One of the most vexing issues in constitutional jurisprudence concerns the political regulation of money and its democratic implications. The resolution of the constitutional question for democracy involves striking a balance between two competing interests: the protection of political liberty under the First Amendment and the legitimate interest government has in preventing money from having a corrosive or corrupting effect on the political system. With its landmark ruling in Buckley v. Valeo, some say that the Supreme Court successfully reconciled these interests and, in fact, strongly preserved the basic ideal of American freedom. Different commentators, however, maintain that the Supreme Court managed to protect neither interest adequately. Still others familiar with campaign finance adopt a more neutral position, implying that Buckley is a sound ruling but nonetheless leaves many key constitutional issues and public policy questions unsettled. To be sure, the range of debate surrounding Buckley illustrates that it is the basis for legal and political controversy.
Banks, Christopher P. and Green, John C.
"A Symposium: The Legal and Polticial Implications of Buckley v. Valeo (1976),"
Akron Law Review: Vol. 33:
1, Article 1.
Available at: https://ideaexchange.uakron.edu/akronlawreview/vol33/iss1/1