{ "id": "RL30669", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "number": "RL30669", "active": false, "source": "EveryCRSReport.com, University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department", "versions": [ { "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "id": 351980, "date": "2009-09-08", "retrieved": "2016-04-07T02:18:24.747356", "title": "The Constitutionality of Campaign Finance Regulation: Buckley v. Valeo and Its Supreme Court Progeny", "summary": "Political expression is at the heart of First Amendment activity and the Supreme Court has granted it great deference and protection. However, according to the Court in its landmark 1976 decision, Buckley v. Valeo, an absolutely free political marketplace is not required by the First Amendment\u2014nor is it desirable\u2014because without reasonable regulation, corruption will result. Most notably, the Buckley Court ruled that the spending of money in campaigns, whether as a contribution or an expenditure, is a form of \u201cspeech\u201d protected by the First Amendment. The Court upheld some infringements on free speech, however, in order to further the governmental interests of protecting the electoral process from corruption or the appearance of corruption.\nIn Buckley, the Supreme Court considered the constitutionality of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (FECA), requiring political committees to disclose campaign contributions and expenditures and limiting, to various degrees, the ability of persons and organizations to make contributions and expenditures. While First Amendment freedoms and campaign finance regulation present conflicting means of attempting to preserve the integrity of the political process, the Court resolved this conflict in favor of the First Amendment interests and subjected any regulation burdening free speech and free association to \u201cexacting scrutiny.\u201d Under this standard of review, a court will evaluate whether the government\u2019s interests in regulating are compelling, examine whether the regulation burdens and outweighs First Amendment liberties, and inquire as to whether the regulation is narrowly tailored to serve the government\u2019s interests. If a regulation meets all three criteria, a court will uphold it.\nThis report first discusses the key holdings enunciated by the Supreme Court in Buckley, including those upholding reasonable contribution limits, striking down expenditure limits, upholding disclosure reporting requirements, and upholding the system of voluntary presidential election expenditure limitations linked with public financing. It then examines the Court\u2019s extension of Buckley in several subsequent cases, evaluating them in various regulatory contexts: contribution limits (California Medical Association v. FEC; Citizens Against Rent Control v. Berkeley; Nixon v. Shrink Missouri Government PAC; FEC v. Beaumont); expenditure limits (First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti; FEC v. Massachusetts Citizens for Life; Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce; FEC v. National Right to Work; Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee (Colorado I) v. FEC; FEC v. Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee (Colorado II); FEC v. Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee; FEC v. National Conservative Political Action Committee; Randall v. Sorrell); disclosure requirements (Buckley v. American Constitutional Law Foundation; Brown v. Socialist Workers \u201874 Campaign Committee; FEC v. Akins; McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission); and political party soft money and electioneering communication restrictions (McConnell v. FEC; Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc. v. FEC (WRTL II)). This report also discusses a case that is currently pending before the Court, Citizens United v. FEC, that may result in a decision that is pivotal to the Supreme Court\u2019s campaign finance jurisprudence.