Buckley v. Valeo 1976
| Author | Daniel Brannen, Richard Hanes, Elizabeth Shaw |
| Pages | 814-819 |
Page 814
Appellant: James L. Buckley
Appellee: Francis R. Valeo, Secretary of the U.S. Senate
Appellant's Claim: That various provisions of the 1974 amendments to the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (FECA) regulating campaign contributions are unconstitutional.
Chief Lawyers for Appellant: Ralph K. Winter, Jr., Joel M. Gora, Brice M. Claggett
Chief Lawyers for Appellee: Daniel M. Friedman, Archibald Cox, Lloyd M. Cutler, Ralph S. Spritzer
Justices for the Court: Harry A. Blackmun, William J. Brennan, Jr., Chief Justice Warren E. Burger, Lewis F. Powell, Jr., William H. Rehnquist, Potter Stewart
Justices Dissenting: Thurgood Marshall, Byron R. White (John Paul Stevens did not participate)
Date of Decision: January 30, 1976
Decision: The Court found some provisions constitutional including limits on contributions, and it found unconstitutional provisions on expenditures and the way Federal Election Commission members are selected.
Significance: The decision greatly changed campaign finance laws. Perhaps, the most significant change was the finding that no restrictions on contributions from individuals and groups could be set so long as the contributions were not directly part of an election campaign.
Page 815
From 1999 to 2000 a grandmother over eighty years old walked across the United States to draw attention to the need for campaign-finance reform. U.S. Senator John McCain also based his popular but unsuccessful run to become the Republican candidate for president in the 2000 elections on campaign finance reform. What is campaign finance reform and why is it a hot issue? Campaign finance is simply the way political parties and their candidates receive the money they need to carry their message to the public in hopes of being elected to office.
Many believed the campaign finance system at the start of the twenty-first century created distrust and suspicion in the public and weakened concepts of fairness. To many individuals, government seemed increasingly out of reach from their influence, a tool of the rich and powerful special interest groups. Special interest groups gave millions of dollars to congressional campaigns. The laws the interest groups want often get passed, generally leaving consumers to pay the price. For example, U.S. sugar producers in 1995 and 1996 contributed $2.7 million to campaigns. In return they received $1.1 billion in annual sugar price supports. As a result, consumers paid 25 percent higher sugar prices in the grocery stores. U.S. Congressman Dan Miller (R-Florida) in 1997 called the sugar industry "the poster child for why we need campaign reform."
The Supreme Court ruling in Buckley v. Valeo (1976) provided an underlying basis for various groups to spend lots of money in support...
To continue reading
Request your trial