About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

86 Ohio St. L.J. Sixth Cir. Rev. 1 (2024-2025)

handle is hein.journals/osljsxcr86 and id is 1 raw text is: Quid Pro Quo or No: The Current Implications of Campaign Finance Restrictions on First Amendment Rights ANNA MESTER* TABLE OF CONTENTS I. THE HISTORICAL SIGNIFICANCE OF THE FEDERAL CAMPAIGN E X PEN D ITU R E A CT ..............................................................................1 II. NAT'L REPUBLICAN SENATORIAL COMM. V. FEC....................................2 III. ANALYSIS............................................................................................4 IV. CONCLUSION .......................................................................................5 I. THE HISTORICAL SIGNIFICANCE OF THE FEDERAL CAMPAIGN EXPENDITURE ACT The Supreme Court has grappled with the legality of campaign finance restrictions over the last several decades, more specifically whether they are protected by the First Amendment.1 In 1972, Congress enacted the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) to regulate fundraising and spending in federal political campaigns.2 As amended in 1974, FECA limits the amount of money an individual or group may contribute to or spend on a political candidate.3 Since enactment, the Supreme Court has ruled on various matters regulating campaign expenditures. In Buckley v. Valeo, the Supreme Court ruled on the constitutionality of limitations on individual campaign contributions and expenditures,4 finding that there is no violation of free-speech rights for the former but not the latter.5 Post Buckley, the Court has addressed the problem of balancing voter's rights to free speech through political donations against preventing an appearance of corruption. Two decisions arising from Colorado clarified FECA's limitations on campaign finance expenditures. In Colo. Republican Fed. Campaign Comm. v. FEC (Colorado 1), the Court held that a political party's independent expenditures may not be limited as they amount to core political speech that the government does not deem necessary to prevent corruption.6 Subsequently, in Colorado II, the Court addressed how FECA * Anna Mester is a J.D. candidate at The Ohio State University Moritz College of Law and writes for Ohio State Law Journal Sixth Circuit Review. 1 Nat'l Republican Senatorial Comm. v. FEC, 117 F.4th 389 (6th Cir.2024). 2See generally 52 USCS § 30101. 3 Nat'l Republican Senatorial Comm. at 4. 4See Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 13 (1976). 5Id. at 44. 6 See Colo. Republican Fed. Campaign Comm. v. FEC, 518 U.S. 604, 616 (1996).

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Purchase Access

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most