Which Supreme Court case held that the First Amendment protects campaign spending and allows limits on contributions, but not on a candidate's personal expenditures?

Which Supreme Court case held that the First Amendment protects campaign spending and allows limits on contributions, but not on a candidate's personal expenditures?

• A. Citizens United v. FEC (2010)
• B. Shaw v. Reno (1993)
• C. Buckley v. Valeo (1976)
• D. Obergefell v. Hodges (2015)

Answer: (C)

The key idea is how the First Amendment treats money in politics—spending as speech and the government’s power to regulate contributions to curb corruption. Buckley v. Valeo holds that spending money to influence elections is a form of protected speech, so limits on a candidate’s personal expenditures cannot be imposed. At the same time, the Court says the government can impose limits on contributions to campaigns to prevent corruption or the appearance of influence. So this case allows limits on contributions but notes that a candidate’s own spending from personal funds is protected speech and cannot be limited. That combination matches the description in the question. By contrast, Shaw v. Reno and Obergefell address redistricting and same-sex marriage, respectively, and Citizens United deals with corporate spending on independent expenditures, not a candidate’s personal expenditures.

The key idea is how the First Amendment treats money in politics—spending as speech and the government’s power to regulate contributions to curb corruption. Buckley v. Valeo holds that spending money to influence elections is a form of protected speech, so limits on a candidate’s personal expenditures cannot be imposed. At the same time, the Court says the government can impose limits on contributions to campaigns to prevent corruption or the appearance of influence. So this case allows limits on contributions but notes that a candidate’s own spending from personal funds is protected speech and cannot be limited. That combination matches the description in the question. By contrast, Shaw v. Reno and Obergefell address redistricting and same-sex marriage, respectively, and Citizens United deals with corporate spending on independent expenditures, not a candidate’s personal expenditures.