On January 30, 1976, the Supreme Court of the United States issued the infamous Buckley v. Valeo ruling that struck down campaign finance reforms intended to reduce the undue influence of wealthy interests on election outcomes.  By wrongly equating big money in politics with free speech, the Court has blocked reforms to our electoral process that would let ordinary Americans determine who runs for office, who  wins elections, and what issues dominate the agenda.

The Buck Buckley Campaign

What Current and Former Officials Are Saying About Buckley 

"The Court mistakenly equated candidates' right to spend unlimited sums of money with their right to free speech. ...The Court made a huge mistake." 
Senator Ernest Hollings
of South Carolina.

"The public's revulsion at the amount of money in politics, when couples with the agreement of a broad group of respected legal scholars regarding the Buckley decision, should pave the way for Congressional efforts to restore sanity to the political process by way of rational and reasonable spending limits." 
Senator Arlen Specter
of Pennsylvania.

"We're kidding ourselves if we think we can dance around the absurd notion that money equals speech and therefore can't be limited." 
Former Governor Richard Lamm
of Colorado.

"The Supreme Court decision that prevents limits on campaign spending must be directly confronted...to make clear that money does not equal free speech." 
Former Senator Bill Bradley
from New Jersey.

"When we equate spending money with speech, then speech is no longer free.  Moneyed interests can speak louder than the rest of us and America becomes less of a democracy and more of a special interest state.  The Supreme Court's ruling is wrong and must be overturned." 
Former Senator William Proxmire
from Wisconsin.

"The Buckley decision ensured that the trend of campaign spending increases will continue. ...Wealthy candidates can, sometimes, virtually buy themselves a political office."
Alaska State Legislator Dave Donley
.

"Freedom of speech is a precious thing.  But protecting it does not permit someone to shout 'fire' in a crowded theater.  Equally, freedom of speech must not be stressed so as to compel democracy to commit suicide by allowing money to govern elections." 
Former Congressman Henry Reuss
of Wisconsin.

"The Supreme Court in Buckley was wrong in nullifying certain congressional efforts to limit campaign spending and...the decision should not be allowed to stand." 
Former Congressman Jonathan Bingaman
who supported the 1974 law struck down by Buckley v. Valeo.

Home

News Releases

Why We Need Spending Limits

Myths About Spending Limits

Overview of Albuquerque and Vermont Cases

More Details on the Albuquerque and Vermont Cases

 

What Current and Former Officials Are Saying About Buckley

What Legal Experts Are Saying About Buckley