Which case reaffirmed restrictions on campaign finance before Citizens United?

• A. Buckley v. Valeo (1976)
• B. McConnell v. FEC (2003)
• C. Citizens United v. FEC (2010)
• D. Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce (1990)

Answer: (B)

The main idea being tested is how the Supreme Court has treated campaign finance restrictions under the First Amendment and which case upheld those limits before Citizens United. McConnell v. FEC upheld most provisions of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, including bans on soft money to national parties and caps on contributions and certain independent expenditures. The Court ruled that these restrictions are constitutional to prevent corruption and the appearance of corruption in the political process, effectively reaffirming the government’s ability to regulate campaign financing at that time. This makes it the best answer because it directly shows a decision that sustained and validated campaign finance restrictions, unlike Buckley v. Valeo, which allowed some spending based on free-speech concerns but did not reaffirm the broad regulatory scheme post-BCRA; Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, which restricted corporate spending in a way later narrowed by Citizens United, and Citizens United itself, which overturned many of these restrictions.