Campaign finance law and agency enforcement
Campaign Finance Law Overview
Campaign finance law regulates the raising and spending of money to influence elections. The goals are to prevent corruption or the appearance of corruption, ensure transparency, and promote fairness in political competition.
Key components:
Contribution limits: Caps on how much individuals or entities can give to candidates or parties.
Disclosure requirements: Rules requiring disclosure of contributors and expenditures.
Public financing: Some systems provide public funds to candidates.
Independent expenditures: Spending done independently of candidate campaigns.
Agency Enforcement
In the U.S., enforcement of campaign finance laws is primarily handled by the Federal Election Commission (FEC), an independent regulatory agency. The FEC investigates violations, imposes fines, and can litigate violations of federal campaign finance law. Other agencies may be involved depending on the context (e.g., DOJ for criminal enforcement).
Important Cases in Campaign Finance Law
1. Buckley v. Valeo (1976)
Key Issue: Limits on contributions and expenditures in federal elections.
Facts: The Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) placed limits on both contributions to candidates and candidates’ own spending on their campaigns. The plaintiffs challenged these limits, arguing they violated the First Amendment.
Holding:
The Supreme Court upheld limits on individual contributions to candidates, reasoning they serve the government’s interest in preventing corruption or the appearance of corruption.
However, the Court struck down limits on a candidate’s own spending of personal funds, ruling such limits violated free speech protections.
The Court also struck down limits on independent expenditures (spending not coordinated with a candidate), viewing them as political speech protected by the First Amendment.
Significance: This case established the framework that contribution limits are constitutional to prevent corruption, but expenditure limits implicate free speech rights.
2. Citizens United v. FEC (2010)
Key Issue: Can corporations and unions spend money independently to advocate for or against candidates?
Facts: Citizens United, a nonprofit corporation, wanted to air a film critical of Hillary Clinton during the 2008 primary season but was barred by BCRA (the McCain-Feingold Act) provisions banning corporate electioneering communications close to elections.
Holding: The Court held that the government may not restrict independent expenditures by corporations or unions because such restrictions violate the First Amendment.
Significance: This ruling dramatically expanded the ability of corporations and unions to spend money independently to influence elections, leading to the rise of Super PACs (political action committees that can raise and spend unlimited funds independently of campaigns).
Agency Enforcement Impact: The FEC’s role shifted toward regulating disclosure and coordination rules, but not limiting expenditures.
3. McCutcheon v. FEC (2014)
Key Issue: Aggregate limits on contributions to candidates and committees.
Facts: McCutcheon challenged the aggregate limits on how much money an individual could contribute in total to all candidates, parties, and political action committees combined during a two-year election cycle.
Holding: The Supreme Court struck down the aggregate limits as unconstitutional under the First Amendment, but upheld the base limits on individual contributions to any single candidate.
Significance: This case further loosened contribution limits, allowing donors to contribute to more candidates and committees without a total cap, increasing their overall political influence.
4. SpeechNow.org v. FEC (D.C. Cir., 2010)
Key Issue: Whether an organization making only independent expenditures can accept unlimited contributions.
Facts: SpeechNow.org was a nonprofit group formed to make independent expenditures supporting or opposing candidates. It challenged contribution limits on donations to such groups.
Holding: The D.C. Circuit ruled that groups making only independent expenditures cannot be subject to contribution limits because independent expenditures do not give rise to corruption concerns.
Significance: This decision paved the way for the creation of Super PACs, which can raise and spend unlimited funds independently.
Agency Enforcement: The FEC must focus on preventing coordination between candidates and these groups to maintain their independent status.
5. Williams-Yulee v. Florida Bar (2015)
Key Issue: Can judicial candidates be prohibited from personally soliciting campaign funds?
Facts: A Florida judicial candidate challenged a state rule banning judges and judicial candidates from personally soliciting campaign contributions.
Holding: The Supreme Court upheld the ban, finding that the state’s interest in preserving public confidence in the judiciary justified the restriction on speech.
Significance: This case recognizes that certain campaign finance restrictions may be justified in the context of judicial elections to avoid the appearance of bias or corruption.
Agency Enforcement: State judicial conduct commissions or bars enforce such rules.
Summary of Agency Enforcement Role
The Federal Election Commission (FEC) enforces federal campaign finance laws, including contribution limits, disclosure rules, and coordination prohibitions.
Enforcement tools include audits, investigations, administrative penalties, and litigation.
The Department of Justice (DOJ) may prosecute criminal violations of campaign finance laws.
States have their own agencies and rules governing state-level campaigns.
Why These Cases Matter
Buckley established the constitutional framework balancing corruption prevention against free speech.
Citizens United and SpeechNow.org greatly expanded political spending by corporations and independent groups.
McCutcheon further loosened contribution limits, increasing the political influence of wealthy donors.
Williams-Yulee shows the unique challenges of judicial campaigns and the state's interest in maintaining judicial impartiality.
RELATED Blog
0 comments