1. Speech & Political Campaigns

2. Campaign Fundraising & Spending 2004 Election –Congressional $985.4 million raised = 20% inc. from 2002 $911.8 million spent = 18% inc. from 2002 –Presidential $1 billion generated by candidates & conventions = 56% inc. from 2000 General recognition campaign funding & spending out of control

3. Campaign Finance Reform Laws Legislation seeking to change way campaigns run & funded Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) –Contribution Limits $1,000/candidate for individuals & groups $5,000/candidate for political action committee (PAC) $25,000 annual limit on individual donors –$1,000 expenditure limit on individuals & groups seeking to spend $ on clearly identified candidate –Record-keeping requirements to track and publish political committees contributions & expenditures

4. Buckley v. Valero (1976) Did the limits placed on electoral expenditures by the Federal Election Campaign Act…violate the First Amendment's freedom of speech and association clauses? Restrictions on individual contributions to political campaigns and candidates did not violate the First Amendment –Limitations of the FECA enhance the "integrity of our system of representative democracy" by guarding against unscrupulous practices.

5. Buckley v. Valero (1976) cont. Governmental restriction of independent expenditures in campaigns, the limitation on expenditures by candidates from their own personal or family resources, and the limitation on total campaign expenditures did violate the First Amendment –Practices do not necessarily enhance the potential for corruption that individual contributions to candidates do –Restricting them did not serve a government interest great enough to warrant a curtailment on free speech and association.

6. First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti (1977) Is the state regulation of corporate speech constitutional? Unconstitutional to restrict corporate speech to items that are “materially affecting” its business –Corporation should not be treated differently than private persons. –Corporation may freely discuss government affairs. –They do not otherwise control or drown out the voices of individuals.

7. Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce (1989) Michigan Campaign Finance Act –Prohibited corporations from using treasury money for independent expenditures to support or oppose candidates in elections for state offices. –However, if a corporation set up an independent fund designated solely for political purposes, it could make such expenditures. Michigan Chamber of Commerce wanted to support a candidate for Michigan's House of Representatives by using general funds to sponsor a newspaper advertisement.

8. Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce (1989) cont. Did the Michigan Campaign Finance Act violate the First and Fourteenth Amendments? Found the law to be constitutional. –Commercial speech is protected by the 1st Amendment, but not as much as other forms of speech. –State had a compelling government interest in maintaining integrity of the political process, and "corporate wealth can unfairly influence elections." –Law was narrowly tailored enough to be constitutional because it allowed corporations to make donations through independent, segregated funds.

9. Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) McCain-Feingold Act (2002) Bans use of soft money in federal elections –$ not given directly to a campaign & is not offered for the purpose of influencing a federal election Limits issue ads during periods immediately preceding elections –Issue advocacy = electoral communication that mentions a candidate by mane in association with a particular issue/cause BUT stops short or urging public to vote against identified candidate

10. McConnell v. Federal Election Commission (2003) Does the restriction on soft-money contributions to national party committees violates the First Amended Freedom of Speech? A complete ban on donations and advertising would violate such rights, restrictions on contributions and advertising does not affect the right of Freedom of Speech. BCRA only marginally impacts the ability of contributors, candidates, officeholders and parties to engage in effective political speech. –BCRA only limits the source and individual amount of donations.

11. McConnell v. Federal Election Commission (2003) cont. BCRA’s issue advocacy is not vague or overly broad. Soft-money donations have a corrupting influence or have the appearance of corruption. –Candidates must vote on important issues and should not have the pressure of those who donated to his or her election weigh in on his or her decision on votes. Restriction justified by the government's legitimate interest in preventing "both the actual corruption threatened by large financial contributions and... the appearance of corruption" that might result from those contributions.