Supreme Court Rules Money Is Speech in Buckley v. Valeo

On January 30, 1976, the Supreme Court issued its landmark per curiam decision in Buckley v. Valeo, fundamentally transforming American campaign finance law by establishing that spending money on political campaigns constitutes protected speech under the First Amendment. The case challenged the constitutionality of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (FECA) as amended in 1974. The Court upheld limits on direct contributions to candidates and mandatory disclosure requirements, but struck down limits on campaign expenditures, expenditures by candidates from personal resources, and independent expenditures by groups supporting campaigns. The plaintiffs included Senator James Buckley (Conservative Party of New York), former Senator Eugene McCarthy, the New York Civil Liberties Union, the American Conservative Union, and multiple other organizations spanning the political spectrum.

The Court’s reasoning equated money with speech, concluding that because campaign contributions and expenditures “facilitate speech,” they cannot be regulated as mere conduct. This framework created an asymmetry in campaign finance law: while the government could limit how much individuals contribute directly to campaigns based on corruption concerns, it could not place limits on overall campaign spending or independent expenditures because doing so would restrict political expression. The decision upheld voluntary public financing systems for presidential campaigns but only if candidates choosing to accept public funds agreed to spending limits—making such limits optional rather than universal.

Key holdings included: upholding contribution limits ($1,000 per candidate, $25,000 annual total), striking down independent expenditure ceilings, and establishing that campaign spending is a form of protected political speech. Justice Lewis Powell, author of the 1971 corporate blueprint memo, joined the Court’s ruling—his first major opportunity to implement his strategy for expanding corporate political influence through judicial decisions. As Senator Sheldon Whitehouse has documented, this decision represented Powell implementing his own memorandum’s vision from the bench.

Buckley v. Valeo proved foundational for three decades of campaign finance jurisprudence and set the parameters for the complete corporate capture of American democracy. The decision’s “money is speech” doctrine created a constitutional framework where wealth translates directly into political power, enabling unlimited spending by candidates and outside groups to dominate electoral politics. This ruling paved the way for the explosion of political action committees (PACs), the rise of independent expenditure groups, and eventually the Citizens United decision in 2010 that completed the transformation of American elections into auctions. By preventing meaningful limits on campaign spending while allowing limits on contributions, the Court created a system where those with access to vast wealth—either personal fortunes or corporate backing—enjoy insurmountable advantages in political competition, fundamentally undermining democratic equality and enabling the systematic capture of government by economic elites.