ELECTION CAMPAIGN FINANCING
Election campaigns for public office are expen-
sive. Candidates need funding for support staff,
advertising, traveling, and public appearances.
Unless they are independently wealthy, most
must finance their campaigns with contribu-
tions from individuals and from businesses and
other organizations. Today, state and federal
laws set limits on campaign contributions; cre-
ate contribution disclosure requirements; and
impose record-keeping requirements for candi-
dates seeking elective office.
Before 1974, most election campaigns were
financed by corporations and small groups of
wealthy donors. In 1972, for example, insurance
executive W. Clement Stone contributed approx-
imately $2.8 million directly to the re-election
campaign committee of President RICHARD M.
NIXON. Such contributions raised concerns of
UNDUE INFLUENCE on the selection of available
candidates and on subsequent legislation. Many
in Congress felt the need to limit the influence of
money in political campaigns in order to regain
the confidence of the public in the wake of the
WATERGATE scandal, a series of events that ulti-
mately led to charges of abuse of power and
OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE involving Nixon’s
campaign activities.
In 1974, Congress made radical changes to
the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971
(FECA) (2 U.S.C.A. §§ 431–456 [1996]). In its
amended form, FECA limited contributions to
individual candidates and political parties; per-
sonal spending by candidates; overall campaign
spending for federal office; and independent
spending by groups not directly associated with
a candidate’s campaign. The act also created a
check-off box on federal tax forms, allowing tax-
payers to contribute a dollar to a presidential
campaign fund, and it devised a formula for
payments from the fund.
James L. Buckley, who was running for the
U.S. Senate from New York, and other candi-
dates for federal office challenged FECA in fed-
eral court. In 1976, the Supreme Court struck
down the act’s spending limits in Buckley v.
Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 96 S. Ct. 612, 46 L. Ed. 2d 659
(1976). According to the high court, setting
mandatory limits on the amount of money a
candidate may spend in a campaign violated the
FIRST AMENDMENT. However, the Court upheld
the act’s disclosure requirements, private contri-
bution limits, and provision for the public fund-
ing of qualified presidential candidates.
FECA has been the subject of additional
litigation. The U.S. Supreme Court, in Col-
orado Republican Federal Campaign Committee
v. Federal Election Commission, 518 U.S. 604,
116 S. Ct. 2309, 135 L. Ed. 2d 795 (1996),
struck down spending limits under the FECA
imposed on political parties that were deemed
independent expenditures—in other words,
spending that was not coordinated with a can-
didate’s congressional campaign. The 1996
case did not resolve the issue of whether the
