Elections and Campaign Finance

Elections and Campaign Finance

1. Buckley v. Valeo (1976)

   • After Watergate, Congress tried to ferret out political corruption in political campaigns by restricting financial contributions to candidates.
     • The law set limits on the amount of money an individual could contribute to a single campaign and required the reporting of contributions over a certain amount.
       • The Federal Election Commission was created to enforce the statute.
         • The Court arrived at two important conclusions in this case:
           • 1. The restrictions on individual contributions to political campaigns and candidates did not violate the 1st amendment since the limitations of FECA enhance the "integrity of our system of representative democracy" by guarding against unscrupulous practices.
           • 2. 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 not violate the 1st amendment.
           • Since these practices do not necessarily enhance the potential for corruption that individual contributions to candidates do, the Court found that restricting them did not serve a government interest great enough to warrant a curtailment on free speech and association.

2. McConnell v. FEC (2003)

   • In early 2002, a many years long effort to reform the way that money is raised for--and spent during--political campaigns culminated in the passage of the Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act.
     • Key provisions were: a ban on unrestricted (soft money) donations made directly to political parties and on the solicitation of those donations by by elected officials; limits on the advertising that unions, corporations, and non-profit organizations can engage in up to 60 days before an election; and restrictions on political parties' use of their funds for advertising on behalf of their candidates.
       • The bill contained an unusual provision that provided for an early federal trial and direct appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States, by-passing the typical federal judicial process.
         • In May, a special three-judge panel struck down portions of the act's ban on soft-money donations but upheld some of the act's restrictions on the kind of advertising that parties can engage in.
           • The ruling was stayed until the Supreme Court could hear and decide the resulting appeals.
             • Because the regulations dealt mostly with "soft money" contributions and not campaign expenditures, the Court held that the restriction of free speech was minimal.
               • Furthermore, the restriction was justified because it prevented both actual corruption and the appearance of corruption that might result from the donations.
                 • In total, the Court addressed 21 sections of federal law!

3. Bush v. Gore (2000)

   • Following the US Supreme Court's decision in Bush v. Palm Beach County Canvassing Board, and concurrent with Vice President Al Gore's contest of the certification of of Florida presidential election results, the Florida Supreme Court ordered that the Circuit Court in Leon County tabulate by hand the 9000 contested ballots from Miami Dade County.
     • The Court also ordered every county in Florida to immediately begin counting all "under votes" because there were enough contested ballots to place the outcome of the election in doubt.
       • Bush and his running mate Dick Cheney, filed a request for review in the Supreme Court of the United States and sought an emergency petition for a stay on the Florida Supreme Court's decision.
         • The US Supreme Court granted review, issued stay on December 9th, and heard arguments 2 days later.
           • Noting that the Equal Protection Clause guarantees individuals that their ballots cannot be devalued by "later arbitrary and and disparate treatment," the 7 to 2 opinion held that the Florida Supreme Court's scheme for recounting ballots was unconstitutional.
             • Unwilling to make broad precedents however, the Court limited its holding to the present case.