Supreme Court Decides Buckley v. Valeo, Unleashing Corporate Money in Politics

In a landmark constitutional law decision, the Supreme Court ruled in Buckley v. Valeo that political expenditures constitute a form of speech protected by the First Amendment, fundamentally transforming campaign finance jurisprudence. The Court established a critical distinction between campaign contributions and expenditures: while direct contributions could be limited to prevent quid pro quo corruption, independent political expenditures were deemed protected speech that could not be constitutionally constrained. This ruling created a profound legal asymmetry that effectively enabled wealthy individuals and corporations to dramatically amplify their political influence through unlimited independent spending. Scholarly analysis from multiple law reviews, including the Vanderbilt Law Review and UCLA Law Review, has characterized this decision as the ‘original sin’ of campaign finance law, laying the groundwork for subsequent rulings like Citizens United that further expanded corporate political spending rights. The decision fundamentally reshaped the constitutional understanding of political speech, money, and democratic representation, with lasting implications for electoral equality and political participation.