Should Buckley v Valeo be overturned?

Politics & Elections
1

Continuing the discussion from Hawaii Seeks to Overturn Citizens United:

My previous post:

The 1976 Supreme Court decision in Buckley v. Valeo determined that a cap was within the known limits of free speech.

The Supreme Court in Buckley v. Valeo held that contribution limits are subject to a more lenient standard of review than expenditure limits because they impose only a marginal restriction on speech and will be upheld if the government can demonstrate that they are a “closely drawn” means of achieving a “sufficiently important” governmental interest.1 Unlike expenditure limits, which reduce the amount of expression, the Court opined that contribution limits involve “little direct restraint” on the speech of a contributor.2 While acknowledging that a contribution limit restricts an aspect of a contributor’s freedom of association by affecting a contributor’s ability to support a candidate, the Court determined that a contribution limit still permits symbolic expressions of support and does not infringe on a contributor’s freedom to speak about candidates and issues.3

If this sounds like splitting hairs, you’re correct. Remember that 1976 was the next election year after Nixon’s reign of corruption and the public mood was wildly favorable for such limits. The parties that brought the suit were a coalition unimaginable today: The lawsuit was filed in the District Court for the District of Columbia, on January 2, 1975, by U.S. Senator James L. Buckley (a member of the Conservative Party of New York State), former U.S. Senator and 1968 presidential candidate Eugene McCarthy (a Democrat from Minnesota), the New York Civil Liberties Union, the American Conservative Union, the Socialist Workers Party, the Libertarian Party, and others. The final decision was one of the oddest in Supreme Court history. Five of the eight justices (Douglas had retired) dissented in part, although the core was allowed through.

Both the right and left argue for overturning the ruling, for different reasons. Those are probably outside of the limits on this thread, though.

The result has been a messy stew of consequences. Nobody envisioned superPACS and soft money or the level of spending that billionaires would ascend to.

Some changes can be made without abolition though. I’ll talk about them in the next post.

2

Can you tell us more about that case? Got a link?

3

That’s a long read, but covers the initial case well.

A longer read is a report on possible reform downloadable from the Brennan Center for Justice.

Yeah, those strain even my attention span for arguing topics here. I’m not even thinking about reading the original decision, which ran to 284 pages.

The core issues are fairly straightforward. How does the government balance the rights of individuals to support campaigns and parties with the reality that the rich and powerful have the ability to overwhelm them in reach and scope? Can Congress do so or is this strictly a matter for the Court? Are there precedents that would be remotely possible in America? If no shutdown of the money spigot is legal, would total transparency of who is giving and how they are coordinating be at least a partial solution?

2028 looms and so does a Democratic Congress. What should they do and how in the world can they get it passed?