Which case upheld some campaign finance restrictions but struck down others, holding expenditures as a form of speech?

• A. Buckley v. Valeo (1976)
• B. Citizens United v. FEC (2010)
• C. McConnell v. FEC (2003)
• D. FEC v. Wisconsin Right to Life (2010)

Answer: (A)

The key idea is how the First Amendment treats money in politics by distinguishing contributions from expenditures. The Court has long said that giving money to influence campaigns can be regulated to prevent corruption, so limits on contributions to candidates or committees are allowed and disclosure rules can be upheld. But spending money to advocate for or against a candidate is protected speech, so broad limits on a person’s or group’s expenditures run into First Amendment protections.

In this case, the Court held that FECA’s contribution limits and disclosure requirements were constitutional, because they help prevent corruption and ensure transparency. At the same time, it struck down limits on a candidate’s own spending of personal funds and on overall campaign expenditures, because those limits infringe on free speech. This combination—upholding some restrictions (contributions) while invalidating others (expenditures)—shows how expenditures are treated as speech, while contributions can be regulated to curb corruption.