The Evolution of Campaign Finance Law through Key Supreme Court Rulings

The evolution of campaign finance law has been shaped by a series of significant Supreme Court rulings. Initially, the Buckley v. Valeo decision upheld contribution limits while striking down most expenditure limits, asserting that independent spending and personal funds for campaigns were protected by the First Amendment. The Court further extended this interpretation in First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, allowing corporate contributions in referenda. The Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce decision upheld restrictions on corporate treasury money for political expenditures but was later challenged. The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) aimed to regulate soft money and electioneering communications, a challenge reinforced by McConnell v. FEC, which largely upheld BCRA's provisions. However, Citizens United v. FEC transformed the landscape by allowing corporations and unions to spend freely on political speech, leading to the rise of Super PACs without reducing the overall money in politics. McCutcheon v. FEC further dismantled aggregate contribution limits, deeming them unconstitutional as they did not prevent corruption. The most recent ruling in Cruz v. FEC addressed loan repayment limits for candidates, again confirming the primacy of the First Amendment over perceived corruption limitations. Collectively, these rulings indicate a pronounced trend towards expanding political spending rights under the auspices of free speech.