From an Institute for Free Speech symposium on the 50th anniversary of Buckley, which I'll be cross-posting over the next couple of weeks; this is by Jeff Milyo, professor of economics and the Director of the Economic and Policy Analysis Research Center (EPARC) at the University of Missouri, and a Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute:
Concerns about money in politics bring into conflict the democratic ideals of liberty, equality, and justice enshrined in the U.S. Constitution. A free society will always exhibit inequalities of wealth and hence access to power and influence, thus imperiling the ideal of equal protection of the law. But efforts to regulate political activities, even setting aside potential hidden and nefarious motives, also violate the fundamental principles of free speech, association, and petitioning for redress of grievances (i.e., lobbying). Any democratic society must resolve this unfortunate tradeoff; American democracy does so in favor of liberty.
The U.S. Supreme Court decision in Buckley v. Valeo (1976) may be viewed through this lens. The Buckley decision makes clear that the government's interest in regulating politics is confined to policies that are narrowly tailored to address the actuality and appearance of quid pro quo corruption. As such, Buckley establishes bright lines for the kinds of regulation of political financing that may or may not pass Constitutional muster. For example, limits on the source and size of campaign contributions to candidates are permissible since they raise the specter of potential quid pro quo arrangements, but an outright prohibition on an individual's ability to support candidates or parties of their choosing goes well beyond what might be thought necessary to limit bribery and influence peddling. In contrast, limits on total spending by candidates for office are not directly related to preventing quid pro quo corruption between a contributor and candidate, so are not permissible.
There is also no anti-corruption rationale for limiting the amount of self-financing by candidates, since candidates cannot corrupt themselves. Similarly, as the Court noted in a later case, there is no anti-corruption rationale for limiting sources or amounts of financial support for speech on ballot initiatives; no amount of spending can change the wording of a ballot proposition, so no quid pro quo is possible via campaign financing of ballot measure campaigns.
These constraints on government regulation of political campaigns are straightforward implications of the anti-corruption rationale expressed in Buckley, but critics of the decision have muddied the waters by seeking to expand the concept of corruption to envelope "undue influence." This is definitely a more vague concept and not really amenable to bright line distinctions. Indeed, in thirty-plus years, I have never once heard anyone articulate a definition of "due influence." Instead, advocates of more regulation offer a modern miasma theory of corruption, whereby too much money and too much influence (most often by those who hold contrary views) constitute corruption.
