James L. Buckley along with numerous unions and parties such as the libertarian party. There were even liberal supporters of a conservative Buckley such as Eugene McCarthy. Most liberals would agree that political expenditures are protected by the first amendment looking at these legal definitions but behind the curtain they are also benefiting their re-election/ election chances when they have money supporting their ideologies.

Eugene McCarthy is no different as he was supported by Stewart Mott who was a large heir to general motors and contributor to McCarthy. The law would hurt liberals just as much as it would conservatives. The main person planning to loosen moneys grip in politics was Francis R. Valeo, the secretary of the senate. Valeo supported FECA while Buckley found most parts of FECA to violate the first and fifth amendments to the United States Constitution. Before going to the Supreme Court, it went to the District Court of Columbia. The District Court of Columbia found all but one segment of FECA constitutional, the only thing that was declared unconstitutional was the required disclosure reports from issue advocacy groups. This was seemingly a lost for the plaintiffs such as Buckley. Defendants of FECA such as Common Cause were pleased. Common Cause claimed the goals of FECA were to eliminate corruption in government not

speech. It was advocating for stopping quid pro quo deals between wealth individuals and political figures so that Washington would stay on track. The fear that third parties could still spread money through politics even though not officially being connected to the money is a bothersome theory for the people of Common Cause. However the case was brought to the Appeals Court where the Supreme Court decided to review it. The foundation to the plaintiffs case was based off Ralph K. Winter’s interpretation of the first Amendment. Ralph K. Winter at the time was a law graduate from Yale and a member of the Yale Law School until the early 1980’s. He was one of the main lawyers whom defended Senator Buckley. Winters argued that money can speak as a form of expression of a spender. Mainly if it goes towards a cause.

Winters argued what you limit a politician to spend is limiting what he can say. He offered counter arguments to those who say too much money is persuasive speech by saying money is not the lone factor it is more of matter of candidates charisma and political stance that attract donors. To separate this from basic contributions however there is the idea of an independent expenditure. These are communication expenditure solely for the purpose of support or defeat of one candidate without any form of contact with political candidates. To be independent it must not collaborate with politicians or candidates to avoid harsh restrictions and regulations. However some parts of funding regulations were kept such as public funding. Public funding was still considered constitutional because it was considered prevention of appearance and real corruption from large financial contributions, which secured quid pro quo mentalities that might undermine representative democracy. And in order to secure democracy the belief of overwhelming limits as a means of equality is considered invalid to the Supreme Court saying “ the concept that government may restrict the speech of some elements of our society in order to enhance the relative voice of others is wholly foreign to the First

Amendment”. So Buckley V. Valeo ended up in favor of the plaintiff and supported limitless expenditures. There are however some benefits and consequences in the aftermath. For the ones who supported reform and FECA many parts were still upheld. Contribution limitations, disclosure requirements and the public funding systems. As for the supporters of Buckley, expenditure limitations were consider unconstitutional and that the FEC appointment scheme was stopped momentarily for a lack of separation of power. This landmark case set a huge precedent and put legal definitions that have shaped campaign finances today and for the rest of American political history