There are two main aspects of the Constitution which advocates of no limits point out:
Advocates of no limits argue that contribution and expenditure limitations operate in an area of the most fundamental First Amendment activities. Discussion of public issues and debate on the qualifications of canidates, they say, are integral to the operation of the system of government established by our Constitution. A restriction of the amount of money a person or group can spend on political communication during a campaign reduces the quanity of expression by restricting the number of issues discussed, the depth of their exploration, and the size of the audience reached. The Roth v. United States Supreme Court case, 1957, says that "the First Amendment affords the broadest protection to such political expression in order 'to assure the unfettered interchange of ideas for the bringing about of political and social changes desired by the people.' "
Constitutionalists will contend that limits on contributions restrict the ability of candidates and contributors to come together and petition for a redress of grievances. They point out the Supreme Court case in 1994, Federal Election Commission v. National Conservative Political Action Committee, that said "the First Amendment freedom of association is squarely implicated in these cases. [Political action committees] are mechanisms by which large numbers of individuals of modest means can join together in organizations which serve to amplify the voice of their adherents."
Those opposing removing all limits believe that Congress should have the Constitutional right to limit speech if there is a compelling need to do so. They point out that there are laws against other types of harmful speech, like yelling "fire!" in a crowded building. Senator Specter, a member of the U.S. Senate Republican Policy Committee, said in a 1997 Legislative notice that "Simply put, Congress should have the authority to establish a spending limit in Federal elections without regard to the First Amendment limitation which was applied by the Supreme Court in Buckley v. Valeo. In approaching this matter, I am very concerned about [infringing on] the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which covers the freedoms of speech, religion, press, and assembly. The laws we are proposing do not go against any of these core First Amendment values. This is not a matter affecting religion. It is not a matter affecting speech."
Money will remain in politics. Money must remain in politics. As issues become more complicated and technology more complex, even more money will be need to ensure an open political system. Driving money out of the campaign gives a powerful advantage to canidates with powerful friends such as celebrities and unions. Further limits will similarily enhance the power of the media. Indeed, as the Supreme Court's Buckley v. Valeo decison made clear: 'dollars are not suffed into ballot boxes. The mediating factor that turns money into votes is speech.' The fervor to ban or limit money is based on impressions created by those who have the most to gain from their demise. Further restrictions on soft money and PAC's will only increase the power of incumbents, millionaires, and the media, distort political debate and infringe on First Amendment rights. Millions of Americans will have their right of free association trampled and see valuable and irreplaceable sources of information evaporate. (this was stated by the president of the Cato Institute, Edward H. Crane)
<--Back to Campaign Finance Reform Educational Services