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "active": false, "formats": [ { "format": "HTML", "encoding": "utf-8", "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/RL30669", "sha1": "0ccd1587c7c9b74845ea551e261d600c30185326", "filename": "files/20090908_RL30669_0ccd1587c7c9b74845ea551e261d600c30185326.html", "images": null }, { "format": "PDF", "encoding": null, "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/RL30669", "sha1": "4f95de05875359a9ed72ffe56d78c546cc0b0add", "filename": "files/20090908_RL30669_4f95de05875359a9ed72ffe56d78c546cc0b0add.pdf", "images": null } ], "topics": [] }, { "source": "University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department", "sourceLink": "https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc461924/", "id": "RL30669_2008Nov18", "date": "2008-11-18", "retrieved": "2014-12-05T09:57:41", "title": "The Constitutionality of Campaign Finance Regulation: Buckley v. Valeo and Its Supreme Court Progeny", "summary": "This report first discusses the key holdings enunciated by the Supreme Court in Buckley, including those upholding reasonable contribution limits, striking down expenditure limits, upholding disclosure reporting requirements, and upholding the system of voluntary presidential election expenditure limitations linked with public financing. It then examines the Court's extension of Buckley in several subsequent cases, evaluating them in various regulatory contexts: contribution limits, expenditure limits, disclosure requirements, and political party soft money and electioneering communication restrictions.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORT", "active": false, "formats": [ { "format": "PDF", "filename": "files/20081118_RL30669_1f36b7e5750108a5510e9273ced84e7675558b80.pdf" }, { "format": "HTML", "filename": "files/20081118_RL30669_1f36b7e5750108a5510e9273ced84e7675558b80.html" } ], "topics": [ { "source": "LIV", "id": "Campaign funds", "name": "Campaign funds" }, { "source": "LIV", "id": "Campaign finance reform", "name": "Campaign finance reform" }, { "source": "LIV", "id": "Elections", "name": "Elections" }, { "source": "LIV", "id": "Business and politics", "name": "Business and politics" }, { "source": "LIV", "id": "Supreme Court decisions", "name": "Supreme Court decisions" }, { "source": "LIV", "id": "Constitutional law", "name": "Constitutional law" } ] }, { "source": "University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department", "sourceLink": "https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs4392/", "id": "RL30669 2003-08-28", "date": "2003-08-28", "retrieved": "2005-06-11T06:06:42", "title": "Campaign Finance Regulation Under the First Amendment: Buckley v. Valeo and its Supreme Court Progeny", "summary": "This report first discusses the critical holdings enunciated bythe SupremeCourt in Buckley, including those: upholding reasonable contribution limits, striking down expenditure limits, upholding disclosure reporting requirements, and upholding the system of voluntary presidential election expenditure limitations linked with public financing. It then examines the Court\u2019s extension of Buckley in fifteen subsequent cases, evaluating them in three regulatory contexts: contribution limits (California Medical Association v. FEC; Citizens Against Rent Control v. Berkeley; Nixon v. Shrink Missouri Government PAC; FEC v. Beaumont), expenditure limits (First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti; FEC v. Massachusetts Citizens for Life; Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce; FEC v. National Right to Work; Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee (Colorado I) v. FEC; FEC v. Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee (Colorado II); FEC v. Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee; FEC v. National Conservative Political Action Committee), and disclosure requirements (Buckley v. American Constitutional Law Foundation; Brown v. Socialist Workers \u201874 Campaign Committee; FEC v. Akins; McIntrye v. Ohio Elections Commission).", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORT", "active": false, "formats": [ { "format": "PDF", "filename": "files/20030828_RL30669_2417958c2627ae6bbb2d8f0b5af1ee32e86072c5.pdf" }, { "format": "HTML", "filename": "files/20030828_RL30669_2417958c2627ae6bbb2d8f0b5af1ee32e86072c5.html" } ], "topics": [ { "source": "LIV", "id": "Elections", "name": "Elections" }, { "source": "LIV", "id": "Government regulation", "name": "Government regulation" }, { "source": "LIV", "id": "Supreme Court decisions", "name": "Supreme Court decisions" }, { "source": "LIV", "id": "Freedom of speech", "name": "Freedom of speech" }, { "source": "LIV", "id": "Campaign funds", "name": "Campaign funds" }, { "source": "LIV", "id": "Civil liberties", "name": "Civil liberties" }, { "source": "LIV", "id": "Law", "name": "Law" } ] }, { "source": "University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department", "sourceLink": "https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs4391/", "id": "RL30669 2003-07-09", "date": "2003-07-09", "retrieved": "2005-06-11T06:06:04", "title": "Campaign Finance Regulation Under the