Corruption, Equality, and Campaign Finance Reform

Abstract

Why should we want to reform way political campaigns are financed? Two reasons are customarily given. One objective of reform is to reduce corruption, understood as implicit exchange of campaign contributions for legislators' votes or other government action. The other objective is to promote equality: people who are willing and able to spend more money, it is said, should not have more influence over who is elected to office. The Supreme Court's view of these two objectives can be summarized quickly: Corruption is a permissible target of reform legislation; inequality is not. That summary is not quite right, because some of Court's decisions allow measures that seem to be directed at inequality.' But Buckley v. Valeo,2 famously or notoriously, said-and Court has repeated many times3-that the concept that government may restrict speech of some elements of our society in order to enhance relative voice of others is wholly foreign to First Amendment.4 By contrast, preventing corruption or appearance of corruption are only legitimate and compelling government interests thus far identified for restricting campaign finances.5 This was one of principal bases for Buckley's determination to permit restrictions on campaign contributions, which might be corrupting, but not on independent campaign expenditures.6 Buckley, of course, has been widely criticized. But many commentators agree with Buckley that concern of campaign finance reform