updated Wed. April 3, 2024
-
WhoWhatWhy / RealNewsProject (blog)
April 19, 2018
Protected as free speech since Buckley v. Valeo in 1976, independent spending is money spent in direct support of a candidate — often to buy ads or otherwise boost media coverage — but with no coordination between the donor and the candidate or a campaign committee. Such spending increasedÃâà...
Reason
April 19, 2018
... who thinks Buckley v. Valeo's upholding of sufficiently high contribution limits but striking down of independent expenditure limits is basically right as a constitutional matter. But the dissent makes a strong case that $350 limits are unconstitutionally low, given Randall v. Sorrell and notwithstanding Nixon v.
Salon
April 3, 2018
While the true power of advertiser protests remains unknown, one thing is certain: Money is essential to facilitating speech, as established by the Supreme Court in 1976 by Buckley v. Valeo. Since then, an on-going debate about the effects of money and free speech has ensued. Despite varying opinionsÃâà...
Washington Examiner
April 3, 2018
In the landmark 1976 case of Buckley v. Valeo, the Supreme Court noted that limits on political giving “operate in an area of the most fundamental First Amendment activities.” Nonetheless, the Supreme Court has tolerated, and the states and federal government have regularly enacted, restrictions on thisÃâà...
The American Interest
March 27, 2018
I was one of the lawyers in the Buckley v. Valeo case in 1976, for example—the challenge to the post-Watergate financial reform laws. And I've always been interested in international affairs, too. As a high schooler looking to apply to colleges and as an undergraduate at Yale, too, I considered a career inÃâà...
The Columbus Dispatch
March 27, 2018
And in Buckley v. Valeo, and more recently, in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the Court empowered the powerful by holding that money, when it comes to elections, is equivalent to free speech and therefore cannot be limited. Americans overturned each of those rulings, except for the last,Ãâà...
City Watch
March 26, 2018
This is because corporate lobbying and campaign financing have made the bribery of public officials perfectly legal as plutocrat-championed legislation like 1976's Buckley v. Valeo, 1978's First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti as well as the infamous Citizens United v. FEC has created a system whereÃâà...
Arizona Daily Star
March 25, 2018
First in Buckley v. Valeo, the Supreme Court decided that money equaled free speech and struck down the limits on personal contributions, which helps explain why Congress over time became a millionaire's club. The Burger Court also shot down the ban on independent expenditures, which led to theÃâà...
Truthdig
December 31, 1999
Under the high court's 1976 Buckley v. Valeo decision, the federal government can set no legal limits on a candidate's total campaign expenditure except in cases in which public campaign funding is made available to candidates. The sky's the limit. All of this and more makes the United States' ever moreÃâà...