First Amendment: Buckley v. Valeo and its Supreme Court Progeny", "summary": "This report first discusses the critical holdings enunciated bythe SupremeCourt in Buckley, including those: upholding reasonable contribution limits, striking down expenditure limits, upholding disclosure reporting requirements, and upholding the system of voluntary presidential election expenditure limitations linked with public financing. It then examines the Court\u2019s extension of Buckley in fifteen subsequent cases, evaluating them in three regulatory contexts: contribution limits (California Medical Association v. FEC; Citizens Against Rent Control v. Berkeley; Nixon v. Shrink Missouri Government PAC; FEC v. Beaumont), expenditure limits (First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti; FEC v. Massachusetts Citizens for Life; Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce; FEC v. National Right to Work; Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee (Colorado I) v. FEC; FEC v. Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee (Colorado II); FEC v. Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee; FEC v. National Conservative Political Action Committee), and disclosure requirements (Buckley v. American Constitutional Law Foundation; Brown v. Socialist Workers \u201874 Campaign Committee; FEC v. Akins; McIntrye v. Ohio Elections Commission).", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORT", "active": false, "formats": [ { "format": "PDF", "filename": "files/20030709_RL30669_5d1f92fd7deaadafcf41c4f879f5feb6a9514e7f.pdf" }, { "format": "HTML", "filename": "files/20030709_RL30669_5d1f92fd7deaadafcf41c4f879f5feb6a9514e7f.html" } ], "topics": [ { "source": "LIV", "id": "Elections", "name": "Elections" }, { "source": "LIV", "id": "Government regulation", "name": "Government regulation" }, { "source": "LIV", "id": "Supreme Court decisions", "name": "Supreme Court decisions" }, { "source": "LIV", "id": "Freedom of speech", "name": "Freedom of speech" }, { "source": "LIV", "id": "Campaign funds", "name": "Campaign funds" }, { "source": "LIV", "id": "Civil liberties", "name": "Civil liberties" }, { "source": "LIV", "id": "Law", "name": "Law" } ] }, { "source": "University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department", "sourceLink": "https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs1158/", "id": "RL30669 2000-09-08", "date": "2000-09-08", "retrieved": "2005-06-11T06:05:25", "title": "Campaign Finance Regulation Under the First Amendment:", "summary": "This Report first discusses the critical holdings enunciated by the Supreme Court in Buckley, including those: upholding reasonable contribution limits, striking down expenditure limits, upholding disclosure reporting requirements, and upholding the system of voluntary presidential election expenditure limitations linked with public financing. It then examines the Court\u2019s extension of Buckley in fourteen subsequent cases, evaluating them in three regulatory contexts: contribution limits (California Medical Association v. FEC; Citizens Against Rent Control v. Berkeley; Nixon v. Shrink Missouri Government PAC), expenditure limits (First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti; FEC v. Massachusetts Citizens for Life; Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce; FEC v. National Right to Work; Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee v. FEC; FEC v. Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee; FEC v. National Conservative Political Action Committee), and disclosure requirements (Buckley v. American Constitutional Law Foundation; Brown v. Socialist Workers \u201874 Campaign Committee; FEC v. Akins; McIntrye v. Ohio Elections Commission).", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORT", "active": false, "formats": [ { "format": "PDF", "filename": "files/20000908_RL30669_a38708a00afc1130564ba2d8898d36e681ee4fec.pdf" }, { "format": "HTML", "filename": "files/20000908_RL30669_a38708a00afc1130564ba2d8898d36e681ee4fec.html" } ], "topics": [ { "source": "LIV", "id": "Elections", "name": "Elections" }, { "source": "LIV", "id": "Government regulation", "name": "Government regulation" }, { "source": "LIV", "id": "Supreme Court decisions", "name": "Supreme Court decisions" }, { "source": "LIV", "id": "Freedom of speech", "name": "Freedom of speech" }, { "source": "LIV", "id": "Campaign funds", "name": "Campaign funds" }, { "source": "LIV", "id": "Civil liberties", "name": "Civil liberties" }, { "source": "LIV", "id": "Law", "name": "Law" } ] } ], "topics": [ "Constitutional Questions" ] }