Abstract
The author examines the various arguments and legislative proposals offered in support of the regulation of campaign financing in light of the need for a democracy to protect free political communication and of current First Amendment doctrine. He concludes that the arguments advanced either lack a sufficient logical or empirical basis or are founded on ideas that are at odds with a system of free expression. Examination of the legislative proposals leads to the conclusion that they either limit political speech, disadvantage challengers seeking to unseat incumbents, or are too remotely related to valid legislative goals.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
1. See, for example, Southeastern Promotions, Ltd v. Conrad , 420 U.S. 546 (1975); Memoirs v. Massachusetts , 383 U.S. 413 (1966).
2.
2. Miller v. California , 413 U.S. 15 (1973); Paris Adult Theater Inc . v. Slaton , 413 U.S. 49 (1973).
3.
3. Bates v. State Bar of Arizona , 433 U.S. 350 (1977); Virginia Pharmacy Board v. Virginia Consumer Council , 425 U.S. 748 (1976); Bigelow v. Virginia , 421 U.S. 809 (1975).
4.
4. New York Times v. United States , 403 U.S. 713 (1971).
5.
5. New York Times v. Sullivan , 376 U.S. 254 (1964).
6.
6. First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti , 435 U.S. 765 (1978).
7.
7. Cohen v. California , 403 U.S. 15 (1971).
8.
8. Spence v. Washington , 418 U.S. 405 (1974) per curiam; Smith v. Goguen , 415 U.S. 566 (1974); Street v. New York , 394 U.S. 576 (1969).
9.
9. 384 U.S. 214 (1966).
10.
10. 418 U.S. 241 (1974).
11.
11. 395 U.S. 367 (1969).
12.
12. 413 U.S. 548 (1973).
13.
13. Police Department of the City of Chicago v. Mosley , 408 U.S. 92, 98-99 (1972).
14.
14. Cox v. Louisiana , 379 U.S. 536 (1935).
15.
15. Kovacs v. Cooper , 336 U.S. 77 (1949).
16.
16. Buckley v. Valeo , 519 F. 2d 821, 897 (D.C. Cir. 1975) per curiam , describing presidential elections as “quadrennial Romanesque political extravagances.”
17.
17. 2 U.S.C. § 441a(a) (1982).
18.
18. The First Amendment provides that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
19.
19. Buckley v. Valeo , 424 U.S. 1 (1976) per curiam , joint app., 2:25.
20.
20. McCarthy actually joined as a plaintiff challenging the FECA in Buckley v. Valeo .
21.
21. 424 U.S. 1; see also FEC v. National Conservative Political Action Committee , 105 S. Ct. 1459 (1985).
22.
22. Buckley v. Valeo , joint app., 2:23.
23.
23. Ibid., pp. 442, 444.
24.
Richard Bolling, “Money in Politics,” ibid.
25.
25. First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti , 435 U.S. 765 (1978).