Is it time to overturn 1976 Buckley v. Valeo ?

Question

This is the supreme court ruling that ruled corporate contributions to campaign funds are equivalent to freedom of speech.

But it is not equal to freedom of speech. It is giving corporations a way to influence politics.

Answer 1

I can't say the court's interpretation of the constitutional free speech doctrine is wrong, so no I wouldn't overturn the case.

I would absolutely support campaign finance reform, and would approve federal laws banning large campaign contributions, especially from lobbyists. Unfortunately, it's unlikely that politicians would ever close the soft money loophole.

I would also support the kind of law Vermont tried to enact, limiting campaign spending on advertising to candidates only. That aspect of Supreme Court jurisprudence I think should be overturned. If politicians are actually willing to limit the amount of money they can spend on campaigning, they should be allowed to do so.

Limiting campaign contributions, and limiting campaign spending, opens the door to true campaigning, because it would no longer be the case where the group with more money pretty much automatically wins.

Answer 2

It should be, but probably won't be. John Rawls critiques this ruling by saying that the Court's decision "runs the risk of endorsing the view that fair representation is representation according to the amount of influence effectively exerted."

This means the more bucks you gots the more of a voting you gots really.

So much for democracy... good experiment, bad results.

Answer 3

I'd have to say no. To do so would also mean that I would lose the right to contribute to a cause I believed in as a matter of free speech.

Answer 4

Doing so would make it only possible for rich people to run for office. This is a free country and we are free to do as we wish with our money.