PAST ARTICLES AND EDITORIAL BOARDS BUCKLEY'S ANALYTICAL FLAWS
Professor Burt Neuborne
6 J.L. & Pol'y 111 (1997)
Speaking on Buckley v. Valeo, the author disagrees with the views of Hon. Ralph Winter and Joel Gora, who were the advocates for the plaintiffs in Buckley, and the holding in Buckley. The author argues that the effects of Buckley are essentially an ability of the wealthy to purchase privileged access to public officials. Describing political contributions by lobbyists as investments, he urges that such groups expect a return on their investment in the form of guaranteeing access and voice; in essence excluding those who cannot afford such a privilege. The author partially blames the decrease in voter turnout for the American people's growing view that money, not democracy, runs political contests. No new political ideas or candidates are expounded by unlimited political campaign spending and those who feel excluded are granted no new access. Incumbents' ability to raise more funds than prospective candidates leads to a strengthening of the status quo.

The author finds three analytical flaws in the holding of Buckley. First, that spending money and protecting political speech are not a one-to-one correlation. Second, that contributions and expenditures are not different acts in the eyes of the First Amendment. Last, he finds the Courts refusal to recognize the value of equal political participation as a significant enough interest justifying regulation of spending problematic. Author concludes that Madison's goal in the creation of the First Amendment was to further a democratic institution, equally accessible to all, and that campaign finance reform is needed to make this goal a reality.