BUCKLEY VS VALEO : CASE SUMMARY

The Supreme Court in Buckley Vs Valeo (1976) held that political spending is a form of speech protected by Fourteenth Amendment. Limits could be put on contributions but there can be no limit on independent expenditure by candidates, individual and organizations in election campaigns.

FACTS OF THE CASE

The Congress has passed Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) to tackle growing concern of corruption in politics particularly after Watergate scandal. It put limits on contributions made by individual and organizations in elections. It also put limits on expenditure by candidates on campaigns. Donors as well as candidates were to make disclosures in case they made expenditure over defined limits. There was provision for Federal Election Commission to enforce these rules.

James L. Buckley, a conservative, along with others file suit challenging the constitutionality of FECA which finally reached to the Supreme Court.

OPINION OF THE COURT

The Supreme Court upheld certain provisions of the law while struck down certain others.

 The Supreme Court upheld that limits put on contribution by individual and organizations. The Supreme Court was of the view that this can be a way to prevent corruption in politics. The Supreme Court noted that such limits restrict the ability of a donor to support a candidate but this has to be balanced with state interest to contain corruption.

The Supreme Court invalidated the limits put on expenditure by candidate, individual and groups as it found that such limits violate Fourteenth Amendment as they are restrictions on free speech.   The Supreme Court reasoned that while contribution could lead to corruption, independent expenditure may not lead to corruption. While contribution could result in quid pro quo arrangements, direct expenditure does not have any such risks. Candidate’s personal expenditure cannot be limited as this will be direct violation of right to free speech.

The disclosure requirements under FECA were upheld. The Court reasoned that this will bring about transparency in political funding. Voters will be able to know who was supporting which candidate and how much money is being spent.

The Court showed concern with the structure of Federal Election Commission (FEC) as certain members could have been appointed by Congress. The Supreme Court observed that this is violation of separation of powers where Congress will be indulging in executive functions.

IMPACT OF THE JUDGMENT

Buckley vs Valeo is a landmark case on campaign finance. It established that political spending is a form of speech protected by Fourteenth Amendment. This judgment led to emergence of Political Action Committees (PAC) in USA elections which can raise and spend unlimited amount of money as long as they do not coordinate with candidates in elections.

The judgment has also been criticized on the ground that it undermines political equality. Wealthy people and organizations have potential to influence outcome of elections through huge although independent expenditure in elections.

________________________________________________