PAST ARTICLES AND EDITORIAL BOARDS THE HISTORY AND THEORY OF BUCKLEY v. VALEO
Hon. Ralph K. Winter
6 J.L. & Pol'y 93 (1997)

Speaking on Buckley v. Valeo from a personal view as the chief counsel for the plaintiffs in the case, Chief Judge Winter explains the First Amendment ideologies that served as the basis for the plaintiffs' appeal. Plaintiffs' argument was that campaign finance reform would limit candidates' ability to challenge the status quo in politics. The Supreme Court invalidated provisions of the Federal Election Campaigns Act in Buckley.

Judge Winter argues that at the core of the First Amendment protection lies political speech. The effect of controlling campaign contributions and fund raising would lead to government control of communication, and thus speech. The American people could not support a Constitution that limited the speech of candidates running for public office. Additionally, this limitation on political speech will lead us down the slippery slope to a limitation on all speech and a direct infringement on the First Amendment protections afforded the American people. Large donations by private financing does more than just serving the interests of the wealthy, but also nurtures the goals of many candidates seeking political change. The pursuit of such change is the core principles of democracy and the First Amendment. Any regulation of such private financing will stifle the candidates' pursuit of these goals.