Buckley v. Valeo

McCutcheon v. FEC was a landmark case in American campaign finance law which challenged that it is unconstitutional to limit an individual’s donations to as many parties as they want because in doing so their freedom of speech is being violated. The plaintiff is Shaun McCutcheon who is part of the Jefferson County Republic Party Steering Committee as well as the Reagan Foundation. The Republican National Committee was also a plaintiff. This case is a constitutional challenge to aggregate limits on

developed extensively in the past forty years, as the courts have attempted to create federal elections that best sustain the ideals of a representative democracy. In the most recent Supreme Court decision concerning campaign finance, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the Court essentially decided to treat corporations like individuals by allowing corporations to spend money on federal elections through unlimited independent expenditures. In order to understand how the Supreme Court justified

corporate money can be disastrous when entangled in elections. Unfortunately, the United States continues to grant large corporations the ability to donate to campaigns, leading to a corrupt campaign system. The Supreme Court decided in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission that companies and Super PAC’s can donate an unlimited amount of money to endorse candidates. The Citizens United ruling has caused increased political corruption in the United States by giving candidates the money they need

Campaign contributions destroy the marketplace by expelling the views of average citizens in exchange for the views of corporate donors that don’t have the opportunity to have their views scrutinized by the public. Their views are safe from criticism because they are able to shield their views through backdoor talks with candidates. According Samuel Issacharoff, a professor of Constitutional Law at the New York University of Law, in reference to political corruption, “the source of corruption was

threshold of donation. When it comes to cases in regards to campaign finance reform, we will look into to constitutional value, framework, and the purpose of the law. The cases include: Buckley v. Valeo, which set up the basic framework for judicial review of campaign finance regulations and hard money; Citizens United v. FEC,

any political purpose should be forbidden by law” This quote from Theodore Roosevelt illustrates how corporate money can be disastrous when involved in election cycles. Unfortunately, this is not the case. The Supreme Court decided in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission that companies and Super PAC’s could donate unlimited amount of money to support candidates. The Citizens United ruling has caused increased political corruption in the United States by giving candidates the money they need

Following the Watergate scandal, the Federal Elections Campaign Act of 1974 was amended to create the regulatory agency, known as the Federal Elections Commission, in 1975. The duties of the FEC consist largely of enforcing regulation, limitation, and prohibition on financial contributions to federal campaigns, candidates, political parties, and political action committees. The Act has thoroughly set limits on the amount of money a person or committee may donate to the previously mentioned situations

to spend large sums of money on political advertising then that is their choice, most people don’t want to be told how they can spend their money and neither do corporations. In 1976 the Supreme Court came to two important conclusions in Buckley v. Valeo, it set a precedence that the limitation on independent campaign expenditures by both corporations and candidates violated the first amendment, because money is a form of free

sees fit and upholds the integrity of each person’s individual personality and individuality. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals decision in Johnson’s favor benefits the interests of all by protecting the first amendment right. In the case of Texas V. Johnson, I rule in favor of Johnson for the following reasons: Freedom of speech, protecting individual rights from government interference, and protecting individual rights from state interference. The first reason I rule in favor of Johnson

Congress passed revisions fortifying FECA (Williams, 2010). The federal court case of Buckley v. Valeo 1796 challenged the Act as disregarding the First Amendment (Williams, 2010). The Supreme Court ruled that expenditures were limiting free speech for a candidate and this it was in fact disregarding the First Amendment (Williams, 2010). Buckley v. Valeo was a lawsuit between Republican Senator James Buckley and Democratic Senator Eugene McCarthy against